Armed & Christian

HIATUS

2011-08-31T20:03:00.002-04:00

In case you're wondering, yes I'm still alive; just very busy. I am currently working towards an MDiv, and classes are keeping me extremely busy. Unless something amazingly cool or Earth-shatteringly drastic occurs, I'll not be back until some time in December, when the semester ends.
God's best to you & yours.

Jerusalem Scholars "Trace Bible's Evolution"

2011-08-12T10:19:00.004-04:00

While I admire their diligence in devoting much of their lives to the study & examination of Scripture, I can't approve the timbre of the article. It seems that journalists are always looking to report something sensational, and since Jews & Christians don't cut off peoples' heads and riot in the streets when we get offended, The Bible and Christianity in general always seem to be good press--provided the reporter can make it sound sensational enough.

Before we get excited about their work, one way or another, we need to ask ourselves a few questions about the presupositions with which they approach their examination. Let's start with the opening paragraph.

.JERUSALEM (AP) — A dull-looking chart projected on the wall of a university office in Jerusalem displayed a revelation that would startle many readers of the Old Testament: the sacred text that people revered in the past was not the same one we study today.

An ancient version of one book has an extra phrase. Another appears to have been revised to retroactively insert a prophecy after the events happened.

"...appears to have been revised to retrocatively insert..."

What system/method of dating are these scholars using to determine the age of the texts they are examining? How many texts did they find with this variation?

Scholars in this out-of-the-way corner of the Hebrew University campus have been quietly at work for 53 years on one of the most ambitious projects attempted in biblical studies — publishing the authoritative edition of the Old Testament, also known as the Hebrew Bible, and tracking every single evolution of the text over centuries and millennia.

And it has evolved, despite deeply held beliefs to the contrary.

For many Jews and Christians, religion dictates that the words of the Bible in the original Hebrew are divine, unaltered and unalterable. For Orthodox Jews, the accuracy is considered so inviolable that if a synagogue's Torah scroll is found to have a minute error in a single letter, the entire scroll is unusable.

Not true. The accurately copied parts of scrolls containing typographical errors were often used in Synagogue or other studies. There were often piles of parts of scrolls stored away for teaching use; among them were the Dead Sea scrolls. Also, if accuracy was so "inviolable," then how could there be an evolution to the text? Seriously. The argument presented in the article is logically invalid.

The scholars note where the text we have now differs from older versions — differences that are evidence of the inevitable textual hiccups, scribal errors and other human fingerprints that became part of the Bible as it was passed on, orally and in writing.

When you consider the amazing mass of available Scripture texts and fragments available for comparison, the continuity and accuracy is actually astonishing. Consider the difficult and tedious task of copying these texts by hand--with painstaking attention to detail & accuracy. Some human errors are inevitable. Does this mean that God's Holy Spirit did not superintend the work and that the meaning is now obscured or destroyed? Not at all. Less than 1/2 of 1% of what are considered errors in Scripture are nothing more than an occasional elided or transposed letter. look at some of the errors that the reporter writing the article seems to think are so Earth-shattering as to destroy all credibility or faith in the transmission or reliability of the text. Case in point:

A Microsoft Excel chart projected on one wall on a recent Sunday showed variations in a single phrase from the Book of Malachi, a prophet.

The verse in question, from the text we know today, makes reference to "those who swear falsely." The scholars have found that in quotes from rabbinic writings around the 5th century A.D., the phrase was longer: "those who swear falsely in my name."

In another example, this one from the Book of Deuteronomy, a passage referring to commandments given by God "to you" once read "to us," a significant change in meaning.

Other differences are more striking.

Oh, my. Does the Deuteronomy narrative contain commandments given "to you" by God, or "to us" by God? That is in no way a "significant change in meaning;" it's the same meaning. In the first, the scribe draws attention to the individual reader; the 2nd example focuses on the community of believers. The example from Malachi is so ridiculous that it scarcely bears mention. Yes, certainly some scribes/commentators included marginal notes to aid in understanding, but that doesn't mean that the text has been corrupted.

Considering that the nature of their work would be considered controversial, if not offensive, by many religious people, it is perhaps surprising that most of the project's scholars are themselves Orthodox Jews.

AHA! Matti Friedman you have tipped your hand. You would like to think that their work is controversial and offensive. You want us to be angry and fearful that someone is closely examining the Word of God and just might find something in it that renders our faith foolish and irrelevant. Nice try, but no cigar. In the words of C.H. Spurgeon, " Defend the Word of God? I'd sooner defend a lion! Just turn the Bible loose; it will defend itself."

"A believing Jew claims that the source of the Bible is prophecy," said the project's bearded academic secretary, Rafael Zer. "But as soon as the words are given to human beings — with God's agreement, and at his initiative — the holiness of the biblical text remains, even if mistakes are made when the text is passed on."

Bingo. Thank you Mr. Zer

Letter to my Senators & Congressman

2011-08-01T07:10:00.002-04:00

Dear ____________;

I am writing to urge you to vote NO on any plan that involves raising the debt ceiling. As you should know, America’s debt limit is dangerously close to our GNP. Sir, in plain, blunt terms that means that you-our government officials- are spending far more taxpayer money than you currently take from us in revenue. In any other household budget, when a person realizes that their expenses exceed their income, there are three courses of action: 1) you immediately stop overspending and live within your means, 2) you find a way to supplement your income, or 3) you exacerbate the problem by going deeper into debt.

Sir, you will no doubt agree that the Pollyanna attitude of #3 is absolutely untenable. It would be insanity to do so with a family budget, and doubly so with an entire nation. To accomplish #2, you will have to raise taxes, since the government doesn’t actually produce anything to generate its own income. I strongly advise against this, though. Many Americans (including myself) are already extremely bitter about the cavalier way you politicians steal our income through taxation—only to spend it irresponsibly on selfish pay increases, foreign aid, and inane governmental programs. Sir, as any thinking person would see it, the only way to solve America’s debt problem is option #1: you look at your current amount of income, consider what expenditures are ABSOLUTELY necessary within that amount (including paying off the current debt), and then immediately stop spending more.

It’s that simple.

I appreciate you taking the time to read this, and I look forward to hearing from you that this plan is clear and that you will not vote to raise the debt ceiling.

Review: Mini-Sneaky Bag, US PALM AK30 Magazines, and a weekend of training

2011-04-25T12:24:00.019-04:00

I recently attended a weekend carbine camp hosted by not one, but two men who spent considerable time training with Col. Jeff Cooper and whose yearly training budgets rival my mortgage. The weather, hitherto gorgeous for Indiana in the springtime, turned absolutely crappy: temps from the 30’s to the 60’s throughout Friday & Saturday with accompanying precipitation ranging from a mere drizzle to an all-out thunderstorm that almost uprooted my tent. Sunday, while sunny and warmer, allowed us the privilege of training in the mud and wet grass in our shirtsleeves.

Having also recently acquired a mini Sneaky Bag and a handful of US PALM magazines for my AK USA Saiga/104 rebuild, I figured this would be a good opportunity to see how well the bag performed as well as how the US PALM mags would hold up. These are the ones with the metal reinforced locking tabs that (I believe) some are referring to as their "Generation 2" magazines. For the past couple years, I have gone back and forth in my mind as to the place of a battle bag for support, and just when I was ready to sell off my mini Sneaky Bag, I fell in love with it.

I have an SKD Universal chest rig made by Eagle Industries that works wonderfully well, and I have built a fantastic belt rig that is not only comfortable, but accommodates my somewhat unorthodox method of shooting pistol left-handed and longarm as a righty. I have also used a LaRue Hawkepak, which is actually more of a mini-BOB due to the amazing amount of storage space it affords. I say all of that to say this: when you use a chest rig, you use the limited space available. When you build a belt rig, you justify the presence and placement of every pouch, attachment, and piece of equipment. For some reason, when we try to use a bag for support gear, we tend to want to cram it to the corners with every conceivable bit of kit we can jam into or MOLLE Lock onto it.

The mini Sneaky just doesn’t allow for this. While the padding for the sling is beefy enough to accommodate a much heavier load, the beefiest complement you’re going to get into a mini-Sneaky is a few pistol mags, up to 4 (double stacked) 30-rd mags, and maybe a pistol (should you decide to attach a Velcro "Universal Holster" to the inside of the main pocket opposite the rifle mags). A double row of MOLLE on the exterior sides also limits what can be attached to the exterior.

Is this necessarily a bad thing? No, I don’t believe it is. In fact, I’m beginning to like and appreciate the gear-minimalist approach that the mini Sneaky Bag has forced me to take.

In ironing out my gear, I tend to ask a lot of questions of guys who have BTDT before deciding on a course of action & seeing what will work for me. When I asked one of the gentlemen running our training about the place of a designated fighting bag, he gestured towards some of the other guys in the class who were kitted up with everything from chest/belt combos to actual plate carriers. "If TEOTWAWKI comes and I see one of these guys," he said, "I’ll shoot him without a second thought. Not only is that some nice gear, but they look threatening as Hell. If someone comes down the road in normal clothes with a bag like you have and their rifle slung, I’ll still be wary, but I’ll at least give them a chance to explain themselves." Hmmm…

One of the best bits of advice I was given when bemoaning the perceived uselessness of my mini-Sneaky Bag was to think of it replacing the chest rig & some of the belt, and not to expect more out of it than I would a normal chest rig. Again: Hmmm…

The chest rig holds 3-4 rifle mags and a modest Admin pouch. The mini Sneaky Bag is designed to hold anywhere from 2-4 mags in the main storage pocket, and the stuff from my Admin pouch (boresnake, ear pro, lens cloth, & lighter) safely & easily fits in the bottom of that pocket. So far, so good. The Rite In The Rain notebook that stays in the map pocket of my chest rig now goes into the integral Admin pocket on the backside of the mini Sneaky, along with some QuickClot sponges. Even better. My belt rig holds another pair of 20-rd AK mags, a dump pouch, IFAK, a Paraclete triple pistol shingle & a drop-leg panel for my pistol and ESEE 4. With 90-150 rounds already accessible between the mini Sneaky and my rifle, I don’t mind ditching the weight of the extra 40rd that the belt rig offers. The pistol can stay on my pants belt, and instead of the 39 rd in three pistol mags, I put a pair of 22 rd extended mags in the front pocket of the mini Sneaky, which gives me 5 extra rounds of 165 grain jacketed hollowpoint love, and still leaves room for a mini-Mag Light to nestle between them. The mini Sneaky features an integral dump pouch with a clever, elastic cinch and the MOLLE on the sides is exactly enough to attach the knife & IFAK. I took the belt strap off of my mini Sneaky Bag, and when I'm not using the leg strap, I simply loop it through the carry strap above the integral Admin pocket.

The mini Sneaky Bag is about as perfect, simple, and low-profile as one can get while toting a rifle.

Does this mean that I’ll ditch the belt/chest rig setup and forever carry my "tactical man-purse"? Not by a long shot. As always, we must allow the mission to drive the gear and not the other way around. However, the mini Sneaky is a very well made and extremely well thought-out piece of kit which works remarkably well and absolutely has an important role to play as support gear. But it’s no more magical than any other piece of gear.

Everything has its plusses and minuses, and we would all do well to consider them deeply before jumping on any bandwagons. Use of the belt or leg strap will help to keep it in place while running or moving, but even then, proning out or dropping into rice-paddy prone means you’re probably losing an empty magazine from the dump pouch. On the other hand, the Sneaky Bag’s simple design and placement on my body means that mobility is nearly unhindered, and it is quick and easy to access anything in or on it. Both of these factors working together made all movement and transitions easier.

Speaking of going prone, we did a number of repetitions where we would take a body shot standing, run 15yd, take a knee behind a low wall to take another shot, run another 20yd, and then go prone to make a head shot on a steel target attached to a cable. One thing that made this all the more interesting was that the cable was on enough of an angle to allow the steel to jiggle further downhill into the forest every time it was hit by a .308 or one of my AK rounds. This caused us all some consternation as we soon discovered that the spot we previously flopped into would no longer allow us a good line of fire. As a result, we all did quite a bit of scooting and crawling. More than once, I pushed the mini Sneaky through the mud and wet grass with my thigh, and even ended up lying atop it a couple times. Despite the soggy conditions, all the Sneaky Bag had to show for it was a 1x2” smear of mud that flaked off the next day.

Saturday, we worked from 300yd and in; the highlight of which was one of the innumerable variations of the "Running the Rifle 10’s" in the rain with a shifting, intermittent 10-15MPH wind. This is a drill which I always enjoy for the combination of physical and skill challenges. Sunday was primarily 100yd and in, involving quite a few Standing, Kneeling, Prone drills. One of the primary foci of the entire weekend was making first shot hits—quickly. As one of the trainers said, "You can’t miss fast enough to stay alive. Only hits count." As a result of the shorter distances and emphasis on speed, many of our drills involved magazine changes.

If you’ve ever done a speed reload with an AK magazine, you know that they tend to turn a half-circle and hit the ground head-first. When they do this in mud and grass, things tend to get a little messy. Intending to run these US PALM mags as hard as I possibly could, I just picked them up after each drill and stuck them back in the bag. When they ran low, I simply refilled them, allowing the existing mud and grass to be forced deeper inside the body while continuing to add more with each magazine change.

By the end of the class, the round I jacked out of the chamber couldn’t have been dirtier if I had physically rolled it in the mud before chambering it.

When I got home, I unloaded the magazines, rinsed them well with warm water, and placed them upside down on a towel to dry overnight.
Misfeeds: 0 Magazine Issues: 0 Magazine Damage: 0

In fact, I’m hard pressed to even see much in the way of wear on either the concave or the convex sides where I continually hit one magazine against the other to knock it out of the mag well.

In fact, the superficial scratch on each of these three magazines is the only sign (apart from some residual external mud) that they were used at all

Do I still think $30 is pretty salty for a rifle mag? Yep, but so far I’m very impressed with the US PALM magazines, and I’m really looking forward to seeing how they continue to perform over time.

Thoughts on Pastor Terry Jones, Muslim Rioters, and Koran- Burning in General

2011-04-04T17:28:00.012-04:00

One reason I'm not posting a whole bunch anymore is because much of time is taken up with training, research, and just plain reading.

This past week, there is a lot being said--good and bad--from other Christians and other Americans about Pastor Jones' decision to burn a Koran.

Perhaps because of their close association with actively-serving military, many of the guys over at LightFighter seem to have deluded themselves into thinking that pacification is an appropriate strategy or that Pastor Jones is somehow culpable for the outrageous behavior of Muslims across the world. While I can't speak for Pastor Jones' motives behind burning a Koran, I do not think that he did so with the intention of putting our servicemen in more harm than they already were.

If the actions of a single man half a world away can honestly be decried as the catalyst responsible for "making" the savages riot, we are already well on the road to Dhimmitude.

Over at WarriorTalk, the conversations have taken a different turn. Here is one comment, by member BaseBleed, that actually makes me jealous that I didn't phrase it first:

We are more incensed with expression than we are the boy-raping murderers who worship the memory of that bearded child-molester. This is the same sophistry that gave us "don't fight back against the rapist because you will make him mad".

We are not temporarily calming a perp so we can get to our hideout gun. We are, unbelievably, discussing mollification of an avowed enemy, so that they might not riot and murder? They are continually murdering and slaughtering. The dude in Florida has actually very little to do with it despite protestations to the otherwise. They would have happily found another excuse, or dropped the excuse altogether and killed the victims as their holy text commands them to. Make no mistake, those people were going to die at the hands of these dogs, period.

The pastor is "accountable" because men of evil wait with baited breath for ANY AND EVERY excuse to butcher and maim?
The pastor is "accountable" for an act that is neither immoral, unethical, nor illegal?
I'm converting to Islam tonight so that I can make sure those abusive, narcissistic pieces of crap aren't offended.

Have we never encountered the mindset of a bully? Just as Gavrilo Princip said before his death, "The Germans would have found another excuse."

It is OK to do this if 5000 churches do it? But not if it is just 1 church does it?
Do we honestly think that these deranged thugs would be intimidated if 500,000 churches did it?
No, they would start strapping explosive belts on their favorite donkeys, giddy with the chance to avenge their slighted sensibilities.

When a population is praying for the chance to rape your daughter as they saw off her head, you had better not play this obscene pacification garbage. Because, if you do, the inbred grandchildren of these demons-in-human-skin are most certainly going to be running a rusty knife through the throats of your descendents, that is if your grandkids haven't already converted.

We've become too accustomed to allowing vipers free roam of our neighborhood. Rather than chop their heads off out on the lawn, we've taught our children to speak softly so they don't startle the snakes.

Here's another good one by member Sciuse Morrigna:

Until you get it through your head that the "vicious deadly animals" need to be killed, then your friends will get eaten no matter what. "Vicious deadly animals" will find a reason to eat whether you rattle their cage or not.

While being all "Let's not rock the boat" sounds good to whipped males who have forgotten their culture and carry some sort of guilt complex for the whole of the world may be en vogue these days, to those animal such thinking just makes you a weak fool to be used until it's your turn at the headman's block.

Wake up people. Some guys get it.

Some guys do get it. GreyMan is one. Instead of backpedaling all over his dick and calling the riotous mayhem of irate, irrational, illiterate savages "understandable passions," General Petraeus would do well to heed these words:

May great Fuck be upon Hadji, Islam, and mohammed the goat raping, pedophile, drug addicted piece of shit that can go choke on a bag of dicks.

I'm so sick of this pandering politically correct bullshit. . . I pray by the end of my life that I get a chance for revenge for 911.

I liked what John Travolta's character said in Swordfish when asked "who are we at war with?"

Anyone who impinges on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb ten. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourists, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that it becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.

Fuck this nice guy shit and lets destroy these animals.

I'll close this post with these remarks from another WarriorTalk member who really puts things in concise perspective:

American Flags are probably burned more than Unholy Korans at a ratio of more than 1000 to one.

I don't see Americans killing anyone over it.

The US fedgov burned many Bibles in Afghanistan, yet there were no riots or killings.

GOA Endorses Richard Mourdock for Senate

2011-03-21T21:09:00.001-04:00

Gun Owners of America is proud to announce the endorsement of Richard Mourdock for U.S. Senate.

Mr. Mourdock, who currently serves as Indiana’s State Treasurer, believes that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right. He stands in stark contrast to his liberal, anti-gun opponent, Richard Lugar.

First elected to the Senate in 1976, Richard Lugar has become the most pitiful of Washington denizens: a man who has forgotten what he stood for and who elected him.

That fact couldn’t have been more clear than when Barack Obama nominated two rabidly anti-gun women to the U.S. Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Kagan could be the deciding vote upholding the constitutionality of the anti-gun ObamaCare law. Lugar jumped on her bandwagon—guaranteeing her confirmation.

Sotomayor lied under oath—claiming that she accepted a Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment was a right enjoyed by the American people. Then, at the first opportunity to rule on a Second Amendment case, she reversed herself. Lugar’s support was instrumental in getting her anti-gun nomination over the top.

Lugar was also instrumental in securing the confirmation of Obama’s regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, who believes animals have rights, but gun owners don’t. And he voted for anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder, who advocated renewing the Clinton gun ban.

In 2009, Lugar proved to the country that he supports banning guns entirely. In February of that year, he voted against an amendment to repeal the gun ban in Washington, D.C. Also in 2009, he voted against a measure to repeal the ban on firearms in national parks.

When it comes to self-defense, Lugar would have people leave their firearms at home. He voted against legislation that would allow for interstate reciprocity for concealed carry, an amendment that failed by a mere two votes.

In 2004, Lugar voted to effectively ban gun shows, to renew the ban on semiautos, and to require all handgun purchasers to buy trigger locks.

And Lugar voted several times for so-called campaign finance reform. This law is intended to shield lawmakers—and their voting records—from the very people who sent them to Washington.

Dick Lugar is wrong on the Second Amendment and wrong for Indiana gun owners and sportsmen.

It’s time to elect a Senator who takes the oath to protect and defend the Constitution seriously. And that’s why Gun Owners of America is proud to endorse Richard Mourdock in the 2012 Republican primary for U.S. Senate.

Richard Mourdock is “A” rated by GOA for his unwavering commitment to the right to keep and bear arms. When he is elected, gun owners will have a trusted friend in Washington.

GOA urges all concerned gun rights supporters to get behind the Mourdock campaign early with your volunteer efforts and financial contributions. Please visit www.richardmourdock.com to learn more about Richard and to find out how you can help in this campaign.

Defeating an entrenched incumbent is never easy, but working together we can win this seat and send a real Second Amendment defender to the Senate.

Sincerely,
Tim Macy
Vice Chairman

New Rifle Bag

2011-03-05T00:16:00.010-05:00

I acquired a new soft case a while back, and I cannot figure out for the life of me who made this darned thing. It doesn't have a single manufacturer's tag in it, but it is obviously well made; along the lines of quality one would expect from Eagle. Be that as it may, it also has some interesting features--some odd interesting, and some cool interesting. If anyone out there knows who made this case, and why it was made the way it is, I'd sure be grateful

Pic 1: The Interior

The case is 32x11; long enough for a folding stock AK (which is what I am using it for). To the left is the "pocket" for the muzzle. Note the "seatbelt" straps. Why? What purpose could they possibly serve on the interior? There are also two velcro straps. The one on the left (middle of the case) is positionable, and 20" long, which is way more strap than necessary (or convenient). The rightmost one is securely sewn into the case. At 10", it is a good length, but it isn't really in a good position for securing the grip and/or receiver. The zippered accessory pouch is a great size at about 14x4x3. The large zippered pockets on the near half of the case have 3" elastic sewn into them so as to accommodate 4 30-rd mags each. Note the "stay-quiet" tabs sewn into each end of these pouches.

Pic 2: The Exterior

Here it is opened flat. The straps are seatbelt material and well-stitched. In fact, as you can see, there's quite a bit of well-stitched seatbelt on this case. The zippers are all YYK. Note the ID window on the front cover. On the back cover is what looks (to me, anyway) like a ring to secure the case with a carabiner if one were inclined to jump out of an airplane with this rifle case attached to them

Pic 3: The Exterior--weird

Here's what really throws me about this bag: there is a panel on the front cover that zips off. WTH. This is the panel with the ID window. The zipper for this panel actually zips completely over the carry handle on this side of the case, so I have to have the panel partially unzipped to carry the case using both carry straps. Again, WTH. This design just makes absolutely no sense to me, but I'm hoping that someone out there can pierce through my ignorance and enlighten me as to the origin and purpose of this bag.

Lugar 1st RINO To Call For Renewal Of '04 AWB

2011-01-17T21:44:00.002-05:00

Just in case anyone here in Indiana needs another reason to remember that Lugar must not be allowed to run for another term...

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) this weekend called on Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

Lugar is the first GOP senator to call for increased gun control following the Tucson tragedy that killed six people and wounded 13 others, including Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. But Lugar, who supported the initial 10-year-long assault weapons ban when it passed in 1994, said he's not optimistic about the chances for passing gun control legislation this Congress.

“I believe it should be, but I recognize the fact that the politics domestically in our country with regard to this are on a different track altogether,” Lugar told Bloomberg Television’s Al Hunt Jan. 14.

Lugar also noted the increase in ammunition sales since the shootings, which he suspected was out of fear that Congress might pass far-reaching gun control legislation in wake of the tragedy.

A couple of lawmakers floated gun control legislation last week in wake of the tragedy, including one of Congress's fiercest gun control advocates, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.). Her bill takes the assault weapon ban slightly further by banning the sales and transfer of high-capacity magazines that the Arizona gunman used.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) suggested legislation making it illegal for anyone to knowingly carrying a loaded gun within 1,000 feet of certain high-ranking public officials, including members of Congress.

Neither measure is expected to go anywhere. An aide to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told POLITICO last week that he was not expected to support either effort.

Nonetheless, Lugar is going out on a limb by expressing his support for bringing back the now-defunct assault weapons ban – especially because local Tea Party activists have promised to field a primary challenger for the six-term senator. Lugar has a reputation for working across party lines in the Senate, and his support for gun control legislation would likely put him at odds with a more conservative GOP challenger.

Lugar also said in the Bloomberg interview that a Tea Party challenge is “not one that I welcome, but nevertheless, this is a democracy.”

