No Nanny State - Molon Labe!

I'm all over the board today -

For those of you that like to think of Californians as simpering dolts with no more than organic turnips between our ears, have fun with this -



Ahhh, a shining example of our public education system. Yeah, let's dump more money into THAT sinkhole...

----------

OK, the last entry about the IDPA stuff (at least until my next match!) -

Woohoo! I did pretty well. As I noted, there were 41 shooters. My division, SSP (Stock Service Pistol) was the biggest division with 22 shooters.

I came in 7th! I was the top scorer of the newbees.

In analyzing the scoring, I'm clearly taking too much time in making my shots. The top guys had significantly lower times, and seemed willing to somewhat sacrifice accuracy for time.

It seems as though the strategy is to shoot fast, and just make sure you hit the target somewhere. Of the 22 shooters, I had the second best accuracy numbers, but was number 11 in regards to speed.

Where you get killed (pun intended) is if you have a procedural error (+3 seconds), hit a good guy (+5 seconds) or miss the target all together (+5 seconds). If you get an accuracy "ding", it only adds a 1/2 second penalty for each point. I was one of only 3 shooters not to have any of the big errors.

So, practice, practice, practice. I think I can shave a second - at least - off of each stage just by getting better with my draw, and as DAL357 suggested, using more point shooting for the closer targets.
-------

Have you seen this story on the 7 guys from North Carolina? They were arrested because they were planning on some "violent jihad" overseas.

Am I missing something here? What law did they break?

Although the indictment provided few details, it outlined a plan among four of the suspects "to meet up" in Israel, as well as other overseas forays. The conspiracy, according to the government, included other suspects "known and unknown," and its aim was to provide money, training, transportation and personnel to those wanting to fight a holy war against countries friendly to the United States.

Nanny makes a big, splashy, very damning press release, but the indictment provids few details. Still, the government makes this pronouncement -

"These arrests today show there are people living among us, in our communities in North Carolina and around the U.S., that are honing their skills to carry out acts of murder and mayhem," said Owen D. Harris, special agent in charge of the FBI's Charlotte, N.C., division, which led the investigation.

These arrest show no such thing. They show that the FBI THINKS these guys did something wrong. None of the evidence they've provided so far seems damning.

If these guys are such stone-cold killers, why this?

A year later, the indictment said, Boyd -- who called himself Saifullah, or Sword of God -- his son Zakariya Boyd and two other suspects went to Israel to wage jihad but returned without success.

Defendant Ziyad Yaghi, according to the indictment, traveled to Jordan in 2006 to "engage in violent jihad." And Hysen Sherifi, a 24-year-old U.S. legal permanent resident, traveled to his native Kosovo in July 2008 to "wage violent jihad," then returned to North Carolina to raise support for Islamic militants, the indictment said.

Did the second and third guys, Yaghi and Sherifi, actually engage in violent jihad, or were they unsuccessful as well? At worse, it sounds like these guys are all bark and no bite.

That's illegal?!

How are these guys supposed to prove that they were NOT there to wage jihad? The FBI says they were, so they're probably toast in a court of law.

How easy would it be for the FBI or ATF to say that a group that gets together to shoot shit up on weekends, are actually terrorists - overseas OR domestic?

We don't have enough information to know if these guys are terrorists or not. I just don't like the way this has been presented, and how they are making it very easy to paint people who go off into the hills to train with "high-powered weapons " as terrorists.

And of course, rags like the LA Times will do everything in their power to paint anyone with guns as a potential terrorist. They sure don't seem too hesitant to use the words "terrorist" and "Muslim" when it has to do with guns in America.

It makes me very uncomfortable.
----------

Kind of a follow up to trying to ban sugar 'cause it's bad stuff -

The medical costs of treating obesity-related diseases may have soared as high as $147 billion in 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Monday, as its new director set a fresh tone in favor of more aggressively attacking obesity.

Shouldn't this be an issue left to the person and their insurance company? Stop smoking, or we'll raise your rates. Lose some weight, or we'll raise your rates.

Right -

The numbers underscore the urgent need for deeper interventions in society and the environment that will make it easier for people to maintain normal weight, Thomas Frieden, the CDC’s new director, told conference attendees.

I guess if Nanny is your insurance carrier, telling you how to live your life would make perfect sense.

Labels: Brady Bunch, communism, Constitution, criminal, Fascism, Gun Grabbers, Media Bias, nanny state, Political Correctness, Self-Defense, Self-Reliance, Terrorism, Thought Crimes, welfare state

A lion's work hours are only when he's hungry; once he's satisfied, the predator and prey live peacefully together.
--Chuck Jones

I received a call from a woman about my Pepper Spray and Stun Gun class. She told me about some trouble she is having with one of her neighbors.

It seems that, for whatever reason, she and a neighbor family don't get along. At one point, she had been attacked by the husband next door, and was roughed up a bit. She called the police, and had gotten a restraining order and figured that was the end of it.

Not.

Some time passed, and out of the blue, she gets confronted by the wife of the guy with the restraining order. Things escalated to where the wife reached into the woman's car, grabbed her by the arm and twisted it in such a way that her arm was broken.

In front of her own house, and with her kids in the car.

The police were once again called, arrests were made and more restraining orders were issued. But this lady didn't feel safe, and wanted to learn how to protect herself.
----------

Through this whole story, I kept thinking, "Where is your husband?" Why is he allowing his wife to be beaten up by the neighbors?

It then came out that she was married to a guy in the Air Force. He is stationed at a local military facility - Travis Air Force Base. Both times she was attacked, he had been out on deployments. They live off base, so they don't have the protection that base housing affords.

She told me there is a Base Wives club, and they share tips on things to watch for when their husbands have been deployed. She said one of the most common is for an announcement to be made about local units, and when they're being deployed. As soon as the deployment occurs, the neighborhoods that are within a couple of miles of the base are suddenly inundated with door-to-door salesmen. "Get your carpets cleaned." "Get a new home security system." "Do you need a handy-man?"

