Debbie and I are holders of Florida Concealed Weapon or Firearm Licenses. As part of our license program, we took the excellent NRA handgun safety course, which included much hands-on instruction. Every American should take the NRA safety course and apply for a license if it is applicable in your state. If you have not had proper instruction, it is impractical and unsafe to own firearms. And you might consider relocating if you reside in such unfriendly gun states as Illinois and New Jersey, for example.

Our firearms dealer is veteran firearms instructor and nationwide gun dealer (sells in all 50 states) Chuck Malta of Kelly Enterprises. As recently as this week, we added seven Henry Repeating Arms Lever Action .22LR (not .22MAG) rifles (gifts for grandkids), a Carl Walther 9mm handgun, as well as CMMG AR-15 to our inventory. All family members are encouraged to educate themselves and train in the proper and safe use of firearms.

I would have every American over 18 years old as part of a 50-state constitutionally based militia system (similar to the Swiss militia system) under the auspices of the individual state governors. Our Constitution reads: “To provide for organizing, arming, and ‘diseiplining,’ the Militias, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, (not the federal government) the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to discipline prescribed by Congress.”

You may not be aware that our Constitution does not support a standing Army. With oceans on both sides of America and massive long-range missile and sea might capability, under just what scenario can you envision a large-scale foreign troop horde landing on America’s shores?  I am uncertain what specific place a standing army would have in the defense of our shoreline.  An air force, a navy, Special Forces, and a national militia all would integrate into a lockdown national defense structure. A standing army, no. Standing armies, as history is clear in telling, are deployed on foreign soil as explained in Dominic Tierney’s The Rise of Alien Warfare . Here Mr. Tierney, senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute, looks at The Rise of Alien Warfare as defined by U.S military operations in culturally unknown environments. Professor Tierney writes, “Alien warfare runs headlong into the most powerful political force in modern history: nationalism.” Dominic Tierney advises,  “For the United States, alien warfare may have peaked.”

The Constitution is clear: ‘To raise (the pivotal word) and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for longer Term than two Years.” It would appear that these clear words in our Constitution were missed by both George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

No standing armies, no Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria. See any problem in clearing any of these misguided military adventures off America’s history books? My guess is that an America-first presidential candidate would have a powerful single-issue platform to run on by simply calling for an end to the misguided policy of alien adventurism carried out by the United States since 1945. A multi-party system like those found in Holland, France and England would no doubt be required to adopt such sweeping change in America. Neither today’s War Party (thanks Pat) nor the Party of Wealth Distribution is going to embrace such common sense. It is worth noting, as professor Tierney outlines, “From 1812 to 1945, the United States had a miniscule peacetime army but won most major campaigns … since 1945, most major U.S. wars have ended in stalemate or defeat.”

OK then, educate and arm your family. There is zero downside risk in providing your family with the utmost in personal security and protection. Armed communities are safe communities. Others are, well, sitting ducks. In a recent issue of Richard C. Young’s Intelligence Report, I led off with “Knock, Knock.” This true story will make your hands sweat. Suffice to say someone I know well was reaching for his 1911.

So, the operative lesson here is, call Chuck (305-923-6560). If you are in Key West, you can meet Chuck first hand. Or why not make a special trip down to the Keys. I give you at richardcyoung.com all the great intel you need for a memorable visit to America’s only tropical island.

The Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell’s Golden Rule: The Private Sector Should Grow Faster than the Government.

Dan writes, “This is a great argument for some sort of spending cap, such as the Swiss Debt Brake or Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights.”

But let’s look beyond the headlines to understand precisely why a spending cap is so valuable.

If you look at the IBD chart, you’ll notice that revenues are not very stable. This is because they are very dependent on the economy’s performance. During years of good growth, revenues tend to rise very rapidly. But when there’s a downturn, such as we had at the beginning and end of last decade, revenues tend to fall.

But you don’t have to believe me or IBD. Just look at federal tax revenues over the past 30 years. There have been seven years during which nominal tax revenues have increased by more than 10 percent. But there also have been five years during which nominal tax revenue declined.

This instability means that it doesn’t make much sense to focus on a balanced budget rule. All that means is that politicians can splurge during the growth years. But when there’s a downturn, they’re in a position where they have to cut spending or (as we see far too often) raise taxes.

But if there’s a spending cap, then there is a constraint on the behavior of politicians. And assuming the spending cap is set at a proper level, it means that – over time – there will be shrinking levels of red ink because the burden of government spending will grow by less than the average growth rate of the private economy.

In other words, compliance with my Golden Rule!

In his first interviews with an American publication since the Charlie Hebdo massacres in Paris in January, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls tells the WSJ’s Sohrab Ahmari that the Islamist threat is twofold: There is the “outside enemy,” like the Islamic State and al Qaeda, and there is the “internal enemy,” the jihadist network that has spread across Europe.

In a move to counter these threats, France is developing its first comprehensive legal framework for intelligence by increasing funding and staffing and allowing agencies to have broader authority in identifying and monitoring terror suspects online. To further strengthen France’s counterterror capabilities, about 10,000 security personnel have been assigned to potential terrorist targets, such as synagogues, Jewish schools and mosques. Prisoned jihadists are being isolated to prevent them from radicalizing other inmates, and France is pushing the European Parliament for approval of a passenger-name record system similar to the one used in the U.S.

Mr. Valls warns, however, that these steps are not enough, especially if leaders fail to question the root cause of the jihadist terrorist activities. What needs to be addressed is, where does Islam stand in European society and why, for example, would a 20-year-old take up arms against his own society? How does Islam prove that it can live in harmony with core values, with the equality of women, and the separation of church and state?