Lugar also told me, in personal correspondance, that he is the first to call for a Congressional pay increase every term because the practice "attracts the best and the brightest."

If Lugar and Bayh are the "best and the brightest" that Indiana has to offer, we are in deep shit

KFC Muslim Employee Screams Insults At Customer Asking For Bacon

2011-01-11T10:07:00.000-05:00

Coming soon to a KFC near you.

Australian woman orders bacon @ Muslim-run KFC.

"Of Oaths & Loyalties" by TL Davis

2011-01-08T14:17:00.002-05:00

Copied in its entirety from TL in exile

This website has been getting hit a lot by Federal Law enforcement of late. I understand their curiosity and interest and I certainly appreciate their visits. It gives me an opportunity to broach a subject long left unaddressed. We live in a republic based on laws that are reliable, not serving only the powerful or the corrupt, but the average citizen. That definition includes them as well. I know they feel more powerful than that, but they aren't. When the worm turns against them, all of the previous law enforcement experience will do them no good, except to help them accept their fate at the hands of a tyrannical government.

But, they have a choice. They can go along with this unconstitutional government right up to the end, when the government decides to cover their tracks by eliminating the stooges they used to do the dirty work, or they can embrace the legal and proper scope of the Constitution. When you have representatives of the people, who have sworn oaths to the Constitution bray and swear at the reading of it in public, spitting their disgust at the sound of it being read, you do not live in a Constitutional Republic as designed by the founders and I suppose you know that already. Don't you? That republic no longer exists and those who wield the power of it do so illegitimately as surely as if they walked into the station house and started barking orders to kill civilians. Would you stand up to that? I doubt it more and more everyday.

There is a moment to decide where one stands, behind the barricades of totalitarianism, or in front of the citizens one is sworn to protect. There is an oath and it doesn't mean much to people today. It means nothing to more than half of the civilian government. They are just words they hide behind when they commit their crimes against the people and the only thing that allows them to do it is the cowardice of the law enforcement personnel who tolerate it.

One might ask oneself a simple question: Which way should the guns be pointing? If in one's good conscious it should be at the shopkeepers, the day laborers and the nurses for seeking a peaceful change in their government and demanding that the law be followed and obeyed, then fine. No one can argue with a person's perspective and if that is what they believe, then by all means line up as many citizens as you care to and do with them what you want. They are willing victims to this madness for their failure to revolt.

But, if one sees oneself as a champion of legitimate government, of true representation and one who takes the contract with the people as legitimate, then some soul-searching should take place directly. We are moving past the point of decision. The leaders, the ones who have decided to turn their backs on everything lawful and right, are in control right now and they are giving you their orders. But, you are not a Nazi, you do not have to follow orders from people who show no regard for the oaths they have taken, or the loyalties they have sold for the comfort of power.

Ultimately though, you must ask yourself: At whose behest am I reading this blog and why? Is that freedom of speech? Is that freedom of expression? How long before I start enforcing Sharia law? These questions have probably already defined your patriotism, the validity of your oaths and your loyalty.

Sincerely,

T.L. Davis
P.S. You might give this a read from Cliffs Of Insanity

1 John 5:8

2010-11-26T09:45:00.004-05:00

As I was working through one of the commentaries I have been referencing while teaching through 1 John, I came across this nugget from Dr. J. Vernon McGee.

Enjoy!

“I’ll be very candid with you that there are certain news commentators whom I won’t listen to any longer. I know that they are doing nothing in the world but giving out propaganda. They are not giving facts. Everything they give is biased and distorted and twisted for a liberal position. Apparently, they are willing even to misinform you, and they have been willing to withhold facts to gain their objective. I have come to the place where it does not matter who they are or what party they belong to, I have no confidence in politicians. Therefore, we are in a place today where it is difficult to believe the witness of men, but the interesting thing is that John Q. Public swallows it hook, line, and sinker. You can tell by the different polls which are taken that a man’s influence or his popularity is determined by what the news media say about him. The biggest frauds in the world can be built up by the media—Hollywood, of course, has done this for years. Most people do receive the witness of men; they are taken in by it. If it is said over television or if it is put into print, they will believe it. There are many people who believe whatever they read or hear, but they will not receive the witness of God—but the witness of God is greater, my friend.”

Bear in mind that this commentary was published in 1979, and it is every bit as true today (perhaps moreso!) as it was when he first penned those words.

Arsenal, Inc. Supports Harry Reid

2010-10-06T14:33:00.006-04:00

From Harry Reid's own website

Nevada Business Leaders Sign Letter Supporting Reid, Denouncing Angle on Economy

LAS VEGAS – As Sharron Angle continues hemorrhaging support, the Reid campaign released a letter signed by nearly 100 Nevada business leaders from across the state to publically announce their support for Senator Harry Reid and send the clear signal that Nevada’s business community has made its choice in this election.

The letter was announced today during press conferences in Las Vegas and Reno where Nevada business leaders like Palms Hotel owner George Maloof and Harrah’s Marybel Batjer joined representatives from large and small businesses across the state to show their commitment to Senator Reid’s re-election.

The message was clear: Sharron Angle’s extreme and dangerous economic agenda would be disastrous for Nevada’s business community.

The letter states:

“The reality is that from the perspective of Nevada’s entrepreneurs and employers, Sharron Angle’s extreme and dangerous ideas about the economy would be utterly disastrous for our state’s economic recovery. In fact, Angle has demonstrated such a fundamental disconnect with the state’s major economic drivers – mining, tourism, gaming, construction, and clean energy – that her election would dramatically undermine the future of our state’s economic viability.

“In short, Nevada simply cannot afford Sharron Angle and her damaging agenda.”

Other signatories of the letter include:

Vartan Barsoumian, Arsenal, Inc.

Steve Cloobeck, Diamond Resorts International®

Nancy Fennell, Dickson Realty

John Farahi

Joe Hernandez, Branch Hernandez and Associates

Sig Rogich, Rogich Communications Group

Paul Thomsen, Ormat Technologies and President of Nevada

John Wilson, Founder, MedicWest Ambulance

Michael Reichartz, Expedia

Larry Ruvo

Jenna and Michael Morton, N9NE Group

Steven Kwon

MaryKaye Cashman

Cliff Findlay, CEO Findlay Automotive Group

Gary Loveman, Harrah’s

Mark A. James, President & CEO, Frias Transportation Management

Blake Sartini, Sartini Enterprises

William Thornton, Co-Owner of Club Cal Neva

Now that you've read this, check out GOA's list of 44 reasons Harry Reid MUST be defeated, and see if you still think Reid is worthy of your support (whether implicit or complicit)--or the NRA's.

Then go to Arsenal's contact page and let them know what you think of companies that support Anti-1st Amendment, Anti-2nd Amendment, and all around Anti-Freedom politicians.

Is the irony of an "assault weapons" corporation supporting a rabid hoplophobe lost on anyone? Remember: silence is assent

Props for Pelican Products

2010-09-24T16:40:00.009-04:00

Pelican Products has been a favorite of mine for some years now. Their hardshell cases are nearly legendary, but what turned me on to them was their phenomenal flashlights. I have Brothers who swear by their $100 + Surefires, but I'll be honest--if I am ever in a situation where I am seriously considering using a tac-light as a weapon, there has been a series of serious failures on my part which are unlikely to be redeemed or vitiated by an anodized aircraft-quality aluminum flashlight. I have one Surefire G2 that has earned a place in my BOB. It was more expensive than any other flashlight I've ever owned, has a terrible tail-cap design, no pocket clip, and is just too darn bright. Obscenely bright, in fact, at a whopping 120 lumens. When you shine a light in your dark house at some ungodly hour of the night, the idea is to illuminate the room--not blind yourself with eyeball searing beams of light reflected back from the walls of your home. If I ever have to use this Surefire, you will know it's a real emergency--because that will be the only thing that prompts me to ever pick it up again. It is also every bit as heavy as the 4AA StealthLite 2400 (which is fully submersible, by the way) that is in my Trauma Pack.

My EDC light--as well as what I have mounted to my MBR--are both Pelican PM6 3330. It is lightweight, comes with a handy pocket clip, and at 81 lumens is as bright as I'm likely to ever need a light to be. Plus, like everything else Pelican sells, it is covered by their nearly ridiculous Lifetime Guarantee: anything short of shark bite, bear attack, or damage inflicted by a child under the age of 5.

Last month, after a 4-day carbine class, the PM6 on my rifle crapped out on me. It had functioned flawlessly whenever I needed it during the four days, but for some reason the LED unit gave out when I uncased my rifle at home. One quick call today to Pelican's Customer Service fixed that. Not only was the young lady who answered my call friendly and helpful, she actually apologized for having to charge me $4 to have my repaired-or-replaced PM6 shipped back to me!

If you are looking for a good, hard-use light for EDC, I don't think you could do any better than this.

UPDATE: Yesterday (Oct 1), I came home from school to find a box on my front porch. Inside was a brand-spaking new PM6 from Pelican. Again, not bad, considering that it probably cost them more to have the replacement light boxed up, padded, and shipped via UPS Ground-- in less than 2 weeks.

If you are ever on the fence about a hard-use light for EDC -- go with Pelican. Spectacular product, impressive Lifetime Warranty, and fantastic Customer Service. I guarantee that you will not be disappointed.

Just In From OathKeepers: The Great Divide

2010-09-23T09:05:00.004-04:00

I received this outstanding article from OathKeepers this morning. It's a shame (in every sense of the word) that more Americans don't think like Master Sergeant Gomez. Then again, he's an OathKeeper and a Sheepdog with a heightened sense of duty and responsibility; not a Sheeple with a heightened sense of entitlement...

Original article HERE

We are witnessing an attack on the Republic today using a classic text book divide and conquer technique used by military strategists for centuries. The progressives are instilling in the minds of the citizens that the wealthy are against the poor, as well as pitting minorities against the majority. This process has been in the works for years and, in my opinion these factions are hell bent on ensuring a renewed effort in creating class warfare amongst all of us to ensure their hold on power.

This is an insidious cancer that is no longer covertly eating away at our liberty but is being pushed overtly by the ruling class elites in Washington with the help of the mainstream media. Unfortunately, many of the people believe in and defend this reversal of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We the taxpaying citizens are being ignored by our elected officials so they can put forth their own agenda to shred and ignore the Constitution. This is being accomplished via their continuous blatant disregard of the bonds on government as stated in the Bill of Rights, and disregard of our unalienable rights as prescribed in the Declaration of Independence.

A prime example of this tactic is the labeling of groups of minorities as African-American, Mexican-American, Native American, and Asian-American. When a soldier is killed or wounded in action he or she is not listed as a Mexican-American or an African-American. Quite the contrary, every man and woman in the Armed Forces are all classified as Americans.

This is where we conservatives must remember, and attempt to educate, our fellow Americans that a bullet, just as the Constitution, does not distinguish between ethnicity. It has been the goal of many that we divide our citizenry by their ethnic back ground and culture. This goes back to the nineteenth century, when Italians, Irish, Germans, and others had immigrated and established communities where only people of like origins were welcome.

Granted, there were more factors involved in this segregation, especially when speaking of African- Americans and Hispanics, but we must move past that part of our tainted history, and learn from it.

It is now the 21st Century and although we cannot teach our fellow man not to be bigoted, we as individuals should know what is right in our hearts. If we are truly constitutionalists, and if we truly hold to the timeless principles of our Declaration of Independence, then all men are created equal without regard to race, creed, color, or religion.

Many will argue that when the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written, all men were not considered equal, based on the practice of slavery. However, since slavery was made illegal by the Thirteenth Amendment, and that prohibition became the law of the land, all of us by virtue of the rule of law are finally recognized as being equal.

That leads me to the basis of my beliefs. Although my ancestors were born in Mexico or the former Mexican territory of Texas, I was born in the United States of America. My birth certificate states my race is white. Many of you may wonder how I could be considered white. Remember high school science, where race is taught, there are only three races: Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid. If you were to look up race in the dictionary you would find the same answer, only with more detail on what is considered a person of each of race.

Maybe it was the foresight of my father based on his experience being raised in Texas during the 1940s and 1950s. We were taught that first, we had to work harder than anyone else, second, we were not taught to speak Spanish so we didn't have an accent, and third that we were Americans. My father frowned on the terms Chicano, Latino, or Hispanic. The point is, my father taught us to assimilate into this country without forgetting our culture and heritage. This is not to say we were to forget our culture, but embrace it, just as Americans of Irish decent celebrate Saint Patrick's Day.

Every American has certain practices passed down by their ancestors, to remind them of the rich heritage and culture from which they came. Sadly, many people in this country have misplaced the practice of cultural celebrations of their heritage with the belief that they must be divided by it, and thus, they are not truly citizens of this great land, but instead are hyphenated Americans.

When asked what nationality I am, my answer is certain and unequivocally American. Not Mexican -American. During my military career, I had the great fortune to visit over 20 countries and just as I answered I was an American, so did my fellow Airmen. I find it troubling that so many here at home consider themselves hyphenated Americans, not just an American.

I ask you why the difference in answers. Could it be that certain factions in our political parties want us to feel divided and disenfranchised from the rest of America? This is not at all different from the attacks on the fortunate that have helped build this country to be a leading industrial nation. Is it fair to give the unfortunate the presumption that they are entitled to gain from the hard work of those that have put their heart and soul in the success of their business and fortune?

I was recently asked to speak on behalf of the Oath Keepers at a luncheon hosted by a local conservative organization. As I spoke to the audience, I felt it necessary to establish that Oath Keepers is not a racist right wing extremist organization, as labeled by the Southern Poverty Law Center. During the course of the speech, I asked how the Oath Keepers could be a racist or bigoted group, when I was not only the Oklahoma Chapter President but also on the National Board of Directors.

After my speech, as the audience was leaving, I was approached by an elderly gentleman. This gentleman had zeroed in on my statement about being an American, not a Mexican-American. He himself was a self described African-American and wanted to talk to me about my statement. He said he never had thought of hyphenated Americans and how it divides our people. In his 80 + years he was taught that he was a Negro-American, Black-American, and now, an African-American. He taught his children and many others the same. With a tear in his eye, he shook my hand and said thank you, from this day forward he was an American, and only an American.

This was enough evidence for me to validate my theory that a planned and sinister attempt by the progressives, statists, and liberals to divide and conquer was in motion and had been effective for many years.

It is clear that there are those in this country that want desperately to spread the wealth of the productive, at the expense of destroying the very foundation on which this Republic was formed, and to create a socialist type of government. They wish to enslave the people by creating a dependence on the government for all of our needs, while at the same time destroying our economy and relegating our once exceptional accomplishments and achievements to those of a third world nation.
I cannot accept this approach to changing this country. We that have served the public, to protect and defend the Constitution, did so in good faith. Many have sacrificed their lives, liberty, and fortunes to ensure the Republic survived attacks in the past, and those yet to come.
We are a Nation of one people and must turn back the divisions that have been so entrenched in our society.

For the Republic,

Robert A. Gomez, MSgt, USAF, (Ret)

Oath Keepers Oklahoma Chapter President
Member of Oath Keepers National Board of Directors

Obama proves treason with Arizona response

2010-09-04T13:50:00.002-04:00

by David McElroy @ Liberty Defense League

President Obama has submitted Arizona to the United Nations on charges of crimes against humanity for enacting SB 1070. This has been reported by the Canada Free Press, Examiner.com and ResistNet.com , but not yet in the mainstream media. Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law requires state and local police officers to enforce federal immigration laws and federal statute specifically allow states to enact federal immigration law as state law. Obama refuses to allow enforcement of those laws, even though the federal government had permitted such as Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to do so.

Arpaio is now the subject of a federal investigation about his “sweeps” of illegal aliens, and SB 1070 is pending appeal of a court ruling.

Jim Anaya, UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, said in a May 29th 2010 article on Examiner.com that he “has concerns about the possible applications of the law and the underlying sentiments that it seems to represent.” Racism has been charged.

Arizona Senator Jon Kyl spoke to an audience, on web-circulated video, reporting that the president told him in a private meeting that he would not secure the border until Congress enacted the carte-blanche amnesty program Obama proposed for illegal aliens, granting them citizenship with all entitlements. That is testimony of his treason, extortion, and dereliction of duty, willful negligence! Hauling Arizona to the UN Human Rights Commission is the act of a traitor rejecting America’s principles, rights, and identity, shaming America on the world stage! Obama should be removed from the Oval Office!

Read the rest at Liberty Defense League

From Sipsey Street: Casus Belli, Tripwires, & Mike Delivers A Verbal Bitch-Slap Via Impeccable Logic

2010-08-29T17:56:00.004-04:00

As always, Dutchman, my boonie hat is off to you.

First, one of the arguments most often heard in simpleton quarters is "THEY" (whoever they are) are "too smart to start a war" and will simply gradually increase oppressive measures until they achieve our absolute slavery.

Secondly, the argument that "they" will be patient enough to play the long game of gradual tyranny reckons without our own ability, LIKE THE FOUNDERS SHOWED US, to resist with lesser measures and gradually make our would-be oppressors so frustrated and crazy with our resistance that they attack us with deadly force, by accident or design.

Third, there is an argument offered by some (many more than actually have it as a valid reason) that to engage in lesser acts of resistance than shooting -- breaking political party windows or vandalism of ARRA signs for example -- will compromise their "operational security" for the big event when shooting starts.

Perhaps. But only if they're stupid in carrying out such operations. We are not talking about carrying out operations against defended targets, for crying out loud. Nothing is more vulnerable than the easy pickings of an ARRA sign on a deserted road at two o'clock in the morning. Besides, engaging in the process of operational planning and execution exercises the tactical muscles for when the shooting DOES start. Each who makes this argument must look into his or her own heart for the answer to whether or not this is simple reluctance to do ANYTHING rather than an exercise in proper prudence.

But in any case, unless sanity breaks out among our would-be tyrannizers, at some point there will be an initiating event of deadly violence by Leviathan against a man or woman who simply wishes to be left alone.

Let us then look at what the Three Percenters have staked out as tripwires:

Any more restrictive firearms laws, is a big one. Katrina-like confiscation obviously would be resisted by force at out doorsteps first, and then taken to the enemy in maneuver warfare style. But what of lesser moves? A "gun show loophole" bill would be resisted first by hosting our own Fed-free gunshows, provoking a response. Any ammunition restrictions would be resisted first by rolling our own, smuggling, theft, etc. Again, provoking a response, and then, a spasm of targeted counter-violence.

Enforcing "health-care" would be met by refusal to pay the fines, refusal to go willingly to jail, and eventually, at the point of a gun. Again, a PROCESS OF RESISTANCE only ending in deadly violence if Leviathan chooses to do so. And they will, if we do our part right.

Federal election tampering, or outright theft, is another. Here I can think of an excellent use of tar and feathering of local and state election officials, breaking of windows, and other vandalism as a first response. If the election is certified despite these moves, then the situation will rapidly move to violence without doubt.

But why, in any of these cases, should we cede the moral high ground and shoot first? Just because some of us are tired of waiting? Or because they're too scared to use lesser measures? Or because they risk nothing nothing in urging US to take the first shot? Such people are urging us to the trip the wire without consequence to themselves. For if they lack the guts to start acting like free people and engage in lesser forms of resistance, what evidence is there that they will go to the extreme when it is called for?

I mean besides their own hot air reduced to keystrokes.

I agree that not all of us are public figures like myself, with names and addresses well known to the PTB. Nor should we be. My JOB is to be a living, breathing gambit -- daring the Power to take a shot at me, and gradually defeating them with every passing day that they do not make an example of me -- exposing the lie of the man behind the curtain that the Wizard is all knowing and all powerful, encouraging others to resist by simply existing as a symbol of the federal government's true vacillation and impotence.

But if YOU are urging us IN AN EASILY TRACEABLE COMMUNICATION to engage in deadly violence against the PTB, then you are not a "grey man" anyway. You trade that when you speak out on the Net. Only a simpleton thinks otherwise. So, telling me that you are not willing to risk lesser violence in order to preserve the operational security that you just threw away by telling me in this venue is hardly persuasive of anything except to reasonably doubt your intelligence or courage or both. Likewise, people who urge others to begin shooting in such a venue have to be asked: who are they really serving? And what are they risking by doing so?

Finally, I ask again, who among us on that final day the wire is tripped will not desperately wish that we had ONE MORE DAY, ONE MORE HOUR, to train, to recruit, and see to our own logistics for the killing time?

If present events play out into a likely future, that wire WILL be tripped. But until it is, it is your responsibility to do everything you can using lesser measures to avoid it and, failing that, to prepare for that day to fight and to win.

Go Read The Rest

From The "It's About Damn Time" Department: Feds Arrest 370 Criminal Invaders

2010-08-27T16:29:00.005-04:00

CHICAGO — Federal officials in Chicago say they've arrested 370 immigrants who were in the U.S. illegally or were convicted of other crimes.

They say the arrests were made over three days in 10 states. Those arrested fall into three groups: legal immigrants with convictions that make them eligible for deportation, illegal immigrants who have been convicted of other crimes, and immigration fugitives, who are wanted just for being in the U.S. illegally.

In a news release Friday, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says some of the people arrested included gang members and sex offenders.

The operation ended Thursday. Arrests were made in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Kansas, Missouri, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska and Ohio.

With an average of 123 arrests per day, the only thing that would make this story better would be to include that the feds' efforts are to be stepped up a thousand-fold by next week with the goal of absolutely purging all ~~undocumented workers~~ ~~illegal immigrants~~ criminal invaders from America, and that if any of the abovementioned offenders are ever again in the custody of US LE, that they are to be summarily executed without further fanfare.

legal immigrants with convictions that make them eligible for deportation, illegal immigrants who have been convicted of other crimes, and immigration fugitives, who are wanted just for being in the U.S. illegally.

Hmmm... The fact that all three categories are guilty of serious legal infractions kind of blows out of the water the argument that they are just here to make a better life for themselves and contribute to our society, huh?

Remember: Extranjeros Ilegales Son Invasores Criminales

"Eight Unbreakable Rules for Hard-Core Tea Party Activists" by Gary North

2010-08-25T22:29:00.003-04:00

Straight in from ron Paul's Campaigh For Liberty

I joined the conservative movement in 1956 when I joined Fred Schwarz's Christian Anti-Communism Crusade. I wrote an anti-FDR high school term paper in 1958. I supported the Goldwater for Vice President movement in 1960. I voted for Goldwater for President in 1964. I voted for Reagan's Republican primary gubernatorial challenger in 1966, William Penn Patrick, because I thought Reagan was too liberal. (I was right; he imposed income tax withholding in his first term as governor.) I was Ron Paul's first research assistant in 1976.

I am hard core. I have been hard core for a long time.

I am writing this for those of you who are equally hard core.

Here are ten facts of American national politics that you must understand to get meaningful change.

1. You can't beat something with nothing.
2. 80% of politicians respond only to two things: (1) fear; (2) pain.
3. Bureaucrats (tenured) respond only to one thing: budget cuts.
4. Political reform never comes as long as the tax money flows in.
5. The #1 goal is to reduce the government's funds, not re-direct them.
6. Congress's club system sucks in 80% of new members by term #2.
7. Politicians listen to their peers, not to their constituents.
8. Money from the government buys off most voters.
9. Most citizens care little about politics and know less.
10. This gives influence to organized swing-vote blocs.

The political system was summed up a generation ago by the man I regard as the elder statesman of the hard-core wing of the American conservative movement, M. Stanton Evans: "Evans's Law of Political Perfidy."

When our friends get into power, they aren't our friends any more.

To this, I add North's Law of Partisan Politics:
When a movement is in either political party's hip pocket, it will be sat on.

If you do not believe this, then you are a sheep for the shearing -- and then, after several shearings, the roasting. You are on some politician's menu.

THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
These are eight basic rules of engagement. There may be others, but these are fundamental. If you do not believe these, you are headed for disappointment.

1. Vote for a hard-core challenger on the other side against a squishy incumbent. This rule separates the hard core members from the soft core members. It has a corollary: A first-term incumbent next election is easier to beat than a squishy incumbent this election. It is always hard to defeat an incumbent. Do what you can to defeat any incumbent, no matter which party he belongs to, if he is squishy on the issue you regard as fundamental. Why is this so important? Incumbents must become deathly afraid of your movement. Take out a few dozen of them in the next election and the one that follows, and many others will cooperate. As Sen. Everett Dirksen put it so long ago, "When we feel the heat, we see the light." In short, you do not settle for the lesser of two evils. You eliminate them both, one election at a time: first the softie, then the newbie.