Some may be legit business people. They see a business opportunity and are taking advantage of it.

But some are predators looking for an easy mark. It seems as though her neighbors are this type of people, since the attacks all happen when hubby is away.
----------

One of the things we talk about in our workshop is that predators have a plan. Part of that is identifying opportunities - finding instances where the risk of being caught or harmed is low, and the reward is high.

Some people have difficulty with the concept of possibly harming or killing an intruder. They might have been socially passivized. They may have religious concerns. They might just be the type of person who hates confrontation - they've been led to believe that submission is preferable to conflict.

We give them two things to think about in trying to change their minds -

The intentions of an intruder or aggressor are to violate you, your family or your home

More importantly, I think is -

There is no forgiveness on the part of a predator

Think about how brazen and cowardly this lady's next door predators have been. They attack her when it is less likely they will be harmed in return. They wrenched her arm so violently, it was broken while she sat in her car.

They couldn't care less. They had no forgiveness, and in fact worked around the law so the predator husband wouldn't be punished for violating the original restraining order. They tag-teamed her.
----------

If (when?) TSHTF, and more people don't have jobs, housing, food, money, clothes - whatever - do you think the number of predators will decrease? Will Barry's Minions be able to keep the hoards happy? Do you think the police will be able to investigate every instance of a beating, robbery, home invasion or car theft?

Nope. They'll be swamped. They'll only be able to focus on the truly heinous crimes - the sexual assaults and murders. Investigating your home stereo being ripped off and you getting slapped around a bit will be at the bottom of the police "To Do" list.

If you don't have some sort of lethal or non-lethal defensive tool - and know how to use it - you're almost asking to become a victim. Make a plan on what to do in threatening situations. Increase your awareness of what is going on around you.

Choose a weapon, buy a book, get a video, take a class, stay alive.

Don't wind up having the police at your house because they're identifying your body with mourning family members.

Labels: American Spirit, Concealed Carry, criminal, Gun Grabbers, Life and Times, Political Correctness, Self-Defense, Self-Reliance, Terrorism

Like the effect of advertising upon the customer, the methods of political propaganda tend to increase the feeling of insignificance of the individual voter.
--Erich Fromm

Did you hear how Barry is going to buckle down and cut $100 million from our national budget? Sounds pretty impressive, right? One Hundred Million Dollars.

Do you realize how small an amount that is? Our budget this year is $3.9 trillion. That is equal to $10.8 billion per day, or $450 million per hour.

Barry is going to cut less than 15 minutes of government spending. FIFTEEN FUCKING MINUTES!!

Thanks for all the effort, big guy.
----------

Did you hear how Oracle is buying up Sun Microsystems? I don't like this for one reason: Sun is a huge supporter of open source software, with Open Office being one of the best ones out there.

Larry Ellison, the head dude at Oracle is not a "give it away for free" kind of guy. I fear Open Office might be headed for the trash heap.

The only potential saving grace is that Open Office is a thorn in the side of Microsoft, and Ellison has no love lost for MS....
----------

I read the Constitution on a pretty regular basis. I must admit, there was a phrase in there that I did not understand, nor had I taken the time to learn about it.

From Article 1, Section 8:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

What the hell are letters of marque and reprisal? Thanks to a recent article by Ron Paul, I know. He was offering suggestions on how our country could actually address the problem with the Somali pirates in a Constitutional manner:

The second line of defense would be for Congress to act within the Constitution and issue letters of marque and reprisal, deputizing private organizations to act within the law to disable and capture those engaged in piracy. This approach to keeping ships safe at sea would minimize the effect on international relations by keeping our Navy out of it, as well as keeping costs to a minimum.

It was actually Wikipedia that told me what they are:

A letter of marque is an official warrant or commission from a government authorizing the designated agent to search, seize, or destroy specified assets or personnel belonging to a foreign party which has committed some offense under the laws of nations against the assets or citizens of the issuing nation, and has usually been used to authorize private parties to raid and capture merchant shipping of an enemy nation.

Sounds like a legal way to hire mercenaries to go kick some ass and take some names. No skulking around with CIA agents, or bringing the US Navy into this. Hire Blackwater or some other folks with guns and boats and let them blow the hell out of the pirates.

Since the federal government is charged with protecting commerce, and an American flagged ship was seized, it all fits together so nicely. We have justification to do this. Actually use the Constitution to our advantage.

What a concept.....

Labels: communism, Constitution, Corruption, Fascism, nanny state, presidential, Taxes, Terrorism, welfare state

Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one.
--George Orwell

Remember back in late 2008 when a bunch of Bay Area schools actually encouraged their students to cut school to join in protests over ICE raids? The supposed justification was something like, "living the Constitution" by exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and petitioning the government.

Where was all of the pantie-wetting to teach kids with the Tea Party protests? No schools here in the People's Republic of California busing their kids to the big events, at least not here in Northern Ca....
----------

Oh, never mind. Will someone please just pull the chain and flush this crap down the tube?
----------

I had a couple of choices for a local Tea Party. In Sacramento, they were holding a huge one, but that drive was a bit much. There was another one a bit more local (Pleasanton) where one of the larger conservative radio stations was going to have a couple of their hosts at the rally. That drive was a bit far as well.

My day got away from me, so I decided to go to another one about 15 minutes away. When I got there (around 3pm) apparently the party had already ended (if it ever started). I was pissed.

I'm guessing that both the Sacramento and Pleasanton parties will get a decent amount of press, so I'll be able to see what happened. The Pleasanton one probably pulled off the attendance from my local one, but I'm still bummed.
----------

Weird ammo happenings: I just got my order of 9mm ammo for which I paid $21.79 a box. In the same order, I bought 4 boxes of 5.56 NATO. It was a great price at $11.97 a box. This is Lake City ammo, and is supposedly the exact ammo used over in the Sand Pit. It's got a 62 grain "Penetrator" bullet. It was available and on sale because of a printing error on the box.