As the WSJ points out, Mr. Valls is keenly aware of the French malaise, particularly in the banlieues on the outskirts of major cities, which has led to an alarming rise of a new type of anti-Semitism—in its “thuggish street manifestation.” But Mr. Valls is quick to point out, there also has been a rise in anti-Semitism among the French elites in the political and media class.

Mr. Valls also emphasizes personal responsibility—a departure from traditional socialism. “We have unemployment benefits that somehow sponsor unemployment,” he says. What Mr. Valls would like to see sponsored is “going back to work.”

Read more here from the WSJ on Manuel Valls’ views on Islamofascism, his personal experience with anti-Semitism, and the economic reforms he views as essential for France.

The Grateful Dead’s “Fare Thee Well”: Celebrating 50 Years of Grateful Dead” comes to Chicago’s Soldier field this Summer. From the WSJ:

The Grateful Dead’s Bob Weir, Phil Lesh, Mickey Hart and Bill Kreutzmann will be joined at the “Fare Thee Well” concerts by Phish’s Trey Anastasio, Jeff Chimenti, and Bruce Hornsby. Online tickets to all three shows, slated for the July 4 weekend, sold out swiftly. The shows will take place at Chicago’s Soldier Field, which has a capacity of 61,500.

NASDAQ crossed 5,000 for the first time in 15 years. That’s a long-time to wait, especially if you’re not getting paid.

Back in 2000, when it peaked, NASDAQ yielded one-tenth of the S&P 500 or 0.12%.

Imagine investing for 15-years and getting paid.

I’ll use a 4% yield as an example, which was hard to do but it was doable.

4% compounded over 15-years multiplies your money by 1.8x–$1million becomes $1.8 million.

15-years is a long-time—a big chunk of your retirement to get nothing.

You can’t afford to miss the boat this time around.

But it’s amazing how quickly investors forget how painful it was to lose money. That’s why you have to be paid to invest in this market.

In a 2002 WSJ op-ed, titled “Don’t Attack Saddam,” Brent Scowcroft advised, “the Iraqi dictator had nothing to with the 9/11 hijackers, his aims were at odds with the terrorists’, he would never hand over weapons of mass destruction to outside groups, an occupation of Iraq would be bloody and costly for America, and such a war would be a diversion from the war on terrorism.” History has proven Mr. Scowcroft to be quite prescient.

As noted in the American Conservative, “…considering the feverish atmosphere of mid-2002, the op-ed was wise and an act of considerable courage…. Now he was publicly broadcasting disagreements with a Republican administration. George W. Bush later wrote in his memoirs that he was ‘angry Brent had chosen to publish his advice in the newspaper instead of sharing it with me.’ It was vintage Bush—clueless and disingenuous.”

The American Conservative tells readers, with the insurgency in Mesopotamia raging, Condoleezza Rice complained at a dinner party about the war’s course. “No one told me Iraq would be so difficult,” she said. “Yes, they did,” replied Scowcroft, “but you weren’t listening.”

Related video:

In Rhode Island politics, corruption is nothing new, so when former Speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives Gordon Fox pled guilty this week to federal corruption charges, it wasn’t a complete shock. And earlier this year when House Deputy Majority Whip Joseph Almeida was arrested for similar charges of misappropriating campaign funds, it was no real surprise. What’s somewhat disturbing about these cases is that both men were serving in the senior leadership of the House when they were arrested. The rot has reached right to the core in Rhode Island government.

Rhode Island’s economy and government budgets are in terrible shape. I’ve detailed the dire straits of Rhode Island’s municipal finances on my RIP Map here.

Related video:

From the Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell: “Now the White House Wants to Raise Taxes without Congressional Approval?!?”

Dr. Mitchell cites relevant text from the Constitution, as contained in the official repository at the National Archives: “All Bills raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”

Dan continues, “Maybe I’m not a very careful reader, but I don’t see anything in that passage about ‘unless President Obama feels otherwise’ or ‘with the exception of unilateral tax hikes on companies’.”

Kevin Pace is a jazz musician and adjunct professor of music in Northern Virginia. Mr. Pace is also a victim of Obamacare. In anticipation of the ACA mandate that employers cover all workers who put in at least 30 hours, Mr. Pace’s employer cut his hours in order to avoid massive penalties. Mr. Pace is $8,000 a year poorer, according to a 2013 article in The Washington Post. As Mr. Pace told The Post, many teachers have moved back in with their parents

The Cato Institute’s Michael F. Cannon writes about what it will mean to victims like Mr. Pace if the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell prevail before the Supreme Court. “(I)t will mean more jobs, more hours and higher incomes for millions of Americans—particularly part-time and minimum-wage workers. Employers will have more flexibility to structure their health benefits. States will be able to attract new businesses by shielding employers from Obamacare’s employer mandate.”

At least 34 states failed to establish exchanges because of public opposition to O’Care. The federal government established HealthCare.Gov as an exchange to serve those states. And while critics of a favorable ruling for the plaintiffs of King say it would eliminate subsidies in HealthCare.gov states and make the cost of Obamacare transparent to enrollees. Those enrollees would be able to switch to lower-cost “catastrophic” plans—if the administration allows it.

Read more here from Michael Cannon who explains why transparency is a good thing: “If enrollees don’t want to pay the full cost of Obamacare coverage, that tells us something very important about Obamacare. It means nobody likes the way Obamacare actually works. Forcing the IRS to implement the law as written will thus create an opportunity for real health care reforms that actually reduce the cost of care.”