2. Hold your newly elected politician's feet to the fire the first time he breaks ranks on a key vote. He is like a puppy. When he leaves a mess on the carpet, get out the switch. "Bad dog! Bad dog!" Let him remember that switch. Let him fear that switch. The second time he does it, warm up the car. You and he will be taking a trip to the pound. You are his voter only for as long as he is your representative. Politicians respond to only two things: fear and pain.

3. Get him to sign a resignation letter. Before you work for him, make sure he has signed a resignation letter. This letter says the following:

To the voters of [district, state]:
I am making this public. If I ever vote for [whatever], I will turn in my letter of resignation to the [government body] within 24 hours.

If I fail to do this, I expect voters to vote against me at the next election, since I clearly cannot be trusted.

I expect my opponent in the primary to defeat me next time, and if he doesn't, my opponent in the general election will. And should.

Very truly yours,

Name Candidate for [whatever]

This is a political suicide letter. You will see who is serious about your #1 issue and who is not by means of a signed resignation letter. Post it online. If he refuses to sign it, start working to undermine him after he defeats the squishy incumbent. Above all, do not trust him.

No candidate will sign more than a few of these. Any candidate who will not sign at least one is just another glory-seeking, power-seeking, retirement bonanza-seeking political hack. Like a drone bee who is useful only once in his life, he is useful for only one thing: defeating a squishy incumbent.

You say he refuses to sign? Don't donate any money or time to his campaign. You should vote for him against a squishy incumbent, but you will immediately start working to replace him.

4. Track all of his votes on your #1 issue, and post them online. The Congress deliberately seeks to conceal voting results. Your committee must keep track of every vote related to your interest. This means that someone must follow the voting schedule. If there is no record of his vote, call his office. Ask for an email with his vote recorded. My suggestion: make sure he has an assistant send an email to your committee after every vote in this area, explaining it. Post all of this without alteration. If he breaks ranks, make sure you have a clear statement of why this was a bad vote.

This is boring. This is time-consuming. This is vital. You must see if there is a pattern in his voting on your issue.

I wish there were watchdog sites that cover every vote. Be sure there is one for your special interest.

WordPress is free (www.WordPress.org). A domain name costs $10 a year to register. A multi-site hosting service like Hostgator is $10 a month or less. Have a separate site for every candidate and elected official.

This would make a great civics project for home schoolers: track a candidate for the school year. Then turn the task over to a new student. Have the committee run the sites, but students can do the grunt work. It is good practice.

5. Find out who his largest campaign donors are. This will tell you who will have the most clout when he takes office. Investigate the PACs. Investigate the donors who send in the maximum donation allowed. Are they members of one group? Post this information on the site that you set up to monitor his votes.

6. Instill fear. This is your #1 task, once he takes office.

7. Inflict pain. This is the basis of #6.

8. Trust, but verify. If your group refuses to verify, it should not trust.

CONCLUSION
Politics is not based on love, because civil government is based on coercion. Do not impose "tough love" on a politician. He is not to love you. He is to obey you. You are not to love him. You are to monitor him. Impose negative sanctions and positive sanctions wisely.

Politicians surround themselves with young men and young women who serve as staffers, plus a few old-timers who have survived in the staffing system and who are unimpressed with their bosses, but are even less impressed with the boss's constituents. Politicians spend time in each other's company. They are not much impressed with their colleagues, but they are very impressed with themselves. They are not impressed by their constituents. Finally, they spend time raising money. So, they have to spend time with lobbyists.

I shall now end my little lesson on politics with a verbatim citation from one of the great masters of state-wide politics, Jesse Unruh. He was the Speaker of the California Assembly in the late 1960s. He was known as Big Daddy. He ran against Ronald Reagan in 1970 and lost. But he later was elected state Treasurer. Here is what he said about the proper attitude toward lobbyists:

"If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, and still vote against them, you have no business being up here."
So committed was he to this philosophy of life that he chose to die of prostate cancer at age 65 rather than have his prostate surgically removed, because he would not risk the sexual impotence that might result from surgical removal.

He loved dealing with lobbyists.

We are dealing with dedicated people. We are dealing with power-seeking, often ruthless people. Don't try to buy them off. Don't try to sweet-talk them. If they don't vote the way you want them to vote, defeat them. This, they understand. This, they fear.

Either they are on your menu, or you are on theirs. I suggest the former.

We're The Only Ones Running Down Our Own Enough

2010-07-26T14:58:00.004-04:00

...while taking a bite out of crime...and driving drunk...

I tell you, folks, you just can't make up this stuff.

A Marion County Sheriff's Department employee was arrested for drunk driving after police said he struck an officer directing traffic outside the Brickyard 400 Sunday.

Richard W. Rawley, 59, a youth services worker who coordinates visits by McGruff the Crime Dog, was preliminarily charged with three counts of operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police said Rawley's 2003 Ford pickup struck IMPD Officer Travis Williams, at 16th Street and Rochester Avenue, at 5:30 p.m.

Rawley registered a .13 on a blood alcohol test, according to an IMPD report. He was preliminarily charged with causing an injury while operating a vehicle under the influence - a felony. He was also preliminarily charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of between .08 and .15.

According to the report, Rawley told police he had been drinking beer while at the race.
Sheriff's spokesman Julio Fernandez said Rawley is a civilian who has worked with the department since 2003.

He arranges appearances at schools and other venues for McGruff the Crime Dog and appears with him.

He has been suspended without pay.

Khmer Rouge Jailer To Serve 19 Years For 16,000 Murdered

2010-07-26T10:02:00.017-04:00

PHNOM PENH, Cambodia — A U.N.-backed tribunal sentenced the Khmer Rouge's chief jailer to 35 years for overseeing the deaths of up to 16,000 people — the first verdict involving a senior member of the "killing fields" regime that devastated a generation of Cambodians.

Victims and their relatives burst into tears after learning that Kaing Guek Eav — also known as Duch — will actually serve only 19 years after being convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity after taking into account time already served and other factors.

That means the 67-year-old could one day walk free, a prospect that infuriated many who have been demanding justice for victims of the regime that killed an estimated 1.7 million people between 1975-79.

"I can't accept this," said Saodi Ouch, 46, shaking so hard she could hardly talk. "My family died ... my older sister, my older brother. I'm the only one left."

More than three decades after the ultra-communist Khmer Rouge killed a quarter of Cambodia's population while trying to turn the country into a vast agrarian collective, Duch is so far the only person to face justice. The group's top leader, Pol Pot, died in 1998 and four other senior Khmer Rouge leaders are awaiting trial for their part in the deaths from execution, starvation, medical neglect and slave-like working conditions.

If anyone doubts the danger inherent in a Communist or Socialist-type government, let this be your wake up call. Remember: this was done in the name of working ultimate good for the State by turning the country into an agrarian collective and throwing off the shackles of Western influence and industrialization to establish and strengthen national identity.

The U.N.-backed tribunal — 10 years and $100 million in the making — said it took into consideration the historical context of the atrocities: The regime was the product of the troubled Cold War times.

Ten years and $100 million is, in itself, a travesty. What went on there was just wrong. Evil. Every human knows it instinctively in the core of their being. There is no excuse, no "historical context" that can lessen the evil and depravity of what was done. Pure and simple, those involved should be shot and buried with no more fanfare than for a rabid stray dog.

It also recognized that Duch, who headed Tuol Sleng, a secret detention center for the worst "enemies" of the state, was not a member of the Khmer Rouge's inner clique and that he had cooperated with the court, admitted responsibility and showed "limited" expressions of remorse.

During the 77-day proceedings, Duch admitted to overseeing the deaths of up to 16,000 people who passed through the prison's gates. Torture used to extract confessions included pulling out prisoners' toenails, administering electric shocks and waterboarding.

At least 100 people bled to death in medieval-style medical experiments.

One of the tribunal's international judges, Silvia Cartwright, said she understood that those who lived through the Khmer Rouge's reign of terror may be upset at the sentence.

"That's one of the reasons that we have an objective tribunal ... fixing as balanced a sentence as we can," she said. "If left to the victims to decide how to punish a person, then it would be, possibly, mob rule."

"You have to bear in mind that victims are very deeply hurt and traumatized," she added. "We can never give them what they lost ... so a sentence can only ever be symbolic in a way."

A 34-year prison sentence--let alone 19--for this sort of wholesale savagery is a travesty. U.N. tribunal member Silvia Cartwright clearly doesn't know or understand what went on at S-21, and should be bitch-slapped for saying that this is an objective sentence. Is this symbolic? Yes. Is this justice? Not by a long shot. Justice would be letting the family members of the S-21 victims dispense justice as they see fit.

The prosecution and defense have one month to appeal.

Unlike the other defendants, Duch (pronounced DOIK) has several times asked for forgiveness, even offering at one point to face a public stoning. But his surprise request on the final day of the trial to be acquitted and freed left many wondering if his contrition was sincere.

"He tricked everybody," said Chum Mey, 79, one of just a few people sent to Tuol Sleng prison — code-named S-21 — who survived. The key witness wiped his eyes. "See ... my tears drop down again. I feel like I was victim during the Khmer Rouge, and now I'm a victim once again."

Duch, sitting rigidly in a crisp light purple shirt and starring into the distance, showed no emotion as he listened Monday to the judge talk about the court's findings.

Judges noted that the jailer was often present during interrogations at Tuol Sleng and signed off on all the tortures and executions, sometimes taking part himself. He said the court had rejected arguments that he was acting on orders from the top because he was under duress or feared for his own life.

"In carrying out his functions, he showed a high degree of efficiency and zeal," the judges wrote. "He worked tirelessly to ensure that S-21 ran as efficiently as possible and did so out of unquestioning loyalty to his superiors."

A former math teacher, Duch joined Pol Pot's movement in 1967, three years before the U.S. started carpet-bombing Cambodia to try to wipe out Northern Vietnamese troops and Viet Cong inside the border. By 1976, he was the trusted head of its ultimate killing machine, S-21.

After a Vietnamese invasion forced the Khmer Rouge from power in 1979, Duch disappeared for almost two decades, living under various aliases in northwestern Cambodia, where he had converted to Christianity. His chance discovery by a British journalist led to his arrest just over a decade ago.

If he were truly a Christian, he would understand that he must pay for the atrocities that he is responsible for.

Though the tribunal has been credited with helping the traumatized nation speak out publicly for the first time about atrocities committed three decades ago, it has been criticized as well.

The government insisted Cambodians be on the panel of judges, opening the door for political interference. It also sought to limit the number of suspects being tried — fearing, some say, it would implicate its own ranks. The prime minister and other current leaders were once low-level members of the Khmer Rouge.

Just like in Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others; hence "justice" is administered in varying degrees. This makes me nauseous.

Though most people doubted Duch would get the maximum life imprisonment, few expected he'd get less than 35 years in jail. The decision to shave 16 years for time already served and illegal detention in a military prison means he has 18 years and 10 months left.

That's around two days in prison for every person who died under his watch.

Let that sink in a minute. Two days of "symbolic justice" for every single person whose torture and death he either approved or participated in.

More than 1,000 villagers showed up for the verdict, some traveling more than 180 miles (300 kilometers) by bus.

"It's just unacceptable to have a man who killed thousands of people serving just 19 years," said Theary Seng, a human rights lawyer who lost both of her parents and has been working with others to find justice.

An international civil rights lawyer and associate fellow of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs also criticized the court's "unimaginative" reparation order, which was limited to simply publishing the judgment. Mahdev Mohan said the U.N.-backed tribunal could have ordered Duch to build a memorial to the victims and to do other work to deter future crimes against humanity.

Among those at Monday's verdict was New Zealander Rob Hamill, the brother of one of a handful of Westerners killed by the Khmer Rouge. Kerry, then 28, was sailing across Asia when his yacht was captured in Cambodian waters in 1978. He was taken to Tuol Sleng and killed.

Another brother committed suicide months later, and their mother died seven years ago.

"All I can say is my family, who are no longer here to see justice, would not want to see this man set free, even if it's in 19 years time," said Hamill, 46, struggling to contain his emotion. "It's reality but I'm not happy... he should not be a free man."

The Khmer were in power for three years, eight months, and twenty days. During that time, more than 200,000 native Cambodians were declared to be enemies of the State, and of all the people taken to S-21, only 7 --yes seven survived. This doesn't take into account the 14,000 inmates killed at Tuol Sleng or the hundreds of thousands who died of starvation, disease, or just being worked to death "for the good of the State". The Khmer Rouge kept impeccable records, photographing the torture they inflicted on their prisoners for fallacious or trumped-up charges.

Here are pictures of a few of the people who were tortured and slaughtered at S-21. People that Pol Pot, Kaing Guek Eav, and their ilk considered some of the "worst enemies of the State."

He certainly looks like a dangerous fellow, doesn't he?

As does she

I wonder what this boy did to deserve his sentence.

And here is another "hardened criminal"...

Notice that the tag with his prisoner number is safety pinned through his skin. Can anyone suggest an "historical context" for this?

This last one always gets me much worse than the rest--and there are many, many more pictures that the Khmer took to catalogue their crimes. Part of what gets me about this little girl is that she looks only a little younger than I was at that time, and partly because I now have a daughter who is about the same age as she looks to be. I cry every time I see this picture, and I harden my resolve to never, never allow any such thing to occur to my family or in my country. I cannot fathom the depths of depraved evil that would allow anyone to consider this little girl dangerous enough to necessitate torturing and killing her.

Happy Birthday, Summer Glau

2010-07-24T21:24:00.001-04:00

Letter To Attorney General Greg Zoeller

2010-07-15T09:02:00.003-04:00

I recently sent a letter to Indiana ATG Greg Zoeller, encouraging him to join the 9 States who filed a brief in support of Arizona's recent Immigration Law. I encourage you to do the same. Unless, of course, you are OK with the loss of our borders, culture, and language, and you don't mind that the already-failed and obscenely in debt Medicaid system will continue to grow exponentially--as will the crime rate and prison overcrowding.

Mr. Zoeller;

As you know, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer passed an Illegal Immigration crackdown in the face of the Federal Government's reticence to face one of the few, enumerated issues it is constitutionally authorized (and mandated) to handle: the protection of our borders.

As you also know, the current administration in the White House has decried Governor Brewer's actions, and has filed suit against the State of Arizona. Why the Federal Government would refuse to protect our borders, which it actually supposed to and expected to do, and then file suit against the beseiged State that takes action in the face of its negligence is beyond me, but I digress. We both know that the current administration knows--or cares--very little about the Constitution or the proper limits of Federal authority.

Other States regognize this, too. Earlier, I wrote to you asking that Indiana join the many other States that adopted a 10th Amendment Resolution, letting the Federal Government know that we stand ready to check and enforce the Constitutionally mandated limits of its power. Today, I am writing to ask you to join the nine States (Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia) who filed a brief in support of Arizona's law, stating that the States do, in fact, have the authority to enforce Immigration laws.

Sir, you know as well as I do that Illegal Immigration is a major problem--not just for America, but also here in the Hoosier State. Legal immigrants are an integral part of our nation's--and State's--history. But Illegal "immigrants" are criminal invaders. At somewhere over 11 million, this is not an immigration problem, but rather an invasion.

Let's do something about these criminals who care nothing for the rule of law and are destroying our way of life.

Thank you.

I Am America

2010-07-09T01:02:00.009-04:00

Got this in an e-mail from Mike Vanderboegh.

Folks,

This anthem needs to go viral. Make it happen.

Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw&feature=related

I Am America

by Krista Branch.

Pay no attention to the people in the street,
crying out for accountability.
Make a joke of what we believe.
Say we don't matter 'cause you disagree.
Pretend you're kings, sit on your throne.
Look down your nose at the peasants below.
I've got some news; we're taking names.
We're waiting now for the judgment day.

I Am America, one voice united we stand.
I Am America, one hope to heal our land.
There is still work that must be done.
I will not rest until we've won.
I Am America.

You preach your tolerance but lecture me.
Is there no end to your own hypocrisy?
Your god is power, you have no shame.
Your only interest is political gain.
You hide your eyes and refuse to listen.
You play your games and abuse the system.
You stuff your pockets while Rome is burning.
I've got a feeling that the tide is turning.

I Am America, one voice united we stand.
I Am America, one hope to heal our land.
I will not give up on this fight.
I will not fade into the night.
I Am America.

You stuff your pockets while Rome is burning.
I've got a feeling that the tide is turning!

I Am America, one voice united we stand.
I Am America, one hope to heal our land.
I Am America, one voice united we stand.
I Am America, one hope to heal our land.
I will not give up on this fight.
I will not fade into the night.
I Am America.

In the video, a little girl holds up a sign with a reference to 2 Chronicles, Chapter 7, Verse 14:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Mike: You got it, Brother.

Modding The Cold Steel Trail Hawk, Part 2: Construction

2010-06-09T10:18:00.027-04:00

Now that I have worked so hard to destroy this once-pristine tomahawk, the time has come to begin making her pretty again. Gouges and remaining file marks need to be smoothed out and removed. I do this with 400 grain wet/dry, which is also what I use for the 1st stage of sharpening. Further sharpening will be done with 2000 grit wet/dry.

She’s starting to look a lot prettier. The final honing and polishing will be accomplished with my strop.

The strop was made by using Gorilla Glue to adhese strips of leather to one of those thick paint-stirring sticks. The leather was then impregnated with strop butter; black on one side, green (more fine) on the other.
Here she is, all sharp and polished.

Now that I have restored and improved the edge, the next thing is to restore and improve the finish. This can be done in a number of ways. If I had removed all of the factory paint, I could now paint the head in any number of colors. Instead, I’m going to force a patina.

Here she is with some mustard and salsa. MMMMmmm! That’s one tasty-looking tomohawk!

Different substances with different acids will etch and stain the metal in different ways. Since I want to protect the entire head and produce a patina on all of the exposed metal, I need to get something acidic on the whole thing.
This can be done by thoroughly wetting a paper towel with vinegar, and wrapping it tightly around the tomahawk head. Just to play it safe, I squirted lemon juice on a couple spots of the paper towel

This is the most difficult part, only because I have to leave it alone for a few hours. If you give the paper towel a good soaking, your patina will be ready when the towel dries out.

While we’re waiting for the head to take on a patina, we’ll do some work on the haft. If you remember, the factory shaft is considerably shorter than the improved mod. The 24” haft that I intend to use has been fire-hardened by one of my Brothers (who did it with a welding torch). After the fire-hardening, I gave it a light sanding with the 2000 grain wet/dry to make it nice and smooth. Here they are side by side.

Now that the haft has been sanded smooth, it needs to be sealed against moisture. To achieve this, I gave the haft a couple coats of varnish.

While the varnish is drying, the paper towel has mostly dried out.

Yeah, it looks pretty nasty. Once we peel away the paper towel, here’s what we discover beneath.

Putting on a patina will, of course, destroy part of the edge I worked so hard to achieve, so the next thing is to re-strop it. A short few minutes on the strop gives us a nice, razor-sharp edge. The patina polishes away, showing a thin crescent at the very edge of the blade

After the varnish has dried, it’s finally time to put this baby back together. Make sure the head is securely on the haft. Tap it gently into place with a rubber mallet. Remember, you don’t need to pound it. Centrifugal force will keep the head in place.

Are we finished? Absolutely not! Sure, the head is in place on the haft, but how about overstrike protection. Even the most accomplished ‘hawk swinger will occasionally miss the mark, and we don’t want to jack up the new, pretty haft. Whether you choose to use leather, rawhide, or paracord, your overstrike protection can also act as a hand stop. It isn’t just a pretty, purposeless decoration. I hefted and swung the ‘hawk around, paying attention to the highest and lowest points at which I gripped the haft. The paracord will mark these areas, helping to prevent me from grabbing it too high or too low. For me, the highest and lowest points of balance were about 6” below the head and above the foot.
If you’ve never done cord wrapping, this is how it should be set up

Be careful to wrap firmly, but not too tightly

When you get to the end, tuck the tip of the paracord through the loop at the end.

Hold the paracord in place so that it doesn’t start unwrapping itself. Use a pair of pliers to take hold of the strand that is by the head, and pull until the lower tip of the paracord has gone completely beneath the wrapping

Be careful to not pull so far that the tip comes out of the loop while pulling them underneath the wrapping. If this happens, you are back to square one! Finally, snip off the protruding paracord and melt the end with a lighter.
After wrapping the overstrike area, the next thing is to wrap the hand stop at the foot of the haft.

And…Finally! The finished product

But wait…There’s more. We have taken this tomahawk from its factory condition and fine-tuned it to a shaving-sharp, skull-crushing, scalping machine with vastly improved balance. Something like this shouldn’t just be stuck in your belt to dangle, unsupervised. Someone might get hurt. A blade this sharp needs a sheath.
While there are a number of sheath options, from custom kydex on down, I prefer to go field-expedient with cardboard and duck tape.
Measure the blade length and the width at its widest point. Add ½ to 1” to the width and double the length. Cut off that much cardboard.

Next, score the cardboard down the middle so that it folds more easily

Finally, wrap the folded piece of cardboard with duck tape.

Modding The Cold Steel Trail Hawk, Part 1: Destruction

2010-06-08T10:38:00.019-04:00

My Trail Hawk arrived yesterday! I already have a Rifleman’s Hawk, but after swinging nearly 2# of metal on the end of a stick, I was really looking forward to something more lightweight with a thinner blade.

The Trail Hawk is a beautiful piece of machinery; it has a nice hammer poll on the back, which is not only handy for pounding stuff, but also provides a good counterweight to the blade. The blade may look small, but it is more than enough for cutting (or scalping). At just over 19oz, it is half the weight and size of the Rifleman's hawk, which makes it a lot easier to control. Like I said, absolutely gorgeous. Right away, I got down to work.

The first thing you have to do is remove the allen screw that allegedly helps to hold the head onto the haft. After that, it is a fairly simple undertaking to remove the head with a rubber mallet.

Many of these tomahawk heads have rough edges inside the eye, which can really tear up your handle.

Case in point:

The jacked up haft isn't really an issue, though, since one of the modifications I am going to make will be upgrading this shorter haft to a 24" one. The longer haft allows faster, more powerful and balanced swings.

The next thing you want to do is file smooth the inside of the eye, and chamfer the opening. I did this with one of the Swiss Files I inherited from my Grandfather.
After you’re done with the file, wrap a piece of sandpaper (I use 400 grain wet/dry) around your finger and get the edge and inside the eye nice and smooth.

Here is the factory edge on the Trail Hawk. Doesn’t it look nice & sharp?

I can’t wait to rasp off some serious amounts of metal. Let’s get to work!
Clamp the head down to the worktable’s edge and file down the high areas until you almost completely remove the “shoulder” area of the blade.

As you progress, check for higher spots that need to be removed by runing your fingers along the thickness; from the eye towards the edge, feeling for high spots or gross inconsistencies in thickness. I like to mark these with a Sharpie, so that when the ink comes off, I know that I am filing away what needs to be removed. What I am going for is a smooth, more or less gradual transition.

Here it is after a couple hours of filing. It isn’t nearly as pretty anymore : (

Here you can see that the lower edge has been filed down to a more gradual slope. Sorry, but I couldn’t get a decent picture with the finished edge on top.

The next thing, of course, is to repeat the process with the other side: file, feel, mark it, and file some more until you get it more or less to the desired thickness.
After you’re done with the file, it’s time to smooth it out even more with a whetstone.

Once you have the blade sufficiently thinned out, the next order of business is to get the rest of the head to look just as jacked up as the blade. I do this by removing the finish with 110 grain sandpaper.

Here’s what it looks like when I feel I have sufficiently destroyed the finish and removed most of the file marks

We're The Only Ones Who Get To Use Cameras & Video

2010-06-04T18:11:00.006-04:00

From Gizmodo.com: Are Cameras The New Guns?

Click the link above, read the article all the way through, and consider the implications.

Wow.

" "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law." "

Consider what recourse John Q Public will have, once this "Us & Them" attitude is pervasive enough among "The Only Ones", and enough of "us" wake up and realize that we cannot possibly get a fair shake from "them" (the officers as well as their corrupt, enabling court system).