I went to CheaperThanDirt.com to see if there had been any price movement. The 9mm had actually dropped in price by $2 a box. The 5.56 had almost doubled in price to $21.59 a box - in less than a week!

Go figure.
----------

A couple of questions:

1. Can you carry concealed at a gun show? This will be my first gun show in a state where I can carry. The show website doesn't say anything either way.

There will be guns and ammo available literally right next to each other, so if someone wants to go off, they can easily do it. Or are these typically "gun free zones" - at least for the attendees?

2. Business help: I'm putting together a newsletter for my biz, and I need ideas for some more target markets - for the personal safety classes in particular. I want people that might have a higher than normal chance of getting into trouble.

So far, I'm compiling lists of real estate agents (out on their own a lot) and health clubs/gyms (personal responsibility types). I'll also be targeting men's/women's clubs, trade groups (local chambers of commerce, etc.), unions, churches and groups like that.

Who else? What broad demographic groups/professions might be interested in this type of thing?

No. You don't get a commission on each sale... ;-)
----------

My favorite rendition of the National Anthem. No, the best rendition. Ever.



It actually made me kind of melancholy to listen to it. I normally listen, and it pumps me up and gets me feeling all patriotic.

As I was listening to it, I just kept thinking, "How did we get to this place in our history?" It was partly due to reading the DHS report on right-wing terrorists. It's like Jeff Foxworthy's, "You might be a redneck if...", only it was put out by our own government.

The "Thought Police" are out in full force.

How can it be possible that to believe in smaller government, tough immigration laws, or are a "disgruntled" veteran, you are now under suspicion, or at least need to be watched? And these idiots wonder out loud why there are runs on guns and ammo?

Holy shit, we're doing a belly-flop into a pool that's been drained of all reason.
----------

I wonder if loving the National Anthem buys you any more "domestic terrorist" points?

Labels: American Spirit, communism, Concealed Carry, Constitution, Corruption, Fascism, Media Bias, nanny state, presidential, Self-Defense, Self-Reliance, Terrorism, Thought Crimes

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
--C.S. Lewis

Absolutely disgusting and frightening.

Some guy - a Ron Paul/Campaign For Liberty supporter is in the airport in St. Louis, MO. You remember - the state that just released, then rescinded a report from the Highway Patrol that said if you're a Ron Paul supporter, you're likely to be a member of a terrorist militia.

The guy is going through the screening process, and gets pulled out of line. He has $4700 in cash. They want to know where he got it. He refused to answer unless they could tell him if he was legally compelled to tell them.

They never give him an answer. These jackboots jack him up. Threaten him with the DEA, FBI and all sorts of pleasant things. Lucky for him - and for us - he had a pocket recorder running at the time. Watch the video.



Can you say, "Color of Law?"

I know this will surprise you (not), but I actually wrote a piece back in August of last year called, Color of Authority. Few things push me over the edge more quickly than a public official - especially one with a gun that can take your life - abusing their power.

These TSA bastards fit the definition to a "T".

Of course, if you or I abused someone like this - unlawful detention (kidnapping to you and me) - we'd lose our jobs, and go to jail. These pricks will likely get a public slap on the wrist, and a behind-the-doors pat on the back.
----------

Addition: I respect this kid tremendously. I hope that, if I'm ever put into that situation, I will have the cool head and the stones to act as he did.

Campaign For Liberty just got a donation.

Labels: American Spirit, communism, Constitution, Corruption, criminal, Fascism, Terrorism

Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people.
--Spencer Johnson

There is this organization called the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Their site says

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder. NSIDC supports research into our world's frozen realms: the snow, ice, glaciers, frozen ground, and climate interactions that make up Earth's cryosphere. Scientific data, whether taken in the field or relayed from satellites orbiting Earth, form the foundation for the scientific research that informs the world about our planet and our climate systems.

NSIDC manages and distributes scientific data, creates tools for data access, supports data users, performs scientific research, and educates the public about the cryosphere.

If you look into their funding, they are essentially a quasi-government organization, as the bulk of their funding comes from NASA and NOAA.

Whenever you see stories about how the polar ice caps are melting, it comes from these guys. They are the top dogs on ice caps and sea ice - both of which we're told, are shrinking at alarming rates, and stranding polar bears and their helpless little cubs to starve horrible deaths unless SOMETHING IS DONE RIGHT NOW!

They produce alarming videos showing how the sea ice is damned near gone. I want you to click this link, and go to the bottom of the page. There, you'll see a video that shows the sea ice size from 1979 to 2007 - nearly 30 years (the comment section says it only goes to 2000, but the video is to 2007).


It looks horrible. You see for all of the years that the ice stays pretty much the same. Some years it's a bit bigger, some years a bit smaller, but is is roughly the same size.

Then, the last image just jumps out at you. In 2007, a huge part of the western section just disappears. If you look closely, you can see the poor little polar bears splashing around helplessly in the deep waters (sorry, I couldn't help myself).

As the animation (not the video or photo - this is important) explains,

Sea ice is an important area of NSIDC research and data. In September of 2007, Arctic sea ice extent shrank to the lowest ever seen during the satellite record.

Yikes.
----------

So, what these guys do is take satellite data (NOT images), run some algorithms, and produce an animation that represents the polar cap and sea ice size.

Obviously, the quality and integrity of that data is paramount in ensuring that the information they're sharing with the world is correct.

Well, Houston, we have a bit of a problem.

As some of our readers have already noticed, there was a significant problem with the daily sea ice data images on February 16. The problem arose from a malfunction of the satellite sensor we use for our daily sea ice products.

Oh, I'm sure it is just a little bitty, teeny tiny error. Otherwise, we would have seen the MSM, Al Gore and all of the other Global Warming terrorists issuing statement recanting their unfounded assertions.

Seems as though the problem might be a bit larger in scope than one might believe.

Upon further investigation, we discovered that starting around early January, an error known as sensor drift caused a slowly growing underestimation of Arctic sea ice extent. The underestimation reached approximately 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) by mid-February.