It won't be pretty.

FBI Data Indicates More Guns = Less Crime

2010-06-03T09:56:00.007-04:00

Just in from the NRA-ILA

FBI Data Again Shows More Guns = Less Crime

Friday, May 28, 2010

Anyone needing proof that fanaticism for gun control hasn't waned on Capitol Hill, that anti-gunners are—as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) put it last year—only waiting to "pick the time," should watch the video of Mexican president Felipe Calderon's speech to Congress last week, versions of which have been posted on youtube.com. When Calderon asked that the federal "assault weapon" ban be re-imposed, a very large number of U.S. Representatives and Senators present gave him a standing ovation.

However, on Monday the FBI released crime statistics that should cause the applauding anti-gunners to sit on their hands. The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. That amounts to about an 8.2 percent decrease in the per capita murder rate, after the increase in our nation's legal and illegal population is taken into account. And it translates into about a 10.5 percent decrease in the murder rate between 2004, when the ban expired, and the end of 2009. And finally, it means that in 2009 our nation's murder rate fell to a 45-year low.

The FBI's report was also bad news for anti-gunners elected to other offices. With the Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago no more than a few weeks away, Mayors Bloomberg, of New York City, and Daley, of Chicago—who fear that it will require them to respect the Second Amendment for the first time—have continued to beat their drums for gun control. As we have noted, Bloomberg recently encouraged a Senate committee to support the Lautenberg-King terrorist watchlist bills. And last week Daley told a Chicago Reader reporter, who expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of Chicago's handgun ban, "It's been very effective." Holding a bayonet-equipped rifle, Daley added, "If I put this up your butt, you find out how effective it is."

But, murders in big cities declined over 11 percent between 2008 and 2009, translating to over a 12 percent decrease in the big city murder per capita rate. We hope, but don't expect, that the indisputable fact that an increase in gun ownership does not necessarily correspond to an increase in crime, will reduce the frequency of Bloomberg's stunts aimed at gun shows, and Daley's periodic rants against the firearm industry.

Apart from Daly's vulgar straw-man "argument" and apparent rectal fixation, there is something else in this article that disturbs me.

The author unfortunately makes the assumption that the hoplophobe crowd is capable of reason. They aren't.

By definition, a phobia is a persistent irrational fear or aversion.

Because it is a persistent mental illness, they will never change their minds.

Because it is an irrational aversion, they are incapable of reasoning or responding to reason.

It is as simple as this: They hate & fear our guns. They hate & fear us for owning guns. They hate & fear us for wanting to own guns. They don't want anyone to own weapons--apart for their own (taxpayer-funded) bodyguards and the (also taxpayer-funded) three-letter thugs that they will send to shoot us when we refuse to peacefully and willingly disarm. That's what they do. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. And they absolutely will not stop. Ever.

III

The Machete: To Lanyard, Or Not to Lanyard?

2010-05-31T15:28:00.006-04:00

Disclaimer: I am, by no means, an expert in the use of a machete-or any other bladed instrument. I am always learning and open to economy of motion & technical improvement. What I know and impart to you is the result of self-defense/Martial Arts classes & training coupled with decades of life experience. I have more cuts and more stitches than I can recall, and while what I do and recommend works for me, it may not for you. Everyone, of necessity, creates their own "technique.".

On those occasions you may find yourself utilizing a machete (or other large-bladed knife thingy), the question of whether or not to use a lanyard should be a serious consideration. One school of thought contends that if one has a proper grip on the machete, having it slip from your hand should not be an issue--or that if it does, you do not want it swinging, pendulum-like, towards you. The other school of thought counters that retention is almost always a good thing. I mean, who wants to hurl two feet of sharpened spring steel in a random direction?

Until a few years ago, I was of the "I don't want that freaking thing swinging back at my gonads" school of thought. That was, until a Brother of mine showed me a lanyard technique that:

1) Provides a tighter grip on the machete handle,
2) Allows for quick release, if necessary,
and (perhaps most importantly)
3) Causes the machete to swing away from you without flying randomly into the brush (or your friends).

Loop your thumb through the lanyard, then turn your hand to grip the machete handle. If you measure the cord properly, the result should be something like this:

allowing you to get a good grip on the handle (without cutting off the circulation to your hand, if you please), and serving to "lock" your grip into place. Should you need to ditch the machete in a hurry, you can simply drop it, and if you lose your grip, it will swing away from you.

Simple, practical, and effective.

Memorial Day

2010-05-31T11:08:00.002-04:00

Gratitude and thanks for those who have died in the course of defending and serving American freedom, and prayers for the families and loved ones who wait to be reunited with them in Eternity.

The Perfect Machine

2010-05-27T00:21:00.000-04:00

May 20th: "Everybody Draw Mohammed" Day

2010-05-20T00:04:00.002-04:00

I am not a member of the FaceBook group, solely because some of the "artwork" (and I use that term very loosely) submitted was vile and offensive, but I can't resist the opportunity to take a jab at the so-called "Religion of Peace."

Enjoy!

Here is the one I did that won (3rd? 5th?) place in a contest for Gates of Vienna some years back: David & Mohammed

Government Is Not God: A Sermon & A Parallel

2010-03-31T09:50:00.002-04:00

This was posted a few days ago by my Brother, Ray, over at A Moral Compass. He said that it was "too good not to post." I agree.

Good morning, brothers and sisters; it's always a delight to see the pews crowded on Sunday morning, and so eager to get into God's Word. Turn with me in your Bibles, if you will to the 47th chapter of Genesis, we'll begin our reading at verse 13, and go through verse 27.

Brother Ray, would you stand and read that great passage for us? .....(reading)...

Thank you for that fine reading, Brother Ray. So we see that economic hard times fell upon Egypt, and the people turned to the government of Pharaoh to deal with this for them. And Pharaoh nationalized the grain harvest, and placed the grain in great storehouses that he had built. So the people brought their money to Pharaoh, like a great tax increase, and gave it all to him willingly in return for grain. And this went on until their money ran out, and they were hungry again.

So when they went to Pharaoh after that, they brought their livestock -their cattle, their horses, their sheep, and their donkey - to barter for grain, and verse 17 says that only took them through the end of that year.

But the famine wasn't over, was it? So the next year, the people came before Pharaoh and admitted they had nothing left, except their land and their own lives. "There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our land. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh." So they surrendered their homes, their land, and their real estate to Pharaoh's government, and then sold themselves into slavery to him, in return for grain.

What can we learn from this, brothers and sisters?

That turning to the government instead of to God to be our provider in hard times only leads to slavery? Yes.. That the only reason government wants to be our provider is to also become our master?

Yes.

But look how that passage ends, brothers and sisters! Thus Israel settled in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen. And they gained possessions in it, and were fruitful and multiplied greatly." God provided for His people, just as He always has! They didn't end up giving all their possessions to government, no, it says they gained possessions! But I also tell you a great truth today, and an ominous one.
We see the same thing happening today - the government today wants to "share the wealth" once again, to take it from us and redistribute it back to us. It wants to take control of healthcare, just as it has taken control of education, and ration it back to us, and when government rations it, then government decides who gets it, and how much, and what kind. And if we go along with it, and do it willingly, then we will wind up no differently than the people of Egypt did four thousand years ago - as slaves to the government, and as slaves to our leaders.

What Mr. Obama's government is doing now is no different from what Pharaoh's government did then, and it will end the same. And a lot of people like to call Mr.Obama a "Messiah," don't they? Is he a Messiah? A savior? Didn't the Egyptians say, after Pharaoh made them his slaves, "You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh"?

Well, I tell you this - I know the Messiah; the Messiah is a friend of mine; and Mr. OBAMA IS NO MESSIAH! No, brothers and sisters, if Mr. Obama is a character from the Bible, then he is Pharaoh. Bow with me in prayer, if you will...

Lord, You alone are worthy to be served, and we rely on You, and You alone. We confess that the government is not our deliverer, and never rightly will be. We read in the eighth chapter of 1 Samuel, when Samuel warned the people of what a ruler would do, where it says "And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.."
And Lord, we acknowledge that day has come. We cry out to you because of the ruler that we have chosen for ourselves as a nation. Lord, we pray for this nation. We pray for revival, and we pray for deliverance from those who would be our masters. Give us hearts to seek You and hands to serve You, and protect Your people from the atrocities of Pharaoh's government.

In God We Trust...

AK malf clearance drill

2010-03-30T20:41:00.005-04:00

And...?

2010-03-30T13:02:00.002-04:00

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says he believes the Tea Party is built around a "core group" of people who question whether he is a U.S. citizen and believe he is a socialist.

But beyond that, Obama tells NBC he recognizes the movement involves "folks who have legitimate concerns" about the national debt and whether the government is taking on too many difficult issues simultaneously.

In an interview broadcast Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show, Obama said he feels "there's still going to be a group at their core that question my legitimacy." But he said he didn't want to paint Tea Party activists "in broad brushes" and he hopes to win over members who have "mainstream, legitimate concerns."

I guess I would like to insert a correction here: we do not believe he is a Socialist. We KNOW he is a Socialist.

Doctrine Of The Three Percent

2010-03-29T10:25:00.000-04:00

I'm sure that anyone who visits here will have already been a reader of Mike Vanderboegh's outstanding weblog. Although he has it on his sidebar, I think it bears repeating here--and all across the internet until America wakes up, patriots take arms, and would-be tyrants take off running.

The Three Percent are the folks the Founders counted on to save the Republic when everyone else abandoned it.

And we will.

There will be no more free Wacos and no more free Katrinas.

For we are the Three Percent.

We will not disarm.

You cannot convince us.

You cannot intimidate us.

You can try to kill us, if you think you can.

But remember, we’ll shoot back .

We are not going away.

We are not backing up another inch.

And there are THREE MILLION OF US.

Your move, Mr. Wannabe Tyrant.

Your move.

20 Ways ObamaCare Violates Our Freedoms

2010-03-24T16:56:00.004-04:00

Really?! Only 20 ways that he is going to screw us with this? How fortunate we are...

Original article at FireAndreaMitchell.com

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

The Lesser Of Two Evils

2010-02-01T22:36:00.004-05:00

This article from Campaign For Libertyis almost exactly what I have been telling my friends and family for years. one of my professors at Bible College used to rant and rail against this "choosing the lesser of two evils" philosophy, saying that it was like running out of gas, and deciding whether to put sand or water in your gas tank.

The Lesser of Two Evils?
By Adam de Angeli

The Lesser of Two Evils is Really the Greater Evil
I recently read a member post that argued that one must sometimes support the lesser of two evils. The author explained it with a metaphor, by saying that, on the one hand, if offered two unhealthful foods, one could refuse to eat either of them, but if being forced to choose between an unhealthful food and poison, one would have to take the unhealthful food to avoid the poison. Likewise, he argued, having no choice but John McCain or Barack Obama, he should have voted for John McCain rather than the third-party candidate.

It is a popular, understandable belief; an intuitive tactical judgment. But upon close examination, it is principally due to this belief that our politicians get away with betraying us.

Indeed, it is essential for success that we defeat acceptance of the lesser of two evils. Therefore, let us examine what's wrong with supporting the lesser of two evils.

The common counter-argument that everybody is fond of is the saying, "the lesser of two evils is still evil, and I cannot support evil." It's glib, and weak. It does not stand up to the original argument. One could respond, "so cut off your nose to spite your face, but if tyranny is inevitable I prefer to minimize it." That would be a valid counter-argument.

Therefore, let us discard the "I just can't support evil" rebuttal. It's useless, and it is used in place of much more important observations.

Another potential counter-argument, much rarer but noted by C4L political trainer Michael Rothfeld, is that it demoralizes people to be told they must choose between bad or worse, and we shouldn't be working to demoralize people. We have all met people who refuse to be involved in politics because "the whole business is just dirty" or something like that. It truly is depressing when the candidate on "your side" is almost as bad as his opponent. As Rothfeld says: "If you're telling someone they need to support John McCain to stop Barack Obama, or to support George Bush to beat Bill Clinton, who's the fool there?"

This is an interesting argument, but it also performs rather poorly against the lesser-of-evil argument. It doesn't tell us anything we don't know, or contradict the argument. Yes, it is demoralizing when you have to hold your nose to vote. That notwithstanding, one would argue, wouldn't it still be preferable to have a lesser evil? The author of the post mentioned the Scott Brown election. Even though Scott Brown's a neocon, he reasoned, isn't that better than a Ted Kennedy?

A third potential counter argument is that you cannot achieve your political goals by rewarding those who vote against you. John McCain had an atrocious record of campaigning against gun rights. Had he won the election, what kind of message would have been sent to Republicans around the country? That they can be bad on gun rights and the people who care will vote for them anyway.

Rothfeld notes an example: Following the Columbine massacre, the NRA "A"-rated governor of Colorado, Bill Owens, introduced a set of anti-gun bills and a ballot initiative against gun shows (1). When a reporter asked Owens whether the move would alienate his conservative base, Owens arrogantly laughed, "what are they going to do, vote Democrat?"

This argument addresses the major problem with supporting the lesser evil: it leads directly to unaccountability. In this way, this argument is pretty tough. However, it still does not directly address the major argument about the lesser of two evils, which is that less evil is still preferable. Even if it does demoralize us, even if it does send a bad message to politicians, even if it is morally offensive, it is still pragmatic.

However, this third potential counter-argument is one aspect of the larger, vital argument, and the one that must be made whenever the "lesser of two evils" argument is made:

It just isn't true at all.

Is Barack Obama really so much worse than John McCain? I see nothing in John McCain to suggest it. On every major issue, John McCain is with Barack Obama. Both are utterly pro-war. Both staunchly backed the massive bailouts. Both vote routinely for expanding government. Both demonstrate utter disregard for privacy, for property, and for individual liberty. Both share the same Gun Owners of America rating (F--).

Indeed, the major difference between Obama and McCain is not their policies, but their party affiliation and the public's reaction to them.

And that is why, one could argue, John McCain had to lose.

If McCain had won, there would have been no rejection of neoconservatism, no repudiation of the Bush years and the immense harm he inflicted on our country and around the world. The Republican Party and the Republican politicians would see that they could get away with everything.

There would have been no tea parties. Where were all the principled conservatives during the Bush years, when he doubled the size of government, passed a prescription drug bill that increased the obligations of Medicare by $8 trillion (2), and signed the tyrannical PATRIOT Act?

Like a forest fire rejuvenating the soil for future growth, or like a recession to correct market distortions for future prosperity, a down-and-out Republican party is one that is ready to listen to us and learn what must change for them to bounce back. They aren't shrugging us off anymore, and that's a positive change.

Let's look now at the Scott Brown victory. Is a neocon better than a Kennedy? Hardly, if you ask me. More important, however, this comes on the heels of the victory in New York's 23rd district for a weak candidate, and victories elsewhere that portend a Democrat bloodbath in November. In Michigan, a special state Senate election saw a statist Republican take a seat from a Democrat. What message is this sending the Republican Party?

The message these victories send to the Republican Party is, "we don't need to change anything, just let them wail under the Dems for a year and come running back into our arms."

I don't think the Republican Party has been in the wilderness nearly long enough yet. Let the Democrats have the reins a little longer, so they won't be able to blame the hardship of the Obama years on "just cleaning up the mess that was left for us." Let them see how hollow Obama's rhetoric of hope and change truly was. Let them learn what you get when you settle for "anybody but Bush." For their part, the Republicans need to be shown that an ideological change on their part, and a renewed commitment to principle, will be required for them to return to power. And only then may the conservatives take power and send the socialists into the wilderness.

Turning now to a race in Michigan, there is a Secretary of State election coming up. All of the candidates on both sides are lousy on Real ID, as is the retiring incumbent, a Republican. It's certain that no matter who wins the election, the next Secretary will be bad on Real ID. So what is more beneficial to us, having a Democrat or Republican win the election? Well, if the Republican wins, it is, first of all, yet another signal to the GOP that they can take our support for granted. And second of all, if we go after the next Secretary of State on the Real ID issue, what relationship with mainstream conservatives is preferable: them resenting us for attacking a Republican who is surely saving Michigan from ACORN, or them happily joining us in clubbing a Democrat over the issue?

Rothfeld quotes an Ohio legislator, Ron Hood, putting it this way: "It's not the devil in horns and a tail I fear; I know to run from that guy. It's the devil in a suit quoting scripture that I worry about."

Really, which do you prefer: an out-and-out socialist like Obama, or a crypto-socialist like George W. Bush?

Yes, the coming years are going to be rough under Obama. They would have been rough anyway. But being in the minority is sometimes a good thing. This is the best climate for political organizing for liberty in the last decade. This is a fertile climate for developing resources and building our movement.

What, then, is left to say of the "lesser of two evils" argument? Rothfeld calls it "the biggest lie in politics." Politicians use it to keep the base in line when they betray them. Parties use it to keep the herd from leaving the ranch. But sadly, it is an appealing argument, and many well-meaning and political activists will accept it, without realizing how embracing it actually sets the cause back.

When people make the argument, never hold them at fault for it. It's a perfectly understandable belief, just one that must be corrected. And it is one that all groups geared toward liberty should avoid making.

Praise For Confederate Generals Lee And Jackson

2010-01-11T17:12:00.001-05:00

Here is an excellent article by Pastor Chuck Baldwin

January is often referred to as "Generals Month" since no less than four famous Confederate Generals claimed January as their birth month: James Longstreet (Jan. 8, 1821), Robert E. Lee (Jan. 19, 1807), Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson (Jan. 21, 1824), and George Pickett (Jan. 28, 1825). Two of these men, Lee and Jackson, are particularly noteworthy.

Without question, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were two of the greatest military leaders of all time. Even more, many military historians regard the Lee and Jackson tandem as perhaps the greatest battlefield duo in the history of warfare. If Jackson had survived the battle of Chancellorsville, it is very possible that the South would have prevailed at Gettysburg and perhaps would even have won the War Between the States.

In fact, it was Lord Roberts, commander-in-chief of the British armies in the early twentieth century, who said, "In my opinion, Stonewall Jackson was one of the greatest natural military geniuses the world ever saw. I will go even further than that--as a campaigner in the field, he never had a superior. In some respects, I doubt whether he ever had an equal."

While the strategies and circumstances of the War of Northern Aggression can (and will) be debated by professionals and laymen alike, one fact is undeniable: Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. Jackson were two of the finest Christian gentlemen this country has ever produced. Both their character and their conduct were beyond reproach.

Unlike his northern counterpart, Ulysses S. Grant, General Lee never sanctioned or condoned slavery. Upon inheriting slaves from his deceased father-in-law, Lee freed them. And according to historians, Jackson enjoyed a familial relationship with those few slaves that were in his home. In addition, unlike Abraham Lincoln and U.S. Grant, there is no record of either Lee or Jackson ever speaking disparagingly of the black race.

As those who are familiar with history know, General Grant and his wife held personal slaves before and during the War Between the States, and, contrary to popular opinion, even Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves of the North. They were not freed until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed after the conclusion of the war. Grant's excuse for not freeing his slaves was that "good help is so hard to come by these days."

Furthermore, it is well established that Jackson regularly conducted a Sunday School class for black children. This was a ministry he took very seriously. As a result, he was dearly loved and appreciated by the children and their parents.

In addition, both Jackson and Lee emphatically supported the abolition of slavery. In fact, Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." He also said "the best men in the South" opposed it and welcomed its demise. Jackson said he wished to see "the shackles struck from every slave."

To think that Lee and Jackson (and the vast majority of Confederate soldiers) would fight and die to preserve an institution they considered evil and abhorrent--and that they were already working to dismantle--is the height of absurdity. It is equally repugnant to impugn and denigrate the memory of these remarkable Christian gentlemen.

In fact, after refusing Abraham Lincoln's offer to command the Union Army in 1861, Robert E. Lee wrote to his sister on April 20 of that year to explain his decision. In the letter he wrote, "With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the army and save in defense of my native state, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed . . ."

Lee's decision to resign his commission with the Union Army must have been the most difficult decision of his life. Remember that Lee's direct ancestors had fought in America's War For Independence. His father, "Light Horse Harry" Henry Lee, was a Revolutionary War hero, Governor of Virginia, and member of Congress. In addition, members of his family were signatories to the Declaration of Independence.

Remember, too, that not only did Robert E. Lee graduate from West Point "at the head of his class" (according to Benjamin Hallowell), he is yet today one of only six cadets to graduate from that prestigious academy without a single demerit.

However, Lee knew that Lincoln's decision to invade the South in order to prevent its secession was both immoral and unconstitutional. As a man of honor and integrity, the only thing Lee could do was that which his father had done: fight for freedom and independence. And that is exactly what he did.

Instead of allowing a politically correct culture to sully the memory of Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. Jackson, all Americans should hold them in a place of highest honor and respect. Anything less is a disservice to history and a disgrace to the principles of truth and integrity.

Accordingly, it was more than appropriate that the late President Gerald Ford, on August 5, 1975, signed Senate Joint Resolution 23, "restoring posthumously the long overdue, full rights of citizenship to General Robert E. Lee." According to President Ford, "This legislation corrects a 110-year oversight of American history." He further said, "General Lee's character has been an example to succeeding generations . . ."

The significance of the lives of Generals Lee and Jackson cannot be overvalued. While the character and influence of most of us will barely be remembered two hundred days after our departure, the sterling character of these men has endured for two hundred years. What a shame that so many of America's youth are being robbed of knowing and studying the virtue and integrity of the great General Robert E. Lee and General Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson.

Furthermore, it is no hyperbole to say that the confederated, constitutional republic so ably declared by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and codified into statute by the U.S. Constitution of 1787 was, for the most part, expunged at the Appomattox Court House in 1865. After all, it was (and is) the responsibility of the states to be the ultimate vanguard of liberty. Without a tenacious, unrelenting defense of liberty by the sovereign states, we are reduced to ever-burgeoning oppression--which is exactly what we see happening today.

Thankfully, freedom's heartbeat is still felt among at least a few states. State sovereignty resolutions (proposed in over 30 states), Firearms Freedom acts (passed in 2 states--Montana and Tennessee--and being proposed in at least 12 other states), and official letters (Montana), statements (Texas Governor Rick Perry), and resolutions (Georgia and Montana) threatening secession have already taken place.

Yes, freedom-loving Americans in this generation may need to awaken to the prospect that--in order for freedom to survive--secession may, once again, be in order. One thing is for sure: any State that will not protect and defend their citizens' right to keep and bear arms cannot be counted on to do diddlysquat to maintain essential freedom. It is time for people to start deciding whether they want to live free or not--and if they do, to seriously consider relocating to states that yet have a heartbeat for liberty.

I will say it straight out: any State that will not protect your right to keep and bear arms is a tyrannical State! And if it is obvious that the freedom-loving citizens of that State are powerless to change it via the ballot box, they should leave the State to its slaves and seek a land of liberty.

I, for one, am thankful for the example and legacy of men such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. They were the spiritual soul mates of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They were men that loved freedom; they were men that loved federalism and constitutional government; and they were men of courage and understanding. They understood that, sometimes, political separation is the only way that freedom can survive. Long live the spirit of Washington, Jefferson, Lee, and Jackson!

Copyright © 2010 Chuck Baldwin

Identity

2010-01-09T12:20:00.004-05:00

How do you identify yourself? So many people are caught up in finding their identity in a culture, an ethnicity, or a political affiliation. Many others find theirs in their job, hobbies, or in some other temporal activity.

This should not be the case for anyone who considers themself a Christian.

Anyone who claims to belong to Christ (the original definition of Christian, i.e. "Christ-ones") should find their identity in Jesus Christ first, foremost, primary, and overshadowing all other aspects of who they are and where they find meaning & identity. As Christians, our entire life is all about Jesus Christ and the cross. The cross of Christ sets us apart; it defines us and gives us an identity. It also tells us about the God who called us and gave Himself up for our sacrifice. He revealed Himself in His love, mercy, justice, and wrath through the cross. Through it, we have been redeemed, reconciled, and made a people for His glory. We have a new identity as His people, and as such, our old ways of life should no longer exist. We have identity and purpose only through the cross.

Through the cross of Christ, we are made a "royal priesthood;" people who have free audience with the sovereign of the universe.
Our new identity also includes a new ethnicity. We are no longer "red and yellow, black and white," but are now "holy" (1 Peter 2:9). In light of this, our lifestyles should be radically changed. We have an entire new family that has been sovereignly chosen by the One who chooses and acts perfectly. As God's own possession, we should realize this unity and be more tightly knit than any other community of people. As family, we should yearn to fellowship and get to know one another, building stronger and deeper relationships. This would also serve the twofold purpose of building up the body and glorifying the God who chose us in Christ.

Chinese Dissidents, Gun Owners & Cockroaches

2009-12-25T09:16:00.003-05:00

BEIJING – A Chinese court sentenced a prominent dissident to 11 years on Friday — the longest term ever handed down for subversion charges, according to rights groups that say it signals the government will take an increasingly hard line against activists in the year ahead.

The sentencing of Liu Xiaobo, after he called for sweeping political reforms and an end to Communist Party dominance, also drew diplomatic criticism, with the United States saying it went against international norms.

Liu was the co-author of an unusually direct appeal for political liberalization in China called Charter 08. He was detained just before it was released last December. More than 300 people, including some of China's top intellectuals, signed it.

The verdict was issued at the No. 1 Intermediate People's Court in Beijing after a two-hour trial Wednesday in which prosecutors accused Liu of "serious" crimes.

The vaguely worded charge of inciting to subvert state power is routinely used to jail dissidents. Liu could have been sentenced for up to 15 years in prison under the charge.

Perhaps the most disturbing piece of political-speak in the article is this tidbit from the US Embassy's first secretary, Gregory May:

"Persecution of individuals for the peaceful expression of political views is inconsistent with internationally recognized norms of human rights," May said.

Ouch! Really?! So how much longer will it be before those of us who were spreading "fishy rumors about healthcare reform" find ourselves under more than just verbal attack? Remember, according to Hillary Clinton and Janet Napolitano, those of us who adhere to a literal interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are already considered "Domestic Terrorists." Likewise for those of us who have membership in 2A groups, such as the GOA, JPFO, and the NRA. Ron Paul supporters are also "domestic terrorists," and in case anyone has forgotten, the US PATRIOT Act hasn't lapsed. All the power that GWB "needed" to fight against our perceived enemies by means of sidestepping and ignoring the Constitution is now held and wielded by a man whose entire platform of "hope & change" has been a front for dismantling America and turning our nation into a Socialist State. Those of us who find ourselves on any of the aforementioned rosters have been boldly labeled as "the enemy" by the administration currently in power, who--it might be added--have been quick to label BHO's detractors "racists."

Domestic Terrorists. Racists. Un-American. Nazis.

Does this tactic of dehumanizing your opponent remind you of anything?

Cockroaches, perhaps?

Happy Bill Of Rights Day

2009-12-15T16:44:00.001-05:00

Here is an article from Dr. Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty

December 15 is neglected by most Americans for its historical significance as the anniversary of the Bill of Rights. Even worse, American politicians neglect the actual Bill of Rights on a day-to-day basis.

Whether or not the Bill of Rights can ever be an effective means of limiting the government is open to debate. However, the Bill of Rights does offer a fairly good outline of a free society, and it shows how far our country has strayed.

In an America with a full respect for the Bill of Rights, there would be no Federal Communications Commission regulating the airwaves and forbidding certain speech, no Federal Election Commission limiting how much Americans can donate to political candidates or what they can say in independent political ads, no Food and Drug Administration harassment of pharmaceutical and wine producers regarding their commercial speech, no federal laws that have anything to do with religion whatsoever, and no federally established "free-speech zones."

There would be no federal laws disarming Americans, prohibiting airlines from allowing pilots or passengers to carry guns on planes, or limiting how much ammo or what kind of firearms people can buy and own.

There would be no Patriot Act, no secret searches, no spying on telecommunications without a warrant.

There would be no civil asset forfeiture, no horrendous eminent domain abuses, no kangaroo courts, star chambers and phony hearings for the accused.

There would be no torture in America's "terrorist" dungeons.

There would be no federal laws against starting a business without a license, buying and selling drugs, competing with the government to provide its "services" at a better cost and higher quality, or seceding from the central state.

There would be no federal programs not authorized by the Constitution: no Departments of Energy or Education, no Medicare or Social Security, no Federal Reserve or Selective Service, no farm subsidies or corporate welfare.

We've come a long way, haven't we?

If either the ninth or tenth amendment alone had full recognition, almost everything now done by the federal government would come grinding to a halt. A government that obeyed the Bill of Rights would cost a small fraction of its current size, and would not require an income tax to fund. The young would be liberated from Social Security and any fear of conscription ever coming back. The streets would be safer, free from the violent crime augmented by the War on Drugs and gun control. America would no longer have a higher per capita prison population than Saudi Arabia, Russia and North Korea. The free economy would be unleashed to produce the largest revolution in technology and commerce and greatest increase of the American standard of living since the Industrial Revolution. The productive sector would no longer be persecuted by the political class for producing too much, not enough, or not according to the specifications of central planning.

Many if not most political tensions would be decentralized down to the state level, and after that, competition and experimentation among states would likely point the way to the benefits of liberalizing and shrinking government at all levels.

The blessings of free association would again sweep America, as people's rights to hire, fire, work for, and enter business and organizations with whomever they wanted would allow economic productivity to balloon, and religious, ethnic and racial hostilities to decline. Immigration would no longer be seen as such a threat as decisions to associate or not to associate would be left to the states and, much more ideally, private-property owners.

Healthcare would be more affordable and of a higher quality. The price of food staples would plummet, as the feds would no longer subsidize clumsy agricultural practices with price supports, and even the poorest workers would have far greater access to necessities and luxuries than almost anyone in the history of the world.

Many tens of thousands of federal employees would have to find honest work.

With the Bill of Rights respected and enforced, the War on Terror as we know it would be impossible. The federal government would no longer have any powers not delegated to it by the Constitution -- rendering such unconstitutional projects as Iraq and Afghanistan totally prohibited. Americans would stop dying in foreign wars, and foreigners would have far less reason to attack the United States.

Americans would become more responsible, tolerant, caring, cooperative, industrious, wealthy and safe. A lot of problems would still exist, but without the amplification that they now get in the political process.

If today you hear an elected official mention the Bill of Rights -- a politician besides Ron Paul, that is -- try to imagine which Bill of Rights he's referring to. Which Bill of Rights is it that allows for three-and-a-half-trillion-dollar budgets, airport Gestapo, thousands of gun laws, a federal war on drugs, No Child Left Behind, bailouts of Wall Street, stimulus spending, Obamacare, Cap and Trade and McCain-Feingold? Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that the president can disqualify suspected terrorists from their rights to a trial, an attorney, and due process?

The officials who violate the Bill of Rights are breaking the very law that supposedly brings their jobs and the government that employs them into existence. And yet we are supposed to take them seriously when they talk about "the rule of law," "law and order," and "justice."

I celebrate Bill of Rights Day, not out of some delusion that we have the enumerated and unenumerated freedoms protected by the document, nor with some nostalgia for a past when the Bill of Rights was perfectly obeyed. It never was. George Washington and John Adams violated the Bill of Rights. Ever since Lincoln, the document has suffered major violence, and eight years of Bush and one year of Obama have probably done more harm to the freedoms in the Bill of Rights than this country has seen in several generations.

But Bill of Rights Day is still a good time to think of that document, which comes as close to a perfect founding legal charter for a free society as any in the world. Celebrate Bill of Rights Day, if only to think of the great freedoms that might exist, that could exist, and that can exist, one day, in fuller force and greater glory than ever before.

Obama Jokes

2009-11-01T18:29:00.001-05:00

shamelessly stolen from Ray @ A Moral Compass

Q: What’s the main problem with Barack Obama jokes?
A: His followers don’t think they’re funny and everyone else doesn’t think they’re jokes.

Q: Why does Barack Obama oppose the Second Amendment?
A: It stands between him and the First.

Q: What’s the difference between Rahm Emanuel and a carp?
A: One is a scum sucking bottom feeder and the other is a fish.

Q: What’s the difference between Greta Van Susteren and Barack Obama?
A: Greta only talks out of one side of her mouth.

Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser.

Q: What’s the difference between Obama’s cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One’s full of tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society. The other is for prisoners.

Q: What’s the difference between a large pizza and the typical Obama backer?
A: The pizza can feed a family of four.

Q: What’s the difference between a zoo and the White House?
A: A zoo has an African lion and the White House has a lyin’ African.

Q: If Pelosi and Obama were in a boat and it started to sink, who would be saved?
A: America!

Q: What do you call the US after four years of Obama and the Liberal congress?
A: An Obama-nation.

Q: What’s the difference between Obama and Hitler?
A: Hitler wrote his own book.

Q: What’s another difference between Obama and Hitler?
A: Hitler got the Olympics to come to his country.

Q: Why doesn’t Obama pray?
A: It's impossible for him to read the teleprompter with his eyes closed.

Sermon: 14OCT09

2009-10-19T13:59:00.001-04:00

This is why my pastor is better than your pastor

The elected representatives represent The People. They are not elected to do their own thing. They still represent—The People. That’s the way our government was founded. If the Constitution designed America to be run in a certain, specific manner, and America evolves into something else by usurping authority from The People, then that government must be brought back to conformity by We The People. And it’s We The People who are the only ones who can do that. It was to We The People that the Founding Fathers believed that God created all those Rights. It was to We The People that the Founding Fathers believed that God gave this great nation. It was to We The People that the Founding Fathers believed that God gave this unique form of government. And it is We The People who give power to elected officials to do our will. It is We The People that allow the government, however, to expand beyond its restrictions, and become unconstitutional. Therefore, it must be We The People who are responsible to bring America back to its roots; back within its limitations through open discussion and honest debate.

Those of us who call ourselves Christian have allowed those whom we have appointed to guard our freedoms to usurp those freedoms. God has charged all believers to be good stewards of everything He gives us. God blessed us with Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution that gave us the Rights and freedoms for specific purposes, to accomplish specific tasks to build His kingdom. Can we ignore governmental usurpation and still call ourselves good stewards? Can we accomplish for God the task He designed and intended for us unless we are good stewards of His tools which He expressly gave us? Can we allow this great nation—I believe a gift from God—to be changed and modified to such an extent it barely resembles the Constitution? Do we have any Biblical justification for allowing a small number of ambitious and greedy people to continue to pervert the Constitution? Can we sit and keep our mouths shut while all this is going on and say that we’re still following God?

Any Biblical understanding of the concept of stewardship requires all believers to rise and support a call to our government that it return to the Constitutional Republic created by Godly men. We cannot do otherwise. We must submit to the authority appointed to us by God: the lawful authorities that are appointed over us. We must demand that our government do the same. If we do not, history will condemn us. Our Founding Fathers will condemn us. Scripture will condemn us, and I believe God will hold us accountable.

Oathkeepers

2009-10-19T12:46:00.002-04:00

I just joined Oathkeepers. Here is my Testimonial:

When I became an EMT, I swore the Oath developed by Dr. Charles Gillespie. In swearing that EMT Oath, I pledged that I would "...honor the physical and judicial laws of God and man." As a Christian, it is important to me that God’s laws and ways be put before those of man. I also swore that I would "...abstain from what is deleterious and mischievous" to my patients, and to only enter a person’s home "...for the benefit of only the sick and injured; never revealing what I see or hear...unless required by law." As an EMT, it is common to deliver patient care within a person’s home—and often in the accompanying presence of Law Enforcement Officers. After EMS became subsumed under DHS, I received a memo from DHS telling me that every EMT was now duty-bound to scan the contents of a patient’s home; particularly the type of literature on their bookshelves, and to report to DHS any "subversive" books or literature. We were also asked to take NIMS training and sign a form stating that we would assist during the event of a "national emergency." I participated in the training and signed the form, but told my supervisor that it had better be a real national emergency and not some premise for corralling the populace into "emergency camps" or anything like that.
On a couple occasions, I would be providing patient care within a person’s residence, and the Law Enforcement Officer who accompanied us would ask the patient’s family if there were any firearms or other weapons in the home. Since neither of these incidents had to do with domestic violence or the patient being a danger to themselves or others, I would look up from working on the patient and loudly inform the family that they did not have to answer the officer, and that he had no legal right to ask them about weapons in the home.
Although I am currently working as a teacher rather than as an EMT, I still maintain my EMT Certification, and I still take the Oath as seriously as ever.

Drinking Alcohol Is Safer Than Drinking Water

2009-09-19T17:48:00.001-04:00

In a number of carefully controlled trials, scientists have demonstrated that if we drink 1 litre of water each day, at the end of the year we would have absorbed more than 1 kilo of Escherichia coli, (E. Coli) - bacteria found in feces...

In other words, we are consuming 1 kilo of poop.
However, we do NOT run that risk when drinking wine & beer (or Scotch, vodka, Rye, etc), because alcohol has to go through a purification process of boiling, filtering and/or fermenting.

Remember:
Water = Poop, Wine = Health .

Therefore, it's better to drink wine and talk stupid, than to drink water and be full of shit.

There is no need to thank me for this valuable information: I'm doing it as a public service

Interesting Letter

2009-09-15T23:27:00.000-04:00

An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week, quoted below:

"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers."

“The firearm death rate in Washington , DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period That means you are about 25 percent more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S., than you are in Iraq."

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington, D.C. .

Rules

2009-08-20T10:33:00.004-04:00

From Matthew at Straight Forward In A Crooked World. I really wish I'd found his Blog sooner. Consistently excellent stuff!

Last night the wife took the dog for a walk, as she walked out the door I reminded her to take a knife. She said it's still daylight, I kindly reminded her of rule #2. They of course fall after the teachings of Christ and the "Big Ten".

Now failure happens and rules get broken, no doubt. But a man should have his own rules in life that should be followed by him. Why? See rule #25 for the answer.

1.Love God.
2.Always have a knife.
3.Don't put your hands on anyone, require the same from everyone else.
4.Don't allow yourself to be wronged or insulted.
5.Everyone lies.
6.Watch the hands, hands kill.
7.If it's not yours don't take it.
8.Pockets are to be used to assist you in life.
9.All guns are loaded.
10.It is better to seek forgiveness than ask permission.
11.Keep your word.
12.Keep an eye on the door.
13.Have a plan.
14.Never apologize if you aren't wrong or for doing the job right.
15.Don't mess with the coffee.
16.It is better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you are not.
17.Have a second plan
18.Have a way to make fire.
19.Never bother a Holyman unneccessarily.
20.Don't bother the driver, he is driving.
21.If you aren't willing to lead, don't bitch about being led.
22.Cigars are acceptable. Cigarrettes are not.
23.Make love to your wife at least once a week. A loved wife is a happy wife.
24.Work.
25.Make it home.

Claire Wolfe on Civil Unrest

2009-08-15T16:05:00.003-04:00

Good stuff, as always!

Defining civil unrest
Look up "preparations for civil unrest" on Google and...What's that echo I hear?—you'll find nothing that's going to help you. In fact, you won't even easily turn up a good definition of what civil unrest is.

Like "indecency," the definition seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

I wouldn't consider a peaceful anti-war march to be civil unrest, for instance, but a police chief might. Similarly, I wouldn't consider acts of localized non-violent lawbreaking (like environmental activists chaining themselves to a tree) to be civil unrest; but a timber company official probably believes otherwise.

Civil unrest occurs when anger, frustration, or fear turn disruptive on a mass scale. Or when government officials crack down because they anticipate such disruptions. Crackdowns can lead to further frustration, leading to further crackdowns and so on—especially when the crackdowns look unwarranted and tyrannical.

In other words, civil unrest can arise from the anger of people or the folly of government or both together.

Anger over an unpopular policy, a new war, a collapse of the currency, panic over a pandemic, a food shortage, a bank run—anything like that could cause civil unrest, especially in a population that's already on edge and no longer trusts its authority figures.

Another thing you won't find via Google is how various types or levels of unrest are likely to affect us and how we should respond, if we're affected. Again, although the men and women at the top are quite concerned for their own sakes, they (and their media mouthpieces) would rather not talk about what we should do in event of civil panic.

But that's not good enough for we independent-minded people, is it?

Here are my definitions of levels of civil unrest and a little bit about how they might affect us:

LEVEL ONE: The lowest level of civil unrest is when people turn on their own neighborhoods—as happened during the race riots of the 1960s and the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. Level One civil unrest can be deadly and destructive, but primarily to people who live, work, or must travel in the immediate area. Level One unrest is spontaneous, Dionysian, is confined to a narrow geographical zone where the protestors live. Police response may be harsh, but it's localized. Unless you're in the middle of it, you're unaffected.

LEVEL TWO: Level Two civil unrest may also be focused on a single area. But in this case, rioters or protesters have deliberately targeted a business district, a facility, a transportation system, or an organization to impose maximum disruption. One example: the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle in 1999; young people with violence in mind and rage in their hearts attacked an entire downtown, affecting hundreds of businesses and tens of thousands of workers who hardly knew what hit them. Another example: This spring, protesters in Thailand shut down the Bangkok airport, affecting who knows how many individuals and businesses. Level Two unrest is usually planned or semi-planned. The target is chosen deliberately. Although still focused in one area, Level Two can disrupt normal life and business in a whole region or country.

LEVEL THREE: Level Three comes when mass unrest or authoritarian crackdown causes disruption at state or regional level. Then, no matter what the original cause or location of the trouble, everyone in the region is affected. Effects might include travel restrictions, random ID checks, mass arrests, food and fuel rationing, controls on money and banking, roadblocks, and other harsh "emergency" restrictions.

LEVEL FOUR: Level Four is Level Three—but on a national or even international scale. It's martial law. If things ever get this bad, it's likely that the government itself will be a far bigger threat to everyone's well being than whatever the original cause of the clampdown was.

And of course, any level of civil unrest can lead to laws, regulations, and harsher police policies that end up affecting everybody in the long run.

Yes, it can involve us
We make a mistake if we think civil unrest is strictly an urban phenomena. It can happen anywhere.

When 400 government agents and soldiers descended on one isolated family in the Idaho mountains, the roadblocks, helicopters, Humvees, media presence, and furious protestors surrounded the Randy Weaver family and brought the normal life of Boundary County, Idaho, to a halt. The siege against the Branch Davidian church in Waco, Texas, wasn't conducted in the inner-city, either. Yet both of these were large scale catastrophes with all the hallmarks of civil unrest—individuals or groups resisting, government insisting.

I can easily envision strictly rural-based unrest that urban dwellers will never even hear about (except perhaps in highly distorted reports). What happens, for instance, if farmers, 4H families, owners of saddle horses, and holders of small chicken flocks decide to resist en masse the National Animal Identification System (NAIS)? It's easy to imagine, in these crazy days, USDA SWAT teams descending on the countryside to make arrests, forcibly register or destroy non-compliant animals, and burn down non-registered facilities.

The future could see rural resistance to invasive census-taking, forced vaccination programs, land takings, water-rights policies, or the destruction of herds for real or bogus health reasons. As country people increasingly see governments as foreign organizations driven by the interests of city dwellers, pharmaceutical companies, and mega-agri-business, it wouldn't surprise me.

If we ever have serious food shortages, expect rural areas to be besieged.

Even when civil unrest confines itself to the cities, airports, or highways it can affect us in crazy ways. Here's a funny example of unpredictable (in this case mild) consequences. A friend was due to have her first book published in Canada. She was very excited—then disappointed when weeks dragged by and the book didn't appear. Turns out that a band of Indians was blocking a highway bridge the printer's truck had to cross. The union truckers, in solidarity, refused to route around the protest. Just one small consequence. But you can see the unpredictability.

The simple truth is that we don't know what kinds of unrest to anticipate. We don't know when, or if, we'll see civil unrest. But thinking about the problem and preparing ourselves mentally and physically to deal with it should be just another aspect of our personal preparedness.

What we can do

1. Keep standard emergency preps up to date. First thing to do is make sure all our typical household preparedness supplies and plans are current. As BHM readers know, backup food, water, and other supplies are our mainstay for everything from bad storms to long-term unemployment, from power outages to social breakdowns. During civil unrest, especially at Level Three or Four, we might not be able to get out to buy things we need—or we might consider it more prudent to stay at home. On the other hand, if we ourselves are part of the unrest, we may need those supplies to sit out a siege.

2. Don't fall into foolish complacency. We who live in the country tend to have an "it can't happen here" attitude toward political violence or social upheaval. We see those things as urban pheonomena. And mostly, they are. But there's no ironclad rule that says they have to be. If anything disrupts the supply chain, for instance, rural areas could be the first to be cut off from food, medicines, fuel, or other necessities. If government breaks down to the point where it can't deliver food stamps, housing vouchers, social security, or bureaucrats' pay, the rural poor and unemployed could become just as restive as their urban counterparts.

3. Watch your health. As I write this, the airwaves are shrilling about swine flu. This outbreak may fizzle; after all, perfectly normal flu kills many every year without causing panic, martial law, or incessant media coverage. On the other hand, it's certain that one day some illness will rampage across the globe. Few things inspire public panic more quickly than contagious disease, and once again rural areas are not immune. Take all the standard recommended precautions like frequent handwashing. Make sure your preparedness kit includes surgical masks and disposable gloves as well as a selection of frequently updated medications. And be ready to lay low at home for a long time in the event a serious plague gets loose.

4. Make common cause with your neighbors. I've said it before, but establishing a strong bond with people in your community—right now—is vital to every sort of emergency preparedness. In event of a Level One or Two emergency, these are the folks who could come to your house to make sure you're okay. They might give you a ride out or a place to sleep if you accidentally end up in a "hot zone" of riot or protest. In a deeper or more long-term emergency, they could pool resources with you to make supply runs. They can advise you if they've spotted a roadblock. They might let you cross their land to avoid a route that has become dangerous.

Note from JR: This is part of what John Robb has in mind when he speaks about the importance of "resilient communities." Community is important--and Scriptural (Ecclesiastes 4:10-12 and 1 Corinthians 12: 14-27 come to mind). For the Christian, community is a fact, not an option. Plan accordingly

5. If you grow crops or raise food animals and the unrest is due to a food shortage (or something has driven city people out into the countryside), prepare to protect your resources day and night. Here again neighbors can do each other valuable services, like taking shifts guarding fields, barns, private roads, and gardens. Yes, this is an apocalyptic scenario. Not a likely one. But if it happens, it's a Level Three or Level Four emergency—delivered to your own front yard.

6. Get advance word on local conditions when traveling. We're used to hopping into our vehicles or onto airplanes and going wherever we want to go. But as the worldwide economy deteriorates, it's wise to keep an eye on our destination. Right now, this warning pertains more to overseas travel than jaunts within the U.S. If you plan to go abroad, visit online sites like Travelfish.org. They'll have bulletins about adverse conditions in areas you plan to visit; you may even be able to receive alerts via email that will warn you about anything from political protests to disease outbreaks in places you plan to go.

7. Watch for signs of trouble when in an unfamiliar area. Sometimes the only advance notice you get is the notice your own senses give you. When walking, driving, biking, or otherwise traveling in unfamiliar places, stay in what gunfolk call "condition yellow." This is different than the meaningless colored threat levels the Department of Homeland Security puts out. It just means "be alert!" Never simply allow yourself to slouch along obliviously. Always be aware of who's nearby and what's going on around you. If you spot trouble developing, turn. Avoid it if at all possible.

8. If you stumble into a "hot zone" of unrest, be prepared to think on your feet. Not many people are qualified to give you advice about how to behave if you unavoidably find yourself in the midst of trouble—a riot, a mass protest that suddenly engulfs your familiar downtown, a spot where police are bashing heads or hurling tear gas seemingly at random. That's because not many people have ever been there and every catastrophe is different. If street-level chaos surrounds you, do your best to keep a cool head, move away from the worst of it if you get the chance, and get inside if possible.

9. If you're swept up in mass arrests during a riot or demonstration, the officers probably aren't going to be listening to your protestations of being an innocent bystander. You'll only tick them off and possibly get a charge of resisting arrest. The best advice I've received from my friends who've been busted during out-of-hand protests: Go along as best you can. Usually, all charges in such cases are either dropped or reduced once calm is restored. Only if we've reached the extreme point where police are rounding people up and throwing them into detention camps or "disappearing" them is fighting cops on the street likely to be worth it; then...fight like a demon.