Hmmm. How big is 193,000 square miles? Wow, it's 20% larger than the total area of California.
----------

Here's where the ass-covering starts.

They note on their site that,

Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality control measures prior to archiving the data.

Uhm, it seems as though your QC program sucks ass. What did it take to discover this? Some guy standing on an sheet of ice, and looking at your picture of blue seas?

Yeah, pretty much.

On February 16, 2009, as emails came in from puzzled readers, it became clear that there was a significant problem—sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as open ocean.

They go on to assure us that they think the past data is hunky dory, but they're checking just to be sure.

Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check in the coming days.

You boys get right on that, OK?

To recap, your satellites (some of which are 13 years old) that have been providing you with the basis for your scientific conclusions are known to be faulty. Your response: You still stay with the PC line.

Sensor drift is a perfect but unfortunate example of the problems encountered in near-real-time analysis. We stress, however, that this error in no way changes the scientific conclusions about the long-term decline of Arctic sea ice, which is based on the the consistent, quality-controlled data archive discussed above.

Is that the same QC program that didn't catch this latest error? Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
----------

Is the ice sheet melting? Could be. I don't know - I've never been up there to see for myself. What IS clear, is that the information currently on their site are flawed. We have no way of knowing if the other data was flawed as well.

One thing I'm dead certain of is, if it is shown the ice isn't melting as fast as was previously reported (or at all), we'll NEVER hear about it from the MSM or Al Gore.
----------

H/T to Dragon for the heads-up on this.

Labels: Corruption, Eco-fraud, Ethics, Global Warming, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Terrorism, Thought Crimes

The goal of modern propaganda is no longer to transform opinion but to arouse an active and mythical belief.
-- Jacques Ellul

What's up with all of these new, "Government Is Here To Protect You!" shows? CBS has some new show called, "Flashpoint".

FLASHPOINT is a drama that depicts the emotional journey into the tough, risk-filled lives of a group of cops in the SRU (inspired by Toronto's Emergency Task Force). It's a unique unit that rescues hostages, busts gangs, defuses bombs, climbs the sides of buildings and talks down suicidal teens. Members of a highly-skilled tactical team, they're also trained in negotiating, profiling and getting inside the suspect's head to diffuse the situation to try and save lives.

Here's what these saviors of humanity look like:


The History Channel has a show called "Shadow Force". This one is real mercs going around the world, saving us all. I think the one that concerns me the most is the new show, "Homeland Security USA" that will be shown on ABC.

From the show's website:

Every day the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security patrol more than 100,000 miles of America's borders. This territory includes airports, seaports, land borders, international mail centers, the open seas, mountains, deserts and even cyberspace. Now viewers will get an unprecedented look at the work of these men and women while they use the newest technology to safeguard our country and enforce our laws, in "Homeland Security USA," which debuts with the episode "This is Your Car on Drugs,"

There are lesser shows, such as "Vice Squad" and others. Kickin' in doors to Save America.

Is it just a coincidence that the news has recently had stories of Army troops being stationed on US soil, and suddenly propaganda shows about paramilitary government agencies pop up on the tube? Trying to blur the line between the military and any other government agency?

They're all just here to help, right?

I don't know. It just disturbs me when the government is portrayed in favorable light as they're ramming people's doors, saving the down-trodden, helpless masses. I'd rather see shows promoting self-reliance and individualism instead of those promoting "Sheepl-ism".
----------

Speaking of Nanny crawling up your ass, a good friend sent me links on these two items coming out of the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force in Phoenix.

Front of brochure.

Inside of brochure.

The inside of the brochure details some common traits of terrorists.

Things like:

Right-wing extremists: Defenders of US Constitution against federal government and UN. Damned right. Don't FBI agents swear an oath to do the same? Check.

Right-wing extremists: Groups of individuals engaged in para-military training. I go to the gun range a lot. Check.

Hate Groups: Christian identity. Well, I'm Christian. Check.

Common Law Movement Proponents: Request authority for stop. Question "authority"? Hell yes. Check.

Common Law Movement Proponents: Make numerous references to US Constitution. Don't you hate it when that pesky little document gets in the way of doing your job? Check.

Hmmm. It seems that I might be a terrorist, at least in Nanny's eyes. Hey! That could be a new game show put on by NannyCo - fashioned after Jeff Foxworthy's, "You might be a red neck..." schtick.

You might be a domestic terrorist if....
----------

On a lighter note, here are a couple Christmas cartoons. I'll try and run a couple a day.



And my favorite....

Labels: communism, Constitution, Corruption, Fascism, nanny state, Political Correctness, Self-Defense, Self-Reliance, Terrorism

The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage.
--Thucydides

There is a phrase commonly used by people that, for some reason, have no issue when Nanny usurps certain rights. It is usually along the lines of, "If you haven't done anything wrong, you shouldn't care about [insert trampled right]".

The implication is that only law-breakers would care if Nanny itself side-stepped our Constitution. When you point out the fact that the Constitution says Nanny can't do something, you are summarily dismissed as a zealot, and pooh-poohed with a statement along the lines of, "I'd rather be safe/protected than dead/injured".

The first time I bitched about a right being trampled had to do with DUI checkpoints. It gut-punched me when the Supreme Court said they were A-Okay. As a reminder, here is our Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Basically, you or your things cannot be searched unless you have done something to make the police believe a crime has been committed. Even then, the belief of wrong-doing by the police is not enough - a judge must provide consent - -via a warrant - before you or your things can be searched.

Pretty straight-forward.

But it gets in the way of the police doing their jobs - at least according to the police. Using DUI as an example, the police say that they are charged with protecting us from drunk drivers. To prevent needless deaths caused by citizens too self-absorbed to care about the safety of their fellow citizens.

And they're right. It is their job. But they don't need to shit on the Constitution to do it. When they observe someone weaving, or driving too slow, or too fast or demonstrating erratic behavior, they can remain Constitutionally-compliant, stop the driver and investigate because there is a decent chance someone is drunk. There is probable cause.

By using and allowing random DUI checkpoints, you are assuming everyone is guilty. The only Constitutionally-compliant belief would have to be that everyone driving is drunk. Otherwise, there could be no Constitutionally allowed checkpoints.

Yet we have them under the guise of public safety. Just doin' our job to protect you, ma'am.
----------

Once Nanny got a taste of that forbidden fruit - unconstitutional powers - it's a hard thing to give up. Like a crack addict, they always want more.

In my eyes, this most probably started back in the early 20th century with the passage of the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. It essentially made it illegal for doctors to prescribe opiates and cocaine. Since drug addiction was not a recognized ailment, that meant there was no medical justification for prescribing these drugs. If a doctor prescribed these drugs, he was arrested. The practical result was making these drugs illegal. Before the law, you could buy a syringe and a small amount of cocaine from the Sears catalog.

The government, "played on fears of “drug-crazed, sex-mad negroes” and made references to Negroes under the influence of drugs murdering whites, degenerate Mexicans smoking marijuana, and “Chinamen” seducing white women with drugs."

Just doin' our job to protect you, ma'am.

The presumption was that Nanny knew what was better for us than we did ourselves. Only the government had the intestinal fortitude to withstand the onslaught of drugs. This, of course, led to the multitude of drug laws under which we now live.

Still, anyone can get any drug they wish to ingest. The only difference is that now, if you buy it or put it in your body, you go to prison.

We have lost the American ideal that you are only punished when you infringe on the rights of another person. You can now be imprisoned for the presumed infractions you will commit.
----------

Look where this presumption that "Nanny Knows Best" has gotten us. You can't smoke in public. You can't walk down the street while intoxicated. You can't talk on a cell phone while driving. In California, you can't even have a GPS map device attached to your inner windshield.

And most people think that every one of those things is just fine. Nanny's just looking out for our best interests. It is because of this mind-set that the gun laws in the country are so repressive. Just like the Fourth Amendment, the Second has been shit on in the name of "public safety".

Look where this slippery slope has recently brought us.

Many people have heard about the 4,000 regular Army troops (3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army) that have been assigned to American soil. Still others have heard of the more recent deployment of a division-sized deployment - 20,000 soldiers (Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security).

The Koolaid drinkers will say that this is great. There are bad people out there trying to hurt us! In their minds, this justifies shitting on the Posse Comitatus act which forbids the use of regular military troops on US soil.

In the most disturbing Orwellian twist to this saga, the military is now helping run DUI checkpoints!

The California Highway Patrol in the High Desert and the Twentynine Palms Marine Base are receiving dozens of calls complaining about a controversial DUI checkpoint. Military Police joined the CHP for a recent checkpoint in Yucca Valley.

The military said that they were just there to observe how to run a checkpoint. Seriously. The military said it doesn't know how to run a checkpoint.

Another thing about these checkpoints is, for them to be legal, they must be announced ahead of time. Somehow, the rationale is that if the citizens know their rights are going to be infringed upon, they can take steps to avoid the situation.

In this case, the CHP somehow failed to man the phone number that told citizens when and where the checkpoint would be placed.

A recent KCDZ 107.7 FM broadcast out of Joshua Tree stated, "By law, to avoid entrapment, the CHP is requested to provide the location of the checkpoint to the media at least two hours prior. They did provide Z 107.7 with a phone number to call at 7 PM to get a location, but - defense lawyers take notice - no one ever answered the phone."

When asked why nobody answered the phone at the CHP station, Officer McLoud answered, "I know our dispatch center is a busy place. But normally, they answer the phone. They handle all our public calls."

Just doin' our job to protect you, ma'am.
----------

Nanny must think something big - some sort of civil disorder of large proportions - is likely to happen. Who knows?

The point is, more of our Constitutional protections and civil laws are being trampled. We've been conditioned to believe Nanny must do this to keep us safe.

It's just one more step in conditioning us to be obedient Sheeple.

Franklin said it best: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Labels: Constitution, criminal, Fascism, nanny state, Self-Reliance, Terrorism, Thought Crimes

Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members. The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs.
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

I need some help here. My 'connect the dots' detector is going off. I need someone to fill in some blanks to explain why this series of events is not as ugly as it appears.

It all started with the bailout. It seemed incredible to me that the critters of both houses of Congress would so clearly and blatantly disregard the will of their constituents. These politicians got absolutely hammered with email, faxes and letters demanding that they vote against the bailout.

Some politicians even came out and publicly stated that they were overwhelmingly told by their voting public to reject the plan, yet they still voted for it. While it is always difficult to understand the rationale employed by a Congress-critter, it was so plain and simple to understand the wishes of the voters, it seemed like political suicide to go against the tide.

Yet they did so. What could be the reason for this?

I saw on some site somewhere, the mention of a threat of martial law being used with some Congress-critters. I dismissed this as total far-left or far-right wing hyperbole. Until I saw the Congressman's lips actually move:



WTF? Why in the hell is this not being plastered all over every broadcast and cable channel in the nation? We can get a Congressional "Blue Ribbon Panel" assembled almost over night to look into steroid use in a private industry, but when a Congressman has heard of martial law threats, we can't even get an investigative report by Geraldo Rivera?
----------

The martial law thing starts the gray cells a-clickin'. A couple of things come to mind. Dots start connecting.

I remember seeing an article in ArmyTimes.com about how, for the first time in our country's history since Reconstruction, an active military brigade was being activated with the specific purpose of quelling domestic unrest.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

"No", you say? They're only available in case of terrorist attacks, right? From the same article was buried this little nugget:

The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

The package is for use only in war-zone operations, not for any domestic purpose.

“It’s a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they’re fielding. They’ve been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it.”

The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.

The package is for use only in war-zone operations, not for any domestic purpose. Sure it is. And I believe that as much as I believed it when Rumsfeld told us he knew exactly where Saddam's WMDs were located. And when Gonzalez told us the telecom companies weren't illegally sending phone records to the NSA. And when Paulson asked us to trust him with his 3-page bailout plan.

Bull shit. These troops are being pre-positioned to suppress domestic unrest. The kind of unrest that would be unleashed were martial law to be imposed.
----------

So I'm thinking, "Uhm, what about the Posse Comitatus?" You know, the post-Reconstruction era law that specifically says that military units may not be used for domestic police activities? How can they get away with this, especially so far out in the open? They're not even trying to hide the fact that they're doing this.

From the Posse link:

HR5122 also known as the John Warner Defense Authorization Act was signed by the president on Oct 17, 2006 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies". Removing the legalese from the text, and combining multiple sentences, it provides that: The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. The actual text is on page 322-323 of the legislation.

Posse Comitatus was essentially erased. But wait, there's hope:

As of 2008, these changes were repealed, changing the text of the law back to the original 1878 wording, under Public Law 110-181 (H.R. 4986, Section 1068,)

Sweet! Order has been restored.

But not for long:

...however in signing H.R. 4986 into law President Bush attached a signing statement which indicated that the Executive Branch did not feel bound by the changes enacted by the repeal.

President Bush Signs H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 into Law

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, and for national security-related energy programs.

Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 28, 2008.

Oh.

So 'W' signs the bill, but by use of the signing statement, he is allowed to disregard its restrictions.
----------

In snooping around for all of this anti-Posse information, I kept reading about something called 'Operation Garden Plot'. It's about how the US Government has plans to put down civil unrest. Virtually all of the sites on which I was reading this were clearly left-wing whacko sites. Google search after Google search kept bringing up the same pages being cited with Garden Plot.

I then ran across a page on the US Coast Guard site. Good God, Operation Garden Plot really exists.

The department of the Army Civil Disturbance Plan (DA GARDEN PLOT), promulgated in reference (a), is the governing publication for planning, deployment, employment, and redeployment of federal military resources involved in countering domestic civil disturbances. Coast Guard units may be placed within a Department of Defense (DOD) task force under operational control of the designated task force commander in GARDEN PLOT operations.

As I research this, I find that Garden Plot has actually been considered since the 1960's and was tested via something called Rex 84 in (feel the irony) 1984. It was actually used during the Rodney King riots, and after 9/11 as well. I also went to the the Army.mil site, and was able to find one reference to Garden Plot as well.

What is so very disturbing, though, is as the ArmyTime.com article points out, we have never before had troops specifically tasked to Garden Plot.

Oh, and NorthCom is in charge of administering Garden Plot.

Why now?
----------

As if that wasn't enough to explode my brain, there is an article from last Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal about new spy satellites. Satellites to be used over US territory.

The Department of Homeland Security will proceed with the first phase of a controversial satellite-surveillance program, even though an independent review found the department hasn't yet ensured the program will comply with privacy laws.
....

The program is designed to provide federal, state and local officials with extensive access to spy-satellite imagery -- but no eavesdropping -- to assist with emergency response and other domestic-security needs, such as identifying where ports or border areas are vulnerable to terrorism.

Sure. No eavesdropping. I trust Uncle Sugar. You? Yeah, Nanny's history of observing the letter and spirit of the Constitution is well chronicled. Warrantless Wiretaps, anyone? Nanny generally ends up wiping her ass with the document.
----------

To recap: The majority of both houses of Congress ignore overwhelming public disapproval of the bailout. A Congressman is informed of a threat of martial law if the bailout does not pass, and Nanny just so happens to have all of the pieces in place to do such a thing. "Legally." A plan, troops and a command structure. New domestic surveillance satellite capabilities round out the deal.

Is all of this somehow connected? Or is just a coincidence and they are all just a bunch of independent occurrences?

I'm not much of a conspiracy theory guy, but as I said earlier, my 'connect the dots' detector is going off, big time.

Someone give me another explanation. Please.
----------

A conspiracy is nothing but a secret agreement of a number of men for the pursuance of policies which they dare not admit in public.
--Mark Twain

Labels: communism, Constitution, Corruption, Fascism, nanny state, Self-Reliance, Taxes, Terrorism, welfare state

Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.
--Thomas Szasz

I post fairly often about illegal aliens. About how they are robbing poor Americans of their ability to provide for themselves. I don't give a Tinker's Damn that these illegals are just, "poor souls trying to feed their families". I care about American families first. The illegals are breaking our laws - which I agree with - and they need to be stopped.

But it seems to be too much of a bother.

Without much effort, you can look through the Internet and find stories about how the Feds screwed border patrol agents that fired upon an illegal alien drug dealer. The agents are in prison.

You see time and again about the 'sanctuary cities' and how they totally disregard our immigration laws for 'humanitarian purposes'. Yeah, the 1/3 of the prisoners that occupy our state and federal prisons - you know, the illegal aliens - were clearly here for humanitarian reasons.

So when I see a story like this, I just want to give up. I've had enough. There is nothing even approaching logic in our government.

After nearly 14 years as a researcher at the University of Idaho, Dziewanowska has been denied permanent residency by U.S. immigration officials, who say she worked without authorization for eight months. She did that, she and her attorneys say, on the advice of the UI (University of Idaho), and she quit working for a time when the university advised her to do so.

Long story short: The University courts this Russian woman to come and do research. THEY screw up and give her bad advice on how to follow the laws of the US. Because she didn't properly dot the 'Is' and cross the 'Ts', they want to boot her out of the country.

Here is a sought after, society-contributing person who was trying to follow the rules but screwed up, and we're working to deport her.

HEY DHS! WHY DON'T DON'T YOU REDIRECT YOUR EFFORTS TOWARDS THE 20,000,000 ILLEGAL ALIENS IN OUR COUNTRY AND NOT TOWARDS THOSE ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTING TO OUR SOCIETY?!

I need to send this lady an email. She needs to come to San Francisco. Since she's not allowed to legally work, she can take advantage of the wide variety of free housing, food and medical. All without any concern about being harassed over her now-illegal status.

Do you want to hear the real kicker? Her research concerns the nebulous War On Terror.