10. Have a good lawyer and carry his or her card with you. Once again, in the heat of chaos it may not do you much good. But that card will come in handy later. Besides, if you and a police officer have an encounter in calmer circumstances, a lawyer's card, along with your calm assertion of your legal rights, will help you to be taken seriously. Police officers are like anybody else; they're more likely to go after easy targets than ones who are obviously knowledgeable and prepared. My lawyer has a helpful little list on the back of his card of the things you should do—and not do— when accosted by a police officer (see below). I'd trust that more than my own nerves in a tight situation.

11. Be careful of roadblocks. This is a hard one. If we reach Level Three or Four of unrest, we may not only see the obnoxious police "checkpoints" we're burdened with today. We might also see two other things. One would be expanded police roadblocks, with warrantless searches, harsh questioning, and possibly mass arrests. Another could be "freelance" roadblocks—roadblocks set up by anybody from political protesters to highwaymen. (Just as gangs of home invaders now masquerade as SWAT teams, highwaymen might masquerade as government officials to rob the unwary.) If it's humanly possible, avoid roadblocks. It's not illegal to turn away from them, as long as you don't disobey any traffic laws. Police do consider it suspicious behavior and may come after you, even if you've done nothing wrong; but in a time of civil unrest, avoiding a roadblock could save your skin. Of course, both police and freelancers will set up their blockades to make them as hard as possible to avoid—all the more reason to be alert, know where roadblocks are likely to be, and have a mental map of alternate routes. If, in a time and place of unrest, you're in a line approaching a roadblock, watch what happens to the people ahead of you. If you see any sign that the motorists ahead are being abused, get out of there.

So far, we've talked mostly as if civil unrest is something apart from us—something we might have to be wary of, something we might stumble accidentally into. But the fact is that as our country becomes less free, we might of course be the civil unrest.

We might resist having our premises tagged for NAIS or having our herds slaughtered for real or bogus health reasons. We might end up fighting evictions (as farmers and many rural dwellers have for centuries during hard times). We might be the ones who say, "Hell no, we won't go!" when the mobile vaccination van comes to town, or the ones who try to keep our neighbors from being rounded up and sent to camps. Times are uncertain. We simply don't know.

But in every case, preparedness, foreknowledge, and a cool head will come in handy.

Some of us already have lines in the sand that would inspire us to resist abuses of authority. And that, right there, is something our would-be masters fear—our disobedience. What will happen? And when? Nobody has a crystal ball. But the combination of public frustration and governmental apprehension is an explosive one. Someday, somebody will light the match.

Here's the copy on the lawyer's card (capitalization his):

IF YOU ARE ARRESTED OR CONFRONTED BY THE POLICE:

1. FIRST, ask to call your lawyer.

2. Be courteous; do not resist.

3. Do not consent to search or entry.

4. Do not talk about anything; do not admit OR DENY anything.

5. Ask if you are free to go. If you are, GO.

From The: "File This Away For Future Reference" Department

2009-08-15T15:50:00.002-04:00

How To Make Thermite.

V-A-C-A-TION....In The Summer Sun

2009-08-13T14:01:00.009-04:00

In the latter part of June, we took our very first real family vacation. To date, we have made several in-and-out-of-State trips, but they all had one thing in common: family.

IMO, a vacation is when you don’t have to go anywhere, you don’t have to do anything, and you aren’t obligated to see or deal with anyone. For the past 16+ years, every trip we’ve ever made was actually precipitated, if not marred by, by one of those three conditions.
Not so this year.
This year, the Armed & Christian family took a trip to beautiful Alabama. Our destination—as well as our route of travel—was dictated by CCW reciprocity laws. We rented a nice condo in the Gulf Shores area, and the balcony opened right onto the beach. Beautiful.

Even more beautiful was seeing my children experience the ocean for the first time in their lives, and seeing the stress lines work their way out of my wife's face as we spent the week unwinding.

What was less beautiful was the fairly severe sunburn I managed to get on our second day put, and waking up on the bathroom floor after passing out to hear my wife frantically calling Orange County 911. “No, honey, I’m OK.” I heard myself saying, “The tile floor is so cool and comfortable.” She wasn’t buying it, and we both lamented not putting a couple IV kits and saline bags in our Family 1st Aid/Trauma bag.
Very embarrassing for an EMT to be the cause of a “tourist run.” Ouch.

Despite this, Helga continued to foray out with the rest of the family. Although it was too painful to carry a pistol IWB, my Hawkepak/Mini-BOB from LaRue Tactical proved to be a real lifesaver. Since the front rifle mag pockets were devoid of mags (it just seems a little over the top to carry my longarm in public—at least on vacation), I utilized them for holding the things that are normally in my pockets or on my belt; wallet, leatherman, cellular phone, etc. The padded shoulder strap was thick and wide enough that it distributed the weight well enough to not hurt my scorched shoulders, chest, and back. It didn’t seem to garner much attention, but I can’t be sure if that was its low-profile design, or people just being shocked and distracted by the bright red man carrying it.

One of the absolute high points of the vacation, apart from romantic moonlit strolls on the beach with my princess…

Was being able to meet and spend some learning/fellowship time with some new old friends.

Here I am with one of the finest men and patriots I’ll ever have the pleasure of knowing, after eating one of the best hamburgers I’ve ever had. I took the precaution of blacking out features, since this “Alleged Leader of a Merry Band of Three-Percenters” did not give me express permission to do otherwise, and for similar reasons I did not include the picture with another Concerned American in it. Yeah, I figure the feds already have plenty of pictures of us, but just in case they don’t, I wouldn’t want their facial recognition software guys too have too easy a time. :)

Funniest Thing I've Seen Today

2009-08-12T10:56:00.003-04:00

Six Things Dirtier Than A Toilet Seat--other than your mother

Hilarious, and yet frighteningly accurate. Well done, Ray.

Forbes.com article: The 81% Tax Increase

2009-08-11T09:03:00.006-04:00

This is what the federal government has done with healthcare and our tax money so far--God forbid Obama's Socialized Healthcare Plan comes to pass!

Forbes Commentary

The 81% Tax Increase
Bruce Bartlett, 05.15.09, 12:00 AM ET

This week, the federal government published two important reports on long-term budgetary trends. They both show that we are on an unsustainable path that will almost certainly result in massively higher taxes.

The first report is from the trustees of the Social Security system. News reports emphasized that the date when its trust fund will be exhausted is now four years earlier than estimated last year. But in truth, this is an utterly meaningless fact because the trust fund itself is economically meaningless.

The 2010 budget, which was finally released this week, confirms this fact. As it explains in Chapter 21, government trust funds bear no meaningful comparison to those in the private sector. Whereas the beneficiary of a private trust fund legally owns the income from it, the same is not true of a government trust fund, which is really nothing but an accounting device.

Most Americans believe that the Social Security trust fund contains a pot of money that is sitting somewhere earning interest to pay their benefits when they retire. On paper this is true; somewhere in a Treasury Department ledger there are $2.4 trillion worth of assets labeled "Social Security trust fund."

The problem is that by law 100% of these "assets" are invested in Treasury securities. Therefore, the trust fund does not have any actual resources with which to pay Social Security benefits. It's as if you wrote an IOU to yourself; no matter how large the IOU is it doesn't increase your net worth.

This fact is documented in the budget, which says on page 345: "The existence of large trust fund balances … does not, by itself, increase the government's ability to pay benefits. Put differently, these trust fund balances are assets of the program agencies and corresponding liabilities of the Treasury, netting to zero for the government as a whole."

Consequently, whether there is $2.4 trillion in the Social Security trust fund or $240 trillion has no bearing on the federal government's ability to pay benefits that have been promised. In a very technical sense, it would lose the ability to pay benefits in excess of current tax revenues once the trust fund is exhausted. But long before that date Congress would simply change the law to explicitly allow general revenues to be used to pay Social Security benefits, something it could easily do in a day.

The trust fund is better thought of as budget authority giving the federal government legal permission to use general revenues to pay Social Security benefits when current Social Security taxes are insufficient to pay current benefits--something that will happen in 2016. Effectively, general revenues will finance Social Security when the trust fund redeems its Treasury bonds for cash to pay benefits.

What really matters is not how much money is in the Social Security trust fund or when it is exhausted, but how much Social Security benefits have been promised and how much total revenue the government will need to pay them.

The answer to this question can be found on page 63 of the trustees report. It says that the payroll tax rate would have to rise 1.9% immediately and permanently to pay all the benefits that have been promised over the next 75 years for Social Security and disability insurance.

But this really understates the problem because there are many people alive today who will be drawing Social Security benefits more than 75 years from now. Economists generally believe that the appropriate way of calculating the program's long-term cost is to do so in perpetuity, adjusted for the rate of interest, something called discounting or present value.

Social Security's actuaries make such a calculation on page 64. It says that Social Security's unfunded liability in perpetuity is $17.5 trillion (treating the trust fund as meaningless). The program would need that much money today in a real trust fund outside the government earning a true return to pay for all the benefits that have been promised over and above future Social Security taxes. In effect, the capital stock of the nation would have to be $17.5 trillion larger than it is right now. Alternatively, the payroll tax rate would have to rise by 4%.

To put it another way, Social Security's unfunded liability equals 1.3% of the gross domestic product. So if we were to fund its deficit with general revenues, income taxes would have to rise by 1.3% of GDP immediately and forever. With the personal income tax raising about 10% of GDP in coming years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this means that every taxpayer would have to pay 13% more just to make sure that all Social Security benefits currently promised will be paid.

As bad as that is, however, Social Security's problems are trivial compared to Medicare's. Its trustees also issued a report this week. On page 69 we see that just part A of that program, which pays for hospital care, has an unfunded liability of $36.4 trillion in perpetuity. The payroll tax rate would have to rise by 6.5% immediately to cover that shortfall or 2.8% of GDP forever. Thus every taxpayer would face a 28% increase in their income taxes if general revenues were used to pay future Medicare part A benefits that have been promised over and above revenues from the Medicare tax.

But this is just the beginning of Medicare's problems, because it also has two other programs: part B, which covers doctor's visits, and part D, which pays for prescription drugs.

The unfunded portion of Medicare part B is already covered by general revenues under current law. The present value of that is $37 trillion or 2.8% of GDP in perpetuity according to the trustees report (p. 111). The unfunded portion of Medicare part D, which was rammed into law by George W. Bush and a Republican Congress in 2003, is also covered by general revenues under current law and has a present value of $15.5 trillion or 1.2% of GDP forever (p. 127).

To summarize, we see that taxpayers are on the hook for Social Security and Medicare by these amounts: Social Security, 1.3% of GDP; Medicare part A, 2.8% of GDP; Medicare part B, 2.8% of GDP; and Medicare part D, 1.2% of GDP. This adds up to 8.1% of GDP. Thus federal income taxes for every taxpayer would have to rise by roughly 81% to pay all of the benefits promised by these programs under current law over and above the payroll tax.

Since many taxpayers have just paid their income taxes for 2008 they may have their federal returns close at hand. They all should look up the total amount they paid and multiply that figure by 1.81 to find out what they should be paying right now to finance Social Security and Medicare.

To put it another way, the total unfunded indebtedness of Social Security and Medicare comes to $106.4 trillion. That is how much larger the nation's capital stock would have to be today, all of it owned by the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, to generate enough income to pay all the benefits that have been promised over and above future payroll taxes. But the nation's total private net worth is only $51.5 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. In effect, we have promised the elderly benefits equal to more than twice the nation's total wealth on top of the payroll tax.

Of course, theoretically, benefits could be cut to prevent the necessity of a massive tax increase. But how likely is that? The percentage of the population that benefits from Social Security and Medicare is growing daily as the baby boom generation ages and longevity increases. And the elderly vote in the highest percentage of any age group, so their political influence is even greater than their numbers.

The reality, which absolutely no one in either party wishes to face, is that benefits are never going to be cut enough to prevent the necessity of a massive tax increase in the not-too-distant future. Those who think otherwise are either grossly ignorant of the fiscal facts, in denial, or living in a fantasy world.

Quote For The Day

2009-07-26T23:53:00.000-04:00

"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

*Adrian Rogers, 1931*

Proof That Socialized Healthcare Is NOT "Fair"

2009-07-26T18:10:00.002-04:00

Immediate overnight hospital stays, "batteries" of tests performed quickly, and being rushed to the hospital by helicopter. Do you think that every French citizen who pays into the government healthcare system (like the one BHO wants to implement here, with or without our consent) gets this kind of five-star treatment?

I'll bet it'll be just as "fair" here in the US when BHO and CHappaquiddick Ted enact their Socialist healthcare abomination.

PARIS — French President Nicolas Sarkozy collapsed while jogging Sunday on the lush grounds of the Chateau of Versailles and will stay at a hospital overnight even though tests so far have found nothing wrong, his office said.

Military doctors quickly performed a battery of tests on the 54-year-old president, who is known for his hyperactivity. The presidential Elysee Palace said Sarkozy's test results were normal but that doctors would keep him under cardiological observation until Monday.

Upon his collapse, Sarkozy was rushed by helicopter to a military hospital. His office denied the president had lost consciousness in the episode. The Elysee Palace statement followed reports from members of Sarkozy's government and his chief of staff, who had indicated that Sarkozy had lost consciousness.

The Law of Natural Selection Still Working: Gas-sniffing Aussie Combusts When Tasered

2009-07-21T14:32:00.003-04:00

KRISTEN GELINEAU, AP --SYDNEY

A man whose relatives say had been sniffing gasoline burst into flames after a police officer Tasered him as he ran at officials carrying a container of fuel, police said Tuesday.

The man, identified by his family as 36-year-old Ronald Mitchell, was in critical condition at a Perth hospital in Western Australia state following Monday's incident in Warburton, an Aboriginal community 950 miles (1,540 kilometers) northeast of Perth.

Western Australia police said they were responding to a complaint at a house when Mitchell ran outside carrying a cigarette lighter and a large plastic bottle containing what they believe was fuel. When he refused to stop running toward them, one officer Tasered him, police said in a statement.

The man was immediately engulfed in flames. The officer threw him to the ground and smothered the blaze with his hands, the statement said. Mitchell was charged with assault to prevent arrest and possession of a sniffing substance.

An 18-year-old woman threw rocks at the officer as he tried to help, and he was later treated for a cut on his head and burns to his hands, police said.

The woman was charged with two counts of assaulting an officer, police Sgt. Graham Clifford said. Two others at the house were charged with possessing a sniffing substance.

Mitchell's sister, Morinda West, told The Australian newspaper that her brother had been sniffing gasoline and that when he ran out of the house he was carrying a lighter and an orange juice container full of gasoline.

Police spokeswoman Susan Usher said Mitchell appeared to have received third-degree burns to about ten percent of his body.

Western Australia Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan defended the officer's actions on Tuesday, calling Mitchell a known gasoline sniffer and violent offender.

"The police officers were concerned that they were going to be burnt so they deployed a Taser," O'Callaghan told reporters in Perth. "The only other choice they would have had is to use a police-issue firearm and the circumstances would almost certainly have been far more grave."

O'Callaghan also said that while Mitchell did burst into flames after the Taser was deployed, it wasn't immediately clear if the stun gun actually sparked the fire.

"There is a very strong possibility the fire was caused by the lighter in the hand of the offender," he said.

The officer who Tasered Mitchell was not suspended, Clifford said.

The only part with which I take issue is this:

"The only other choice they would have had is to use a police-issue firearm and the circumstances would almost certainly have been far more grave."

Personally, I'd rather be shot than immolated, though I guess it depends upon the 10% of you that is crispy. Considering the EU's stance on firearms, however, maybe the Commish meant that things would've been far more grave for the officer defending himself from a strung-out maniac if he had actually shot the stupid SOB.

We're The Only Ones Shocking The Kids Enough

2009-07-20T15:52:00.004-04:00

EAST ST. LOUIS, Ill. —

A federal civil rights lawsuit alleges a southern Illinois sheriff's deputy used a stun gun on three children at an emergency shelter while a fellow deputy mistreated a fourth child.

The children's guardian is suing the Jefferson County deputies, the county and Sheriff Roger Mulch.

According to the lawsuit filed July 1, the deputies responded to the shelter near Mount Vernon last summer to help control two 12-year-olds and an 11-year-old. But the three children who were allegedly shocked with the stun gun and another child who was forced into a closet after trying to intervene weren't the youths who prompted the call.

No criminal charges have been filed. And Mulch says investigations, including one by Illinois State Police, found that the deputies acted appropriately.

Acted appropriately?! Wow. Here's a snippet from the weblog Plaintiff pap who has more detail than the Comcast "news-lite"

According to the suit, Deputies David Bowers and Lonnie Lawler were sent to the Southern Thirty Adolescent Center near Mount Vernon on July 4, 2008, because of staff concerns about the behavior of three other children, ages 11 and 12. The center is an emergency shelter for children ages 11-18. Boys live there. Girls stay in foster homes but go to the center for day activities.The suit says that without any physical provocation, Bowers used a Taser on one boy multiple times, including at least once on his neck. Bowers pushed another boy down on his bunk and threatened to sodomize him before shocking him multiple times and causing him to urinate and defecate, the suit says. Lawler then handcuffed another boy before Bowers shocked him multiple times with the Taser.

A 17-year-old girl who was pleading with the deputies to stop was then handcuffed by Lawler, choked and threatened by Bowers and then tossed into a closet, the suit says. The suit accuses Mulch of either knowingly, or with deliberate indifference, tolerating a "pattern and practice of unreasonable use of force by (his) deputies."Mulch, Bowers and Lawler did not respond to multiple phone messages left in recent days seeking comment.

What could possibly justify sich behavior in the mind of "The Only Ones"? The "us vs them" mentality, of course. The attitude that "they" must dominate "us" who are nothing more than subhuman nuisances who must never dare to challenge their "authoriteh".

Here is Sheriff Mulch's take on the situation:

“All of the children out there have a history of problems, specifically, behavior problems,” Mulch said. “We get calls out there every day and they are handled appropriately. If (the youth) don’t comply, we have to make them mind. Tasers were deployed. They took care of the situation and left. They took care of the situation and handled it appropriately.”

So there you have it: You are a problem and you must comply or be tased. That's the appropriate way to handle people when you're an Only One.

Cost Of BHO's Healthcare Bill

2009-07-18T10:07:00.001-04:00

h/t to Tom

Sharia In The United States

2009-07-08T08:25:00.003-04:00

I guarantee this will make your blood boil. h/t to Jihad Watch

A Question For The Liberals

2009-07-02T15:04:00.001-04:00

From Ray @ A Moral compass

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non- existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as “proof” of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.

The Shit Has Already Hit The Fan

2009-06-30T08:32:00.002-04:00

From "Gadsden"

I was thinking the other day. For me in my life, consequences have always taken a fair amount of time to set in... for me to really 'get it'. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I am not outside rusting, either... but I will get back to the point.

Simply put... As of last year, we now have:
1. government controlled investment firms
2. government controlled banks
3. government controlled motors

We are well on our way to:
1. government owned healthcare
2. government owned energy industries

The Shit hit the fan already. I repeat, the shit has already hit the fan. Now we are just waiting for the consequences to set in. Americans are dull and lazy due to relatively easy lives. The consequences will be horrible unempoloyment and the debasement of our currency to the point it will be replaced... all of this leading to some sort of 'dark age'. I predict the dark days won't last more than Maybury's 3-5 years but they will be violent and brutal.

How else can 300 million people (US population) get by when nobody needs grass cutting, counter tops, mechanics, etc. and government employees don't have real pay because there is horrible inflation/ debasement of currency and a broken government that is forced to lay off/ make cuts on a large percentage of its workers

Welcome To The Ministry Of Truth

2009-06-16T11:27:00.002-04:00

Wow. Who'd have thought we would have State-run Media in our lifetimes. George Orwell must be rolling over in his grave...

From The Drudge Report

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained 'false premises':

"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

Developing...

Still Know How To Groove

2009-05-27T09:55:00.002-04:00

YES ! I've been looking for this song off and on since it was first released. Enjoy!

Liberals "Frustrated" On Gun Issues

2009-05-25T08:25:00.004-04:00

Good! The more their plans to disarm and subjugate us are frustrated, the better. Some of these politicians just floor me. They know that gun control is a third-rail issue, yet they mulishly insist on pushing their agenda.

Here are some excerpts from the article:

"We'll probably end up passing more gun bills" that expand owners' rights "than we did during the Republican administration," said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., a leading gun control advocate. "That is what surprises me."

Let me tell you, Carolyn, if this comes about, I might just end up voting Democrat for the first time in my life.

She placed less blame on the White House than on ordinary Americans and advocacy groups that are consistently outflanked by gun owners' groups, especially the National Rifle Association.

"Until the American people say enough is enough, and get active in it," Democratic control of Congress and the White House will not be enough to turn the tide, said McCarthy, whose husband was killed by a gunman in 1993.

Hello... The American people have said "enough is enough," and gotten active. Have you seen the incredible rise in firearms sales? Have you any idea how scarce ammo is, because it flies off the shelves as fast as sellers can get it stocked? Be certain of this, Carolyn McCarthy (D of New York), regardless of any legislation you may pass, no matter what measures you may take, We will NOT be disarmed !

The gun votes were less surprising to many Democrats than were the Guantanamo developments. The NRA remains among the most powerful lobbies, and many lawmakers take care to stay off its political enemies list.

"People do not want to be on the wrong side of this particular cultural divide," said Rep. David Price, D-N.C., who supports tougher gun controls. "It's too bad there's not a more responsible national organization" to counteract the NRA, he said.

Note Price's word choice: "the wrong side." They know they're doing wrong, but somehow can't help themselves. And by the way, David, there is a more responsible national organization that counteracts the NRA. It's called Gun Owner's of America. They do a fine job of responsibly counteracting the NRA's milktoast pandering and "going along to get along."

In some ways, the gun-control lobby is choking on Democratic success in congressional races. "The seats we're picking up come disproportionately from those more conservative areas," Price said, where linking the Democratic Party to gun control can be dangerous at re-election time.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California is another Democrat frustrated by the gun debate. When she asks colleagues why they don't support tougher restrictions, she said, they reply, "You just don't get it, Woolsey. You don't have our districts."

"It has to do with being afraid they'll lose their election if they stand up against guns," she said.

Think about it, Lynn. If your constituents oppose gun control, then how can you claim to represent them when you force issues that go against their wishes--let alone the very COnstitution that you have sworn to uphold. How about doing what you're supposed to do instead of trying to do whatever the Hell you want to do from your own personal agenda?

"I do believe that down the road the president will start working on some of the gun violence issues," said McCarthy, the New York Democrat. "But let's face it," she said. "We've got an awful lot of issues on our plate right now."

Be sure of this: try and disarm the American people and you'll have a lot more on your plate than you ever bargained for. Step off, bitch.

MOLWN LABE

Napolitano Faces Lawsuit For DHS "Rightwing Extremism Report"

2009-05-15T09:02:00.005-04:00

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced that on Thursday, April 16th, it filed a federal lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The lawsuit claims that her Department’s “Rightwing Extremism Policy,” as reflected in the recently publicized Intelligence Assessment, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” violates the civil liberties of combat veterans as well as American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of their political beliefs. Click here to read the complaint filed by the Thomas More Law Center.

Napolitano tried to blunt the public furor over the Report by a half-hearted apology to veterans, but she left out of her apology all of the other Americans her Department has targeted because of their political beliefs. In fact, officials in DHS now admit that their internal office of civil liberties objected to the language in the extremism report, but the Department issued it anyway.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center stated, “Janet Napolitano is lying to the American people when she says the Report is not based on ideology or political beliefs. In fact, her report would have the admiration of the Gestapo and any current or past dictator in the way it targets political opponents. This incompetently written intelligence assessment, which directs law enforcement officials across the country to target and report on American citizens who have the political beliefs mentioned in the report, will be used as a tool to stifle political opposition and opinions. It will give a pretext for opponents of those Americans to report them to police as rightwing extremists and terrorists. You can imagine what happens then.”

The Report specifically mentions the following political beliefs that law enforcement should use to determine whether someone is a “rightwing extremist”:

Opposes abortion (check)
Opposes restrictions on firearms (check)
Opposes lax immigration (check)
Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs (check)
Opposes continuation of free trade agreements (check)
Opposes same-sex marriage (check)
Has paranoia of foreign regimes (I don't know if I'd call it "paranoia," but I sure don't want to live under a regime even resembling what the rest of the world has going on. For the sake of argument, I'll say "check.")
Fear of Communist regimes (See above. Check.)
Opposes one world government (Check. Until Jesus comes back, anyway.)
Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world. (check)
Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India (check)

. . . and the list goes on
(Remember, the list "goes on" by also including people who supported "radical" candidates like Dr. Ron Paul, Pastor Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr. With an unbroken string of "offenses," it looks like Janet Napolitano considers me, my family, and just about everybody at our church to be domestic terrorists. If a man is known by his enemies, then I am proud to be considered an "enemy of the State" by an unbalanced, power-hungry totalitarian bitch like Napolitano.)

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host, Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham (President of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc (CBR)), and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray. The Law Center claims that Napolitano’s Department (DHS) has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by attempting to chill their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that the Department of Homeland Security encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.

Thompson added, “The Obama Administration has declared war on American patriots and our Constitution. The Report even admits that the Department has no specific information on any plans of violence by so-called ‘rightwing extremists.’ Rather, what they do have is the expression of political opinions by certain individuals and organizations that oppose the Obama administration’s policies, and this expression is protected speech under the First Amendment.”

The Law Center is asking the court to declare that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, to permanently enjoin the Policy and its application to the plaintiffs’ speech and other activities, and to award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for having to bring the lawsuit.

Click here to read the DHS extremism report.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

One Less Wolf, One More Confirmed Sheepdog

2009-05-14T09:55:00.009-04:00

h/t to The Freeholder

College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader
Posted: 4:53 pm EDT May 4, 2009
Updated: 9:09 am EDT May 7, 2009

COLLEGE PARK, Ga. -- A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own. Police said a fellow student shot and killed one of two masked me who burst into an apartment.

Channel 2 Action News reporter Tom Jones met with one of the students to talk about the incident.

“Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey.

TOM JONES: College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader

Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door.

“They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, ‘Give me your wallets and cell phones,’” said George Williams of the College Park Police Department.

Bailey said the gunmen started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey.

That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.

The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.

Calvin Lavant, dead bad guy

“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.

A neighbor heard the shots and heard someone running nearby.

“And I heard someone say, ‘Someone help me. Call the police. Somebody call the police,’” said a neighbor.

The neighbor said she believes it was Lavant, who was found dead near his apartment, only one building away.

Bailey said he is just thankful one student risked his life to keep others alive.

“I think all of us are really cognizant of the fact that we could have all been killed,” said Bailey.

One female student was shot several times during the crossfire. She is expected to make a full recovery.

Police said they are close to making the arrest of the second suspect.

Why didn't this make the national news?!

UPDATE: (h/t to Lawyer) Jamal Hill of Crisp county arrested on suspicion of being the second invader.

Indianapolis Homeowner Opens Fire On Burglars

2009-05-12T17:02:00.003-04:00

Kudos to you, Danielle!

Here is an excerpt from the article.

"I woke up and there's this man in my house and I heard the window and I grabbed my gun and I fired at him. I'm not going to be his victim and they're not going to run me and my kids out of my home," said the woman, identified only by her first name, Danielle.

Danielle said she was determined not to be a victim.

"I did what I had to do not only to protect myself but to protect my home because I didn't know whether or not - hey, are you coming here to rob me, are you coming here to rape and beat or kill me and I'm not going to stop and ask you questions as to, hey, dude, what's your intent," she said. "My dad always said, 'If you feel threatened, you put a bullet in them.'"

...snip...

This is my favorite part...

So Monday, she was ready, with the weapon she's had for almost a decade.
"It needs to send a message. If you go into someone's home, be prepared for whatever consequences there might be," Danielle said. "If I had to do it all over again, I would make sure I had better practice."

The rest of the Indianapolis Star article HERE

Abusive Power & The Culture Of Obedience

2009-05-10T16:06:00.003-04:00

Abusive Power and the Culture of Obedience
By Bretigne Shaffer
Published 05/07/09

"But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." - Thomas Jefferson, 1819

Ask anyone who has lived under a repressive regime and they can tell you how it changes people. There are the obvious things like the fear of the knock at the door in the middle of the night, the loss of control over even the most mundane aspects of one's own life and people using the apparatus of the state to settle personal grudges. But beneath all of these are deeper changes to the the way people behave and the way they treat each other. There is the unwillingness to smile or speak to strangers, or even to open up too much to friends for fear of information getting into the wrong hands. There is the widespread breakdown of trust between people, and then there is just the petty meanness that becomes more and more the norm.

Americans may not be living in a gulag state yet, but each day it becomes harder and harder to argue that we do not have significant elements of a police state. Along with this increased authoritarianism come the deeper cultural changes that have every bit as real an impact on the quality of our lives. For the costs brought by the loss of freedom cannot be fully accounted for simply by pointing to incidents of abuse or tallying up the economic damage. The deterioration in the quality of our relationships to each other is also a cost.

It seems that every day brings new accounts of police assaults upon unarmed civilians. From the arrest and tasering of a student asking a question of John Kerry at a public forum, to the tasering of an eight-months-pregnant woman who refused to sign a traffic ticket, to the deaf man who didn't hear police officers' command to stop and was tasered -- after the officers had shot and killed his dog.

Such incidents are becoming more and more commonplace, as are military-style no-knock raids on people's homes in non-violent, non-threatening situations. Radley Balko documents this very well in his 2006 report "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America." At the time this report was published, approximately 40,000 of these kinds of raids were conducted each year, resulting in ". . . dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects."

These incidents for the most part have nothing to do with preserving law and order, certainly nothing to do with protecting or serving, and everything to do with maintaining authority. Not the authority of a just and reasonable law that protects people from things like murder, assault and theft, but simply the authority of those in charge to do what they want and to demand what they want, whether or not the law is just -- or indeed whether they are even acting in accordance with the law. How anyone can find this compatible with a free society is beyond comprehension.

Yet what is most disturbing is how so many of us are so willing to take the side of the enforcers in these situations. A glance at the online comments on articles about these incidents reveals the all-too prevalent view that the victims of police assault should have just gone along with the officers and followed orders and that if they didn't then they got what they deserved.

Here is a sampling of some comments on a video of a woman tasered at a routine traffic stop:

"I was a cop for about five years and that is the way it should be. You need to listen to what the officer tells you!"

"Once you are pulled over and given a direct order from a police officer, you are to obey. The lady made her situation worse by not listening. . ."

Perhaps most telling: "I've been tased before, that sh*t f***ing hurts like hell. Next time I going to listen."

Here is one representative comment on a video of an obviously unarmed man being brutally tasered by police:

"they didnt (sic) do anything wrong, he got plenty of time to comply, he was resisting arrest and even when they got him on the ground he got back up again"

And here are some from a video of an inebriated woman who is clearly already under the control of a police officer, being tasered by another officer:

"WHEN POLICE GIVE YOU DIRECTIONS, COOPERATE and cops don't have to put you under control."

"If you fail to comply with verbal commands and and resist officers with or without violence, this is what happens. The suspect obviously didn't want to go along with the program and was tased. It's easy math: Stupid + resisting +(sic) Tased!! Class dismissed!"

If the commentators' only point is that when confronted with a dangerous bully, it may not be smart to stick to your principles and point out that he has no right to do what he is doing -- that it is better to go along with him and get out of the situation safely -- then yes, they have a point. But the real question should be: Why have we institutionalized dangerous bullies in our society in the first place?

But of course that is not their only point. These commentators are essentially saying that obedience to the law, and to law enforcers, may be demanded at any price. There is no sense of proportionality -- the idea that even if a person is resisting a just law, perhaps the nature of the offense is not so serious as to justify inflicting bodily harm. In fact, there seems to be an absence of any idea that law-enforcement officers even need to justify their actions.

These people question neither the law being enforced, nor the methods used to enforce the law. More disturbingly though, many seem quite comfortable defending the right of law-enforcement officers to get their way even when they are not upholding the law.

When Ron Paul staffer Steve Bierfeldt was detained at the St. Louis Airport because he wouldn't answer TSA officers' questions about the money he was carrying until they could tell him that he was legally required to do so, many of the commentators on YouTube supported his actions. But many did not:

"jezz just answer a few baisc (sic) questions and get on the damm plane.. stop acting 12. (sic)"

"...you don't have to answer the questions... but you don't have to fly on a plane air travel IS NOT A RIGHT."

"...I don't mind them asking questions for someone who has $4700 on their person. Clearly that's a little suspicious."

The view here is essentially that we have no rights, that all law is right and must be obeyed, and further -- and more disturbing -- that even if there is no law behind an officer's command, it must still be obeyed. The position is simply this: Might makes right, and those who protest or resist deserve to have might inflicted upon them.

I am no pollster, and I cannot say with any authority how representative these views are of the public at large. However it is my experience that they are not uncommon and may even be the majority view.

Somewhere along the way (I'm guessing that "somewhere" was a government-run school), a large number of Americans learned to equate "law and order" with "obedience to authority." They no longer see the role of law enforcers as serving the people, but believe that it is our role to serve them. We have become so accustomed to a high level of intrusiveness in our lives that we have no trouble accepting pat downs and body searches as a requirement to travel from one place to another, for example. Far from claiming a right to "freedom of movement" most of us seem to believe that any kind of movement is a privilege and that we may travel only at the pleasure of our rulers.

We live in a world where it is a federal offense for an ordinary citizen to assault a postal employee, but where government employees wearing badges are free to assault private citizens upon little or no provocation, to break into their homes unannounced and armed to the teeth, to administer potentially deadly force when such people do not demonstrate sufficient obedience or display a "bad attitude." In the rare event that such people are prosecuted for their actions, they are usually let off with a slap on the wrist -- while those (like Cory Maye) who defend themselves from such attacks face long prison sentences or even the death penalty.

When it gets this bad, it becomes less about whether we are living in a free society than whether we are living in a civilized one. For the end result of this police state business and the culture of obedience that it breeds is a breakdown of civilized behavior between people who share a city, a neighborhood, or a country. We are becoming a nation of prisoners and prison guards -- a nation where increasingly, people are treated as something sub-human. Ordinary people are becoming accustomed to being treated like criminals, and from what the online chatter tells us, they are liking it -- and resenting those who don't.

So what can those of us who know better do? It is one thing to combat police abuse, the illegitimate laws that give them the power to abuse, and a system that protects them from genuine accountability. That's hard enough. But how do you combat an entire culture that increasingly seems to think this is the way things should be?

I don't have a solution, but I do know that there are a few basic things we need to do if we are to avoid being steamrolled by the culture of the police state. At a bare minimum, we need to do the following:

First, call out abusive and uncivilized behavior by authorities where we see it. Call them on it whenever possible and call it what it is. Refuse to be treated like a criminal if you aren't one. What Steve Bierfeldt did at the St. Louis Airport was exactly right. He was civil and polite, but refused to be bullied into complying with agents' demands until they told him the legal justification for what they were asking.

Second, we need to refuse to go along with others being treated like criminals if they aren't. Even if we cannot always prevent this treatment, we can at the very least let the perpetrators know that we do not approve. This may not sound like much, but it does make an impression, however small. And not to do it is essentially to say that we don't mind living under tyranny, that we will go along with seeing our friends and neighbors treated as less than human, and that we won't resist when it happens to us.

Above all, we must not become these people. We must remain civil and civilized as we refuse to participate in the transformation of our country into a police state. Because in refusing to be accomplices to tyranny that is really what we are standing up for. Not only liberty and peace, but something that is intimately intertwined with both: civilized society itself.

Dr. Ron Paul On Secession

2009-04-28T10:31:00.000-04:00

Last week the governor of Texas ignited a media firestorm for his remarks involving the idea of secession. He did not call for Texas to secede from the United States. He merely pointed out that the federal government was treading heavily on the sovereignty of the states and that this can not continue indefinitely without a breaking point.

The reaction to Governor Perry's statements has been nothing short of hysterical. He has been called treasonous for making this obvious point and opening up a discussion. I am not calling for secession either, however there is nothing wrong with a healthy and open discussion of this issue.

America was born from an act of secession. When King George's rule trampled on the rights of the colonies, we successfully seceded from England. It took a war, but we were well within our rights. We applauded when former soviet states seceded from the USSR and declared their sovereignty. And hopefully the United States will eventually secede from the United Nations. We pay most of the bills of the UN, yet do not have the commensurate votes, so someday we will wake up and realize that membership, for these and other reasons, does not serve our interests.

On a personal level, contracts you enter into can be terminated if one side unilaterally changes the terms. If a credit card company jacks up your interest rate, you have every right to fulfill your obligations and close the account. Imagine if you were forced to stay with a credit card company forever no matter what just because you previously signed up! The principle of self-determination applies to political unions as well. In the cases I mentioned above, governing organizations transformed into much more overbearing entities than originally agreed upon. Several state constitutions originally had clauses explicitly allowing them to opt out of the Union down the road if they so chose. I doubt our country would have ever come together if this were not the case. Just because the north successfully kept the union together by force with the Civil War does not mean that enslaving the states is a legitimate alternative.

Secession is the last resort of states whose sovereignty is over-ridden by an overreaching federal government. The federal government has only itself to blame for this talk. Recently, some states have enacted laws allowing for the medicinal use of marijuana, yet these laws are basically voided by the continuing raids by the DEA, sanctioned by the administration. The federal government is also strong-arming states with stimulus money, forcing them to expand programs they know they will not be able to afford in the future, at a time when many states' budgets are already in the red. This is not a new problem. No Child Left Behind burdened the states' education systems and forced them through many hoops designed by federal bureaucrats in distant Washington DC rather than allowing communities to tailor education to their children's unique needs. There are numerous other examples of the erosion of state sovereignty and many governors are frustrated, not just ours in Texas. Without the right to secede, state's rights are meaningless.

A republican form of government should also be as close to the people as possible, which means the decisions of local governing bodies must be respected. Where the decisions of local governments are disregarded, the voice of the people is also disregarded. The more that happens, the more frustrated and angry the people will become.

It's Hard To Get Security Clearance When You're A Kenyan-Born Muslim...

2009-04-24T16:45:00.004-04:00

Barry’s Got the Nuke Codes, But No Security Clearance!

By Joy Tiz Thursday, April 23, 2009
Is it possible that as brilliant as our Founding Fathers were, perchance they gave us a little too much credit? Notwithstanding their sagacity, the Founders likely never envisaged a scenario in which the American people would elect a Commander in Chief who is a national security risk.

Numerous government positions require some level of security screening, as do sensitive jobs in the private sector involving certain types of government contracts. The job of President of the United States, regrettably, does not require any level of security clearance.

The process of applying for a national security clearance starts with the Questionnaire for National Security Purposes. Even a cursory review of the application shows there are a few sections that could have been troublesome for Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Obama.

The process is explained:

“Background investigations for national security positions are conducted to gather information to show whether you are reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and loyal to the U.S. The information that you provide on this form may be confirmed during the investigation. The investigation may extend beyond the time covered by this form when necessary to resolve issues. Your current employer may be contacted as part of the investigation, even if you have previously indicated on applications or other forms that you do not want your current employer to be contacted.”

Note the requirement of loyalty to the US. Obama’s recent canoodling with anti- American tyrants would merit further investigation if he were applying for a security clearance.

Barack Obama would benefit from the magnanimous seven year limit on requests for information about illegal drug use. A bullet dodged, if Obama were required to have a basic national security clearance. A private in the military could be required to be cleared if assigned a position which gives access to classified information. Access to the nuke codes will be gleefully granted without preconditions.

Section 16: People Who Know You Well. Should provide interesting reading. In my research for Obamanutz: A Cult Leader Takes the White House, I came to the inescapable conclusion that Barack Obama does not know a single normal person. If he were a truthful man, he would have to list Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers among those who know him best. That ought to generate some further probing. The process would be streamlined by the large volume of information about many Barack associates already in the possession of various law enforcement agencies.

Section 9: Citizenship. This could also be a bit of a sticky wicket. At last, Obama would have to produce that birth certificate he claims to have but has invested nearly a million dollars in keeping secret. We can assume that he currently holds a US passport, but take a look at Section 10. While Barry may well have been born in Hawaii, his father was not a US citizen, nor was his stepfather. Barry went to live in Indonesia at the age of six and was enrolled in a Muslim school by his stepfather. A truthful applicant would certainly provide detailed information about his years in Jakarta.

While we’re at it, could the reviewer be interested in Barry’s travels to Pakistan in the early 1980’s? The nation was under martial law at the time and United States citizens were not permitted to enter. We know Barry took one trip, possibly more. More cynical types of reviewers would probably want to find out a little more about those trips. All of the other kids went to Daytona that year for spring break.

Section 19: Foreign Contacts. This could be vexatious if the Commander in Chief were required to apply for a security clearance. A vigilant examiner may want to probe Obama’s relationship with the murderous Raila Odinga of Kenya, a fomenter of radical Islam and yet another Friend of Barry about whom questions could be asked.

The security questionnaire takes another whack at the passport issue in Section 20B, 6. Have you EVER held or do you now hold a passport that was issued by a foreign government?

Personally, I’d like to know this about any potential Commander in Chief.

Section 29: Association Record. Another potential snare, if Barack Obama had been required to obtain a security clearance. Note, there is extra space provided if needed.

Have you ever been an officer, member or made a contribution to an organization dedicated to terrorism? Another germane question! We know about Obama’s ties to Jeremiah Wright, who gave an award to Louis Farrakhan, a creature Wright characterizes as the “epitome of greatness”. The Nation of Islam makes no secret of its wish to destroy white society and has no discomfort with using violence. Obama’s relationship to Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam certainly would have to be explored by any halfway competent examiner, if the president were required to obtain a security clearance.

Barack Obama’s friendship with Rashid Khalidi could prove inconvenient as well. Former Arafat spokesman, Khalidi, uses his post in academia to champion Islamic extremism and anti-Semitism while raking in funding from the UAE. Obama has made grants via Bill Ayers’ Woods Fund to Khalidi’s Arab American Action Network. Another relationship probably worthy of scrutiny before granting the applicant access to sensitive government data.

Section b. asks about associations with organizations dedicated to overthrowing the US government. Surely, Obama would acknowledge his membership in the socialist organization, Chicago’s New Party. Support for Obama from the New Party required his membership and it was made abundantly clear that there would be zero tolerance for an in name only type of membership. In the interest of veracity, Obama couldn’t disregard his former mentor, Alice Palmer an unashamed supporter of the Soviet Union and member of the US Peace Council, identified by the FBI as a notorious Communist front group. Even the most somnambulant bureaucrat would raise a red flag and feel compelled to dig a little deeper.

A personal interview may be required of the applicant, providing an opportunity to explain information on the form more completely. It’s a safe wager that Obama’s application would earn him a personal interview. That is, if the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the world were required to obtain a national security clearance.

Dr. Ron Paul: The Case Against The Income Tax

2009-04-15T10:53:00.002-04:00

Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen's hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.

Yet don't we need an income tax to fund the important functions of the federal government? You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.

The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results.

America without an income tax would be far more prosperous and far more free, but we must be prepared to fight to regain the liberty we have lost incrementally over the past century. I recently introduced "The Liberty Amendment," legislation which would repeal the 16th Amendment and effectively abolish the income tax. I truly believe that real tax reform, reform that so many frustrated Americans desperately want, requires bold legislation that challenges the Washington mind set. Congress talks about reform, but the current tax debate really involves nothing of substance. Both parties are content to continue tinkering with the edges of the tax code to please various special interests. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

Is it impossible to end the income tax? I don't believe so. In fact, I believe a serious groundswell movement of disaffected taxpayers is growing in this country. Millions of Americans are fed up with the current tax system, and they will bring pressure on Congress. Some sidestep Congress completely, bringing legal challenges questioning the validity of the tax code and the 16th Amendment itself. Ultimately, the Liberty Amendment could serve as a flashpoint for these millions of voices.

Note: This article was written back in 2001. Whatever happened to "The Liberty Amendment? Maybe it's high time we bring it back up and really put the pressure on our Congresscritters to push it through.

Navy SEALs Rescue Hijacked Captain Phillips

2009-04-12T18:59:00.003-04:00

There's nothing more I could add to this apart from the words, "Well done, gentlemen!" and "Thank God for the US Navy SEALs; may He bless the quiet professionals who honor their oath to uphold and defend our Constitution, our nation and her citizens. Those men who forge their bodies in the fire of their wills and choose to sweat more in training so that they might bleed less in combat. Gentlemen, you are undoubtedly some of the most BAMF guys on the planet, and you do us honor by your courage and commitment."

MOMBASA, Kenya – U.S. Navy snipers opened fire and killed three pirates holding an American captain at gunpoint in a lifeboat, delivering the skipper unharmed and ending a five-day high-seas hostage drama on Easter Sunday.

The pirates were pointing AK-47s at Capt. Richard Phillips and he was in "imminent danger" of being killed when the commander of the nearby USS Bainbridge made the split-second decision to order his men to shoot, Vice Adm. Bill Gortney said.

MOMBASA, Kenya (AP) — An American ship captain was freed unharmed Sunday and three of his captors were killed in a daring rescue by U.S. Navy Seals that ended a five-day standoff between the world's most powerful Navy and Somali pirates in a lifeboat far off the Horn of Africa.

Gortney said U.S. Navy SEALs were involved in the rescue effort, but he did not know which snipers took the shots that killed the pirates. Phillips, who was tied up in the small lifeboat, was within feet of the pirates when they were shot. In addition to carrying AK-47s, the pirates were armed with small caliber pistols, he said.

BHO Reaches Out To "Moderate" Pirates

2009-04-10T17:06:00.002-04:00

Compliments of Exurban League

After maintaining his silence for two days, President Obama will soon make his first public statement about the pirate attack upon an U.S.-flagged vessel off the Horn of Africa. After several inquiries and a few well-placed bribes, Exurban League has received an early transcript of the President's remarks:

Good evening. As you know, early yesterday, Somali-based pirates attacked the Maersk Alabama, a freighter carrying relief supplies to Kenya. While we do not yet know all the details, the Alabama's crew re-took control of the vessel and forced the pirates off the ship.

Since the pirates are still holding the captain, I have sent FBI negotiators to facilitate his safe and speedy release. I assure his friends and family that I will not stop until this man-made disaster is resolved in a peaceful, tolerant and ecologically-sound manner.

Obviously, this incident has raised many concerns among Americans. There have been calls for justice and even violence against the misguided perpetrators. But such an emotional reaction has led to the disparagement of entire groups with which we are unfamiliar. We have seen this throughout history.

For too long, America has been too dismissive of the proud culture and invaluable contributions of the Pirate Community. Whether it is their pioneering work with prosthetics, husbandry of tropical birds or fanciful fashion sense, America owes a deep debt to Pirates.

The past eight years have shown a failure to appreciate the historic role of these noble seafarers. Instead of celebrating their entreprenuerial spirit and seeking to partner with them to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

Some of us wonder if our current Overseas Contingency Operation would even be needed had the last administration not been so quick to label Pirates as "thieves," "terrorists" and worse. Such swashbucklaphobia can lead to tragic results, as we have seen this week.

To address this issue, I have instructed Vice President Joe Biden to create a cabinet-level Czar of Pirate Outreach and Buccaneer Interrelation. In addition, June 1-7 has been designated as Pirate Awareness Week, during which all federal buildings will fly the Jolly Roger and sponsor sensitivity training. Thankfully, my American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will fund free grog and hard tack for all attendees.

Finally, to all pirates listening to international broadcasts, shortwave services and ship-to-shore radio, let me say this:

Ahoy, me regret arr relationship has set sail in a scurvy manner. Arr people share many mutual 'alues and concerns on t' raging main. Perchance, could ye handsomely release the cap'n o' the ship and I assure that no harm will come t' ye or ye hearties. Let us smite t' reset button and launch our seabond on a new pegleg. Savvy? Godspeed t' ye and t' ye beauties. Aye, me parrot concurs.

Did He Drop It...Or Just Throw It Away?

2009-04-09T14:26:00.001-04:00

Compliments of Americans For Limited Government

Zombie Attack!

2009-04-05T20:31:00.000-04:00

Can you Survive The Outbreak?

Surprise! Surprise!