Dziewanowska was recruited to the UI in 1994 because of her research background, and she's been involved in studying methods of fighting agents of bioterrorism such as the plague.

She's earned FBI clearance for that research – at one point, she was granted such clearance while immigration officials were refusing to approve her authorization to work.

Nanny is willing to trample our Constitutional rights of privacy, all in the name of terrorism, yet when a paperwork mishap occurs, Nanny does her best to deport someone that is actually doing something that might protect us.

Good Lord, we're doomed. We're just too stupid to continue as a country.

Labels: Constitution, illegal aliens, nanny state, Political Correctness, Self-Reliance, Terrorism

The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage.
--Thucydides

I had mentioned that I was going to attend a toga party this past weekend. Let's just say, a good time was had by all. Some WAY more than others. That's all I'm sayin'...

Anyways, the host is a No Nanny State kind of guy. Libertarian in political belief, a hard-working, gun-loving American. He had mentioned to a number of the guys at the party (I didn't know may folks there), that I was similarly inclined. So people were coming up to me and starting up conversations on politics or banking.

I had mentioned to one of the guys that I'm a VERY strong adherent to the Constitution. I believe what it says, and that it's not a "living" document. He agreed.

I told him that if I sometimes have difficulties with folks that describe themselves as 'conservative' it has to do with the fourth amendment. Particularly illegal search and seizure. Most don't have any problems with the USA Patriot Act. I have huge problems with it.

Quite the buzz-kill for a party conversation!
----------

I just happened to be wearing my Nation of Riflemen T-shirt underneath my toga. I told this guy that the quote on the back pretty much sums up my attitude with regards to when the Constitution should be messed with:

Our Bill of Rights in not negotiable. Not one single part, not ever. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the range.

We went back and forth over weighing safety with personal freedom. He'd say we need to ferret out the terrorists, even if that means some innocent people have their rights trampled. I'd come back with 'slippery slope' arguments, and WWJD ("What Would Jefferson Do").

Ya know what? The WWJD gig seems to work the best, even with folks that are dead-set in their beliefs. When you point out that Jefferson and the other founding fathers were willing to lose everything they had, and die in the face of going up against the worlds greatest military power. It seems pretty silly for us to cower in the corner, and trample jAmerican freedoms because some 7th century mountain dwellers are screeching "Death To America".

Even when those mountain dwellers borrow modern technology and occasionally inflict damage upon us - as in 9/11 - you don't decide that the best way preserve rights and freedoms is by first trampling them.

If you don't stand by your ideals when confronted by a punk, what are you going to do when the bully calls you out?
----------

If you've got 10 minutes or so, take a look at this video. I think it's a perfect illustration of what happens over time when scare tactics are used to change public opinion and attitudes.

I've written a number of times about Real ID and RFID chips. Both are horrible things when used in human security applications (RFID is great for keeping track of inventory, though. Is that how we're viewed by Nanny?).

Back in 2005, I wrote:

The biggest concern is that, once again, we dismiss these invasions of our privacy as minor inconveniences. Look how willingly we accept - in the name of safety -surveillance camera deployed by our government. Look how willingly we accept - in the name of terrorist prevention - the warrantless searches allowed by the USA Patriot Act. Look how willingly we accept - again in the name of safety - the government making random automobile stops with no probable cause, looking for drunk drivers.

Take a look at this video. It's a bit slick for my taste, but the information is spot-on.

Labels: Constitution, nanny state, Terrorism, Thought Crimes

Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error.
--Marcus Tullius Cicero

You may have heard about the recent testimony before Congress on the National Intelligence Assessment on Climate Change (NIACC). Its intent was to wake Americans up to the coming pain the world is going to endure as a result of climate change, and what we need to do as a result of this change. I think that's a great thing. That's what government should do.

Not surprising one little bit, the eco-freaks and MSM have taken this report and spun it so badly as to make it indistinguishable from the actual report.

It's all about the agenda.
----------

Before I get into the meat of this specific report, I want to share with you an actual example of how the eco-freaks and their cohorts in the media twist and color facts.

I was trying to get some background information on the NIACC and found a site called ScienceDaily.com. They had an article from a few days back titled, Expect More Droughts, Heavy Downpours, Excessive Heat, And Intense Hurricanes Due To Global Warming, NOAA.

It seemed to meld very nicely into this subject, so I gave it a read. They were talking about the content of a report by some government agency. I came across the following sentence in the article:

Global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases, according to the report.

Sounds pretty damning.

The only problem the authors of the article had, was they left a link to the actual government agency report.

Very stupid. Some asshole like me might actually read it.

Here's a link to the whole report by the US Climate Change Science Program (I believe this is a part of NOAA). The juicy part is in Chapter 3: Causes of Observed Changes in Extremes and Projections of Future Changes.

Changes in some weather and climate extremes are attributable to human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.

That's a pretty powerful statement. They then go on to list their substantiation for this damning pronouncement:

• Human-induced warming has likely caused much of the average temperature increase in North America over the past 50 years. This affects changes in temperature extremes.
• Heavy precipitation events averaged over North America have increased over the past 50 years, consistent with the observed increases in atmospheric water vapor, which have been associated with human-induced increases in greenhouse gases.
• It is very likely that the human-induced increase in greenhouse gases has contributed to the increase in sea surface temperatures in the hurricane formation regions. Over the past 50 years there has been a strong statistical connection between tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures and Atlantic hurricane activity as measured by the Power Dissipation Index (which combines storm intensity,
duration, and frequency). This evidence suggests a human contribution to recent hurricane activity. However, a confident assessment of human influence on hurricanes will require further studies using models and observations, with emphasis on distinguishing natural from human-induced changes in hurricane activity through their influence on factors such as historical sea surface temperatures, wind shear, and atmospheric vertical stability.

WTF? How did the authors of the report and the article come to the very clear conclusion that man is the cause of all evil? The entire report is loaded with, "it's likely", "very likely" and "we're pretty damned sure" (OK, I made that one up). Not a single citation of causation FACT.

In fact, the report said quite the opposite:

In these cases, it is difficult to quantify the magnitude and significance of the effect of the external influences on the phenomenon of interest. Therefore, attribution assessments become difficult, and estimates of the size of the anthropogenic [that means 'man-made' to you and me -Ed.] contribution to an observed change cannot be readily derived. This problem often occurs in climate-change impacts studies and has sometimes been termed “joint attribution”.

It all comes down to this: Make the conclusion fit the agenda, not the facts.
----------

Alright, back to our story.

The Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Dr. Thomas Fingar, gives his take on the confidential National Intelligence Assessment On Climate Change. Because of the classified nature of national security, the actual report is not available - he was just talking about generalities with his testimony.

Here's what the Wall Street Journal said about the testimony:

One of the biggest conundrums facing lawmakers is that solutions to global warming often hurt another of their top priorities: ensuring the availability of affordable energy, for example.

But on Wednesday, as the U.S. intelligence agencies weighed in, they heard about the cost of doing nothing: It may incubate terrorism and civil conflict.

Concluding that climate change will have wide-ranging impacts on U.S. security in the coming decades, a classified report complicates an already tangled debate by providing urgent new reasons to address the problem of global warming at a time when American voters are anxious about $4-a-gallon gas.

Message: Do nothing about global warming and you support terrorism. Unspoken: We all know what causes global warming, right?

The media has successfully 'branded' global warming/climate change as man-made. Even though not a single global warming report that has ever been produced (and I think I've read them all!) has proven a link between man and climate change, the conclusions of their reports unanimously proclaim this as the gospel.

I searched through the NIACC testimony to see if Dr. Fingar ever said man was the culprit.

Not once. In fact, once again, it was exactly the opposite. From the footnote on page 7:

While the NIA is based predominately upon a midrange scenario, some of the analysis cited in this section refers to IPCC reports with multiple scenarios. However, scientists indicate that even if humans stopped releasing CO2 tomorrow, climate changes projected for 2030 would still occur. Scenario trajectories— including those emphasizing concerted emissions reductions—do not vary significantly over the next 20-25 years.

Not just cutting back, but stopping the release of all CO2? Hell, if we change our ways and it doesn't make a difference, then why do the eco-freaks think we were the cause in the first place?!

So, Dr. Fingar, overall, how will this affect the US? After all, that's what we really care about, right?

The IPCC estimates annual costs from severe weather in damage to property and
loss of economic productivity for the United States to be in the tens of billions of dollars. Nonetheless, most models predict that the United States on balance will benefit slightly from climate change over the next few decades, largely due to increased agricultural yields.

Hmm. I don't seem to remember reading in any of the newspapers that the expected impact of climate change would be a net-positive for the US. MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS - all of them - neglected to report on this.

Funny how they missed that, no?
----------

Watch what happens. The eco-freaks, Democrats and both presidential candidates will point to this report as justification to impose a carbon tax, halt additional oil drilling, turn more edible corn into ethanol and generally bow to the alter of their deity, Al Gore.

Why can't our government have a conversation like this?

Let's see, we know that the weather is changing. We don't yet know the cause, be it sun spots, gamma rays, volcanic activity, greenhouse gases created by man, or it's part of a natural cycle of earth. We just don't know.

We do know that this climate change is having some negative effects. Drought in certain parts of the world, flooding in others. It's causing food shortages. And it's only going to get worse.

People are rioting and overturning governments. Water will be the new gold. We've seen food shortages here in the US as well. The law of supply and demand has push prices through the roof. These food shortages have resulted in price spikes in "down stream" food sources, such as beef, chicken and pork, as they all eat the same grains that we eat.

Why don't we stop this foolishness of turning food-producing land into ethanol producing land? Who the hell came up with that one?! Someone jot that idea down, and write a law to fix that error.

A bunch of countries - some friendly, some not - will not fare as well as the US. Some of our neighbors, the Carrabean Islands in particular, will be hard hit. That could result in boatloads (literally) of new refugees. Let's make a plan for that.

The Middle East and Africa are also going to be hit pretty hard. Why don't we think of some way to teach them how to adapt to the upcoming changes. Ways to store and use water more efficiently. Ways to desalinate water more efficiently. Stuff like that. Maybe have a contingency plan for some food assistance, but only if they've adopted some of our recommended changes in how they do business. We'll need a plan for this as well.

OK, let's break for lunch. After that we'll talk about how we make our country energy independent. Some guy at a blog called No Nanny State wrote down some ideas about this, way back in 2006 (The Speech We'll Never Hear). We'll use that as a template.

Alright, people, who's buying lunch today?

Labels: American Ingenuity, Eco-fraud, Global Warming, Political Correctness, presidential, Self-Reliance, Taxes, Terrorism

Tyrants have always some slight shade of virtue; they support the laws before destroying them.
--Voltaire

[H/T to Chad over at TSLRF]

I am at a loss of words to express my rage over this grotesque miscarriage of justice:

David Olofson is a decorated Army veteran and member of the Active Reserves with over 16 years of service. He has a wife and three kids, including a new daughter born in the midst of this mess. Olofson is a firearms rights activist who has been willing to fight the system and face arrest for exercising his legal rights. He has won those fights and forced the police to obey the law when they were inclined not to. Now he has been convicted of a crime that doesn’t appear to have been a crime at all and is on the verge of losing his Army pension, his right to own firearms, and his very liberty.

Take the time to read the entire article, as well as the links at the top of the page to see a Lou Dobbs TV segment on the case. Your head will explode at the injustice. It is simply horrific what these bastards at the BATFE can get away with.

Fight the system, get punished.

The line in the sand just moved a little closer...

Labels: Constitution, Gun Grabbers, nanny state, Self-Defense, Terrorism

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
--Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America

It seems that they have found the "mystery caller" for the compound in Texas.

Texas Rangers are investigating a series false phone calls to a Texas crises hotline that Colorado Springs resident