2009-04-02T12:11:00.005-04:00

News reports and anti-violence organizations suggest that the US civilian firearms market is flooding Mexico with the weapons used by drug cartels and black marketeers to perpetrate violence. These firearms, we are told, are being purchased at gun shops and gun shows in the United States, and smuggled across the border into Mexico. Indeed, we are told that 90% of the firearms seized by the Mexican government and traced by the BATFE are found to have originated in the United States. Senator John Kerry recently told the Boston Globe that 1 of 4 weapons seized by the Mexican government are made available for tracing. Senator Kerry made this statement while he urged renewal of a federal US law banning civilian possession of “assault weapons” (various non-military semi-automatic firearms).

However, we are learning that many arms in the hands of Mexican drug cartels are military-grade automatic weapons, and that the numbers of cartel arms sourcing from the US civilian market are highly exaggerated.

What is being ignored is the fact that the United States government (via Departments of Defense and State) sells thousands of military and non-military firearms to foreign governments, including Mexico and Central and South American countries. The Small Arms Survey (SAS; Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva 2006; linked below) is highly informative.

Amazing! who would've thought that the U.S. Government selling weapons and ammunition to the Mexican government would explain the staggering numbers of guns and other weapons utilized by Mexican and other Latin American drug cartels?

I'm shocked, I tell you. Simply shocked at the thought that our own government might ever be part of the problem instead of the solution.

Who sold all the weapons to Madass Hinsane?

Hmmm...

I wonder who it could've been...

Who funded the Contras?

Hmmm... I wonder...

It's not like we have a history of these things coming back to bite us in the ass or anything.

Read the rest of David Codrea's article at The Gun Rights Examiner

Let's Play 20 Questions...

2009-04-02T12:09:00.002-04:00

h/t to the Western Rifle Shooters Association

If your spouse ran into the room and said her brother - a state trooper - just called to warn that raids under the new Federal assault weapons/domestic terrorism laws were beginning tonight:

1) Would you flee, assuming that you believed yourself to be "a person of interest"?

2) Whether your decision was to flee or to stand, what would your spouse and children do?

3) What would you and your family use as money and travel documents?

4) Would you have an adequate bag or two suitably packed and ready to go for each "fugitive"?

5) Would you have all medical necessities addressed for you and your family (e.g., teeth, immunizations, mitigation of any preexisting conditions, adequate supplies of maintenance drugs, etc.)?

6) What about three-season (fall/winter/spring) clothing for you and each family member?

7) What would you use for transportation?

8) What would you use to refuel your transportation?

9) Where would you go?

10) By what route(s)?

11) Upon arrival, where would you stay and for how long?

12) What would you use for communications (both receive and transmit)?

13) What would you tell your employer?

14) What would you tell your neighbors?

15) What would you tell your friends and family?

16) What would you use to buy what you need while in flight (fuel, food, transport, bribes, etc.)?

17) How would you alter your and your family's physical appearances while in flight?

18) Who would be your allies trustworthy enough to guard your life and the lives of your family?

19) How would you contact your allies?

20) What are your three alternate plans for each of the preceding questions?

Not Quite Ready To Be A Criminal

2009-04-02T10:59:00.001-04:00

TRENTON, N.J. – Police say a 19-year-old who tried to rob a liquor store sat down and cried after 76-year-old owner locked him in the store. The man was accused of trying to rob Sykes Liquor Store in Trenton Monday night. Police said the owner, who was behind the counter, triggered the lock after the man grabbed a bottle of Hennessy cognac and bolted for the door.

The man then allegedly pulled out a handgun and demanded to be released. But the owner said he saw that the gun was a fake, refused to unlock the door and called police.

Police said the suspect threw away the gun, slumped to the floor and was crying when officers arrived to arrest him.

Quote Of The Day

2009-04-01T10:46:00.000-04:00

"I am absolutely, totally in favor of strict gun controls - I believe every woman should be legally required to carry a 12-gauge pump equalizer at all times.

In her closet I'd like to see her have an array of equalizers in various colors to match her shoes and purses. Remington makes the highly chic Model 870 in pink..."

--Richard Maybury

BHO To Take Team Of Over 500 To Britain

2009-03-31T09:10:00.002-04:00

Original story HERE

Obama will fly into London for his first visit to the UK as president of the United States on Tuesday to take part in the G20 summit in the capital's Docklands area. He will not be travelling light.

More than 500 officials and staff will accompany the president on his tour this week - along with a mass of high-tech security equipment, including the $300,000 presidential limousine, known as The Beast. Fitted with night-vision camera, reinforced steel plating, tear- gas cannon and oxygen tanks, the vehicle is the ultimate in heavy armoured transport.

In addition, a team from the White House kitchen will travel with the president to prepare his food. As one official put it: "When the president travels, the White House travels with him, right down to the car he drives, the water he drinks, the gasoline he uses, the food he eats. America is still the sole superpower and the president must have the ability to handle any crisis, anywhere, any time."

Hmmm.... who's paying for all this pomp and circumstance and wasteful extravagance?

Oh, yeah, that's right--WE ARE !

UN Suggests Power-Share In Kirkuk

2009-03-30T09:56:00.002-04:00

KIRKUK, Iraq – Seeking to head off an explosion of ethnic violence, the United Nations will call for a power-sharing system of government for Iraq's deeply divided region of Kirkuk in the oil-rich north.

snip

Without a resolution, "I think Kirkuk will be like a TNT barrel and explode and burn everybody," Iraqi parliament lawmaker Mohammed Mahdi Amin al-Bayati, a Turkoman, said in an interview this week.

Deputy Gov. Rakan Saeed al-Jubouri, a Sunni Arab, agreed.

"Violence is very easy to start in Iraq," he said in a separate interview.

Slightly larger than Connecticut and dubbed by Saddam Hussein as Tamin province, Kirkuk is a land dotted with flaming smoke stacks on its oil fields and bustling markets. Its future hinges on whether its 1.3 million people will be run by Baghdad or by Irbil, the capital of the politically autonomous Kurdistan region in northern Iraq.

snip

A draft of the U.N. plan, according to two Western officials who have read it, offers five options. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not been finalized and they are not authorized to speak publicly about it.

Three of the options in the draft likely will be dismissed immediately as too extreme or unworkable, the officials said. The remaining two are:

_Making Kirkuk a "special status" province where both Iraq's Shiite-led central government and the Kurdish government in Irbil could have power. Final decisions would be left to provincial officials. The special status would likely last between three and 10 years, giving officials more time to figure out Kirkuk's final status.

None of Iraq's 17 other provinces, including the three that make up Kurdistan, currently has such an agreement.

_Making Kirkuk politically autonomous but still somewhat reliant on Baghdad for funding. This plan, favored by the Turkomen with political ties to Turkey, also would allow Kirkuk to collect revenue from federally owned North Oil Corp. refineries in the province.

snip

"The Americans should understand we cannot guarantee there will not be a civil war when they leave," said Turkoman councilman Hassan Toran.

Here's an idea: leave them the Hell alone to work out their problems. It's their country, not ours. If they want a Civil war, then let them have one. It's obvious that they don't appreciate all of the Western interference. Until they resolve the situation ON THEIR OWN, they should not receive a single dime of US aid or funding.

Treason In The Senate

2009-03-27T14:28:00.004-04:00

People of Indiana, your attention, please. Just so as you know, BHO' Socialist dream of creating a National Service is coming true. Cleverly called the G.I.V.E. Act, its purpose is to "create" 150,000 national service programs--funded, of course, by the already broken backs of the taxpaying American citizens (or, more accurately, our great-grandchildren).

In the Senate, an amendment was added to prevent ACORN and other politically and ideologically-oriented groups from receiving this money (think: separation of Church & State).

While Dick Lugar (RINO) voted to uphold this amendment, Evan Bayh (D) voted to strike it down, thus ensuring that pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-Muslim, and pro-Hispanic organizations will receive plenty of government funding at the expence of you and me.

Click here to get Sen. Bayh's contact information, so that you can tell him what you think about traitors who ignore the Constitution and fund special-interest groups at taxpayer's expense.

Ultimately, the G.I.V.E. Act was passed. After all was said and done, tricky Dick Lugar obviously didn't have too many qualms about the unconstitutionality or unfeasability of this Socialist State-building law, because he voted for it, with all of its glorious special-interest group funding and all.

Click here to get Sen. Lugar's contact information, and be sure to tell him what you think of traitors who step on the backs and spit in the faces of their constituents.

People of Indiana, we have GOT to vote these two bloodsucking parasites out of office! It is imperative that we elect Senators who will actually represent the people and interests of our State.

In the House of Representatives, the G.I.V.E. passed, but with a similar amendment proposed by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC).

Dan Burton was one of those who voted to include the amendment that would prohibit special-interest groups from receiving this money. Not surprisingly, Andre (the Liberal Lunatic Muslim) Carson voted against the amendment; arguably so that he could funnel some of our tax money to his militant brethren.

America: Death By Suicide

2009-03-27T12:15:00.004-04:00

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election:
· Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
· Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
· Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
· Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called "undocumented workers," and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

'Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.' - William Penn

What Does A Trillion Dollars Look Like

2009-03-25T09:10:00.003-04:00

It looks like this...

Read it and weep, ladies and gentlemen. But when you do, make sure you're sitting down and have already eaten your lunch. I guarantee that you will lose your appetite when you realize what BHO and his Big Government Circus have done to our nation's economy--and when you consider what life is going to be like for your children and grandchildren.

Revolt At The Indiana Statehouse

2009-03-16T10:21:00.001-04:00

A REVOLT Is Coming To The Indiana State House!

March 25th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Inside The Indiana State House

REVOLT AT THE STATE HOUSE

This non-partisan event is being publicized to all corners of the state by a network of tax and policy activists who led the 2007 Property Tax Protests and The Indiana Tea Party.

Our ranks have grown much larger in two years.

Experts will speak candidly at the event on all subjects of concern to The People, such as Education Spending, Cronyism, Corporate Welfare, Property Tax, and those shameful politicians who put party and corporate lobbyist demands before the needs of their citizen employers.

Be warned. Our experts will shock you with their first hand knowledge of the greed and arrogance of many of our government officials.

The theme of our revolt is "TRANSPARENCY".

From The "How Freaking Stupid Do You Have To Be" Files...

2009-03-13T18:45:00.008-04:00

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Ten children at an Arkansas day-care center drank windshield wiper fluid after the owner served it from a container mistaken for Kool-Aid and placed in a refrigerator, authorities said Friday. The day-care owner voluntarily surrendered her state license Friday.

Doctors estimate the children, ages 2 to 7, drank about an ounce of the blue fluid late Thursday afternoon before realizing it tasted wrong, said Laura James, a pediatric pharmacologist and toxicologist at Arkansas Children's Hospital in Little Rock.

Only one child remained hospitalized Friday in good condition, after blood samples showed "measurable levels" of methanol, a highly toxic alcohol that can induce comas and cause blindness, officials said. In moderate cases, it can cause nausea, vomiting, staggering and sleepiness, James said.

The day care also provided the fluid for testing.

The owner bought the windshield wiper fluid with several other items on a recent shopping trip, James told The Associated Press. "This product was mistakenly grabbed and thought to be Kool-Aid and put in the refrigerator," she said.

Really???

Modern Fairy Tale: The Pied Piper

2009-03-13T10:12:00.003-04:00

h/t to Wolfman @ INGO.

There was a Pied Piper who said "We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me change it!"
And the people said, "Change is good!"

Then he said, "We are going to tax the rich fat-cats,"……
And the people said "Sock it to them!"

"...and redistribute their wealth."
And the people said, "Show me the money!"

And then he said, "Redistribution of wealth is good for everybody"
And Joe the plumber said, are you kidding me?"

And Joe’s personal records were hacked and publicized.
And one lone reporter asked, "Isn’t that Marxist policy?"

And she was banished from the kingdom.

Then someone asked, "With no foreign relations experience, how will you deal with radical terrorists?"
And the Pied Piper said, "Simple. I’ll sit down and talk with them and show them how nice we really are and they’ll forget that they ever wanted to kill us all!"

Then the Pied Piper said, "I’ll give 95% of you lower taxes."
And one, lone voice said, "But 40% of us don’t pay ANY taxes."

So the Pied Piper said, "Then I’ll give you some of the taxes the fat-cats pay!"
And the people said, "Show me the money!"

Then the Pied Piper said, "I’ll tax your Capital Gains when you sell your homes!"
And the people yawned and the slumping housing market collapsed.

And he said, "I’ll mandate employer-funded health care for EVERY worker and raise the minimum wage."
And the people said, "Gim’me some of that!"

Then he said, "I’ll penalize employers who ship jobs overseas."
And the people said, "Where’s my rebate check?"

Then the Pied Piper actually said, "I’ll bankrupt the coal industry and electricity rates will skyrocket!"
And the people said, "Coal is dirty, coal is evil, no more coal! But we don’t care for that part about higher electric rates."

So the Pied Piper said, "Not to worry. If your rebate isn’t enough to cover your expenses, we’ll bail you out. Just sign up with ACORN and your troubles are over!"

Then he said, "Illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let’s grant them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, free medical care, bi-lingual signs and guaranteed housing."
And the people said, "Ole`! Bravo!" And they made him King!

And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs and ever-higher taxes, raised their prices and laid off workers. Others simply gave up and went out of business and the economy slowed even further.

Then the Pied Piper said, "I am the Messiah and I’m here to save you! We’ll just print more money so everyone will have enough!" But our foreign trading partners said, "Wait a minute. Your dollar isn’t worth what it was. You’ll have to pay more."
And the people said, "Wait a minute. That’s not fair!"

And the world said, "Neither are these other, idiotic programs you’ve embraced. You’ve become a Socialist state and a second-rate power. Now you’ll play by our rules!"
And the people said, "What have we done?"

But it was too late.

If you think this is a fairy tale, open your eyes and ears. It’s happening RIGHT NOW!

Did you know the president’s name is really an acronym….

One Big Ass Mistake, America !

Ron Paul is Chuck Norris' hero

2009-03-06T13:11:00.002-05:00

We're The Only Ones Who DON'T Have To Say Please If We Don't Want To

2009-03-06T00:32:00.001-05:00

BLAINE, Wash. – A Canadian says he got a face full of pepper spray after repeatedly asking a U.S. border inspector in Blaine, Wash., to say please. Desiderio Fortunato says he thought the inspector who told him to turn off his engine Monday was rude and asked him to say please.

The 54-year-old British Columbia resident told The Bellingham Herald that the inspector repeatedly ordered him to turn the car off and then said he would spray him if he didn't.

Fortunato says he was stunned and blinded by the pepper spray and was pulled out of the car and handcuffed. He was detained about 3 hours.

Customs and Border Protection spokesman Mike Milne (MILL'-en) in Seattle says it was a lawful order that travelers must obey. He says the use of force is under review.

How Much Money Is The Government Printing?

2009-03-03T09:38:00.004-05:00

Glen Beck demonstrates how much "money" the government is printing out of thin air. I feel sick to my stomach. We have got to get the federal government under control and our nation back on track.

Indiana Legislators Draft 10th Amendment Resolution

2009-02-26T19:21:00.003-05:00

YES! This should've been done years ago--and we need to be ready to stand firm and back it up!

Legislators in Indiana have introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 0037:

“A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION urging the honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress assembled, and the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of each State’s legislature of the United States of America to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of their constitutionally delegated power.”

Whereas , The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifically provides that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people ”;

Whereas , The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution of the United States and no more;

Whereas , Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as one of America ’s most valuable contributions to political science;

Whereas , James Madison, “the father of the Constitution, ” said, “The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people ”;

Whereas , Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate ” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government ”;

Whereas , Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that “the people will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the state governments. ” He believed that “this balance between the national and state governments forms a double security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them ”;

Whereas , The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be limited in its powers relative to those of the various states;

Whereas , Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the
federal government;

Whereas , Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas , The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

Whereas , A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now being considered by the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States; Therefore,

Be it resolved by the Senate of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, the House of Representatives concurring:

SECTION 1: That the State of Indiana hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

SECTION 2: That this Resolution serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.

SECTION 3: That the Secretary of the Senate immediately transmit copies of this Resolution to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of each state’s legislature of the United States of America, and each member of Congress from the State of Indiana.

Original Story HERE

WE Surround Them

2009-02-18T17:17:00.003-05:00

h/t to Glenn Beck

Do you watch the direction that America is being taken in and feel powerless to stop it?

Do you believe that your voice isn’t loud enough to be heard above the noise anymore?

Do you read the headlines everyday and feel an empty pit in your stomach…as if you’re completely alone?

If so, then you’ve fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie. While the voices you hear in the distance may sound intimidating, as if they surround us from all sides—the reality is very different. Once you pull the curtain away you realize that there are only a few people pressing the buttons, and their voices are weak. The truth is that they don’t surround us at all.

Share this page with your friends and family...

We surround them.

So, how do we show America what’s really behind the curtain? Below are nine simple principles. If you believe in at least seven of them, then we have something in common. I urge you to read the instructions at the end for how to help make your voice heard.

12 Values
Honesty
Reverence
Hope
Thrift
Humility
Charity
Sincerity
Moderation
Hard Work
Courage
Personal Responsibility
Friendship

The Nine Principles

1. America is good.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

You Are Not Alone

If you agree with at least seven of those principles, then you are not alone. Please send a digital version of your picture to: wesurroundthem@foxnews.com and then stay tuned to the radio and television shows over the coming weeks to see how we intend to pull back the curtain.

20 States Move To Reclaim State Sovereignty

2009-02-14T11:13:00.002-05:00

Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty

Obama's $1 trillion deficit-spending 'stimulus plan' seen as last straw
Posted: February 06, 2009
11:50 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

NEW YORK – As the Obama administration attempts to push through Congress a nearly $1 trillion deficit spending plan that is weighted heavily toward advancing typically Democratic-supported social welfare programs, a rebellion against the growing dominance of federal control is beginning to spread at the state level.

So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

"What we are trying to do is to get the U.S. Congress out of the state's business," Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon told WND.

"Congress is completely out of line spending trillions of dollars over the last 10 years putting the nation into a debt crisis like we've never seen before," Brogdon said, arguing that the Obama stimulus plan is the last straw taxing state patience in the brewing sovereignty dispute.

"This particular 111th Congress is the biggest bunch of over-reachers and underachievers we've ever had in Congress," he said.

"A sixth-grader should realize you can't borrow money to pay off your debt, and that is the Obama administration's answer for a stimulus package," he added.

The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Tenth Amendment specifically provides, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Brogdon, the lead sponsor of the Oklahoma state senate version of the sovereignty bill, has been a strong opponent of extending the plan to build a four-football-fields-wide Trans-Texas Corridor parallel to Interstate-35 to Oklahoma, as WND reported.

The various sovereignty measures moving through state legislatures are designed to reassert state authority through a rollback of federal authority under the powers enumerated in the Constitution, with the states assuming the governance of the non-enumerated powers, as required by the Tenth Amendment.

The state sovereignty measures, aimed largely at the perceived fiscal irresponsibility of Congress in the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, have gained momentum with the $1 trillion deficit-spending economic stimulus package the Obama administration is currently pushing through Congress.

Particularly disturbing to many state legislators are the increasing number of "unfunded mandates" that have proliferated in social welfare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, in which bills passed by Congress dictate policy to the states without providing funding.

In addition, the various state resolutions include discussion of a wide range of policy areas, including the regulation of firearms sales (Montana) and the demand to issue drivers licenses with technology to embed personal information under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and the Real ID Act (Michigan).

Hawaii's measure calls for a new state constitutional convention to return self-governance, a complaint that traces back to the days it was a U.S. territory, prior to achieving statehood in 1959.

"We are trying to send a message to the federal government that the states are trying to reclaim their sovereignty," Republican Rep. Matt Shea, the lead sponsor of Washington's sovereignty resolution told WND.

"State sovereignty has been eroded in so many areas, it's hard to know where to start," he said. "There are a ton of federal mandates imposed on states, for instance, on education spending and welfare spending."

Shea said the Obama administration's economic stimulus package moving through Congress is a "perfect example."

"In the state of Washington, we have increased state spending 33 percent in the last three years and hired 6,000 new state employees, often using federal mandates as an excuse to grow state government," he said. "We need to return government back down to the people, to keep government as close to the local people as possible."

Shea is a private attorney who serves with the Alliance Defense Fund, a nationwide network of about 1,000 attorneys who work pro-bono. As a counter to the ACLU, the alliance seeks to protect and defend religious liberty, the sanctity of life and traditional family values.

Republican state Rep. Judy Burges, the primary sponsor of the sovereignty resolution in the Arizona House, told WND the federal government "has been trouncing on our constitutional rights."

"The real turning point for me was the Real ID act, which involved both a violation of the Fourth Amendments rights against the illegal searches and seizures and the Tenth Amendment," she said.

Burges told WND she is concerned that the overreaching of federal powers could lead to new legislation aimed at confiscating weapons from citizens or encoding ammunition.

"The Real ID Act was so broadly written that we are afraid that it involves the potential for "mission-creep," that could easily involve confiscation of firearms and violations of the Second Amendment," she said.

Burges said she has been surprised at the number of e-mails she has received in support of the sovereignty measure.

"We are a sovereign state in Arizona, not a branch of the federal government, and we need to be treated as such, she insisted

For Those Of You Who Still Aren't Frightened By REAL ID...

2009-02-12T12:29:00.005-05:00

The Economy: Code Blue

2009-02-10T18:14:00.000-05:00

Economy: Code Blue
Tuesday February 10, 11:25 am ET
By John Succo

The President has been using allegory in an attempt to help people understand his plans for improving the economy. When he says "we need a bold enough plan to jolt the economy back to health," we all think of a heart patient suffering arrhythmia.

But the President and the rest of the government seem to believe, or would have us believe, that arrhythmia is the disease itself, not a symptom of the disease. Any doctor would tell you that's not true.

So let's take our analogy further. Let's say the heart, which is beaing irregularly, or even stopping, needs to be jolted back to health. Now we have to diagnose the patient for the cause of the heart trouble. The first thing any good doctor does is to look at the patient's history.

Twenty years ago, our patient --�let's call him Sam --�began eating too much. He lived on rich foods -�far too rich for his metabolism to correctly digest. The body naturally began to produce fat cells. Fifteen years ago, Sam was fat, but still looked relatively healthy and exhibited no outward signs of sickness. By this time, he was hooked on rich foods, and just kept eating.

Ten years ago, Sam was getting pretty fat. He had a mild heart attack. That was a warning. But his doctor wasn't very good. He checked all of Sam's other vitals (not very thoroughly) and decided that even though Sam was fat, he didn't need to go on a special diet -�he just needed to eat less of what he was eating. He didn't really need to exercise, either. This doctor didn't like confrontation.

But without clear warning and prescribed action, Sam kept eating. Six or so years ago, Sam was obese. He had a major heart attack. The doctor, being his same weak self, was more worried about covering his tracks than he was about doing the right thing for Sam. He told Sam he needed a pacemaker to regulate his heartbeat. This would solve all his problems, and allow Sam to enjoy life the way he had learned to enjoy it.

The pacemaker worked -�for a time. Sam went merrily along getting fatter and fatter.

Six months ago, Sam's heart failed: It couldn't support the amount of blubber on his body. It couldn't pump enough blood to all the capillaries that had grown to bring blood to the fat cells. The doctor jolted and jolted the hear trying to start it again; but every time the heart began to pump, the pressure was so great it failed again and again.

Sam is now on life-support. Machines are acting as his heart, and Sam can't get off the machines. So the doctor is now exploring an experimental artificial heart that can pump twice as much blood as a normal heart. The doctor knows Sam might explode from the pressure, but the doctor is more concerned about protecting his practice from lawsuits than he really is about Sam's health.

What Sam really needs is a new doctor. Any rational doctor would tell Sam, who now weighs 800 pounds, that he cannot survive at this weight. Sam needs first to lose the weight that's causing his heart problems.

Without doing that, you can jolt the heart all you want - but it will continue to fail.

The Cast of Characters:

Sam: Consumer

Food: Consumption

Heart: Credit markets

Fat: Debt

Blubber: Extreme debt

Doctor: The Federal Reserve

Pacemaker: Fannie Mae (FNM)

Nothing contained in this article is intended as a solicitation for business of any kind or for investment in the firm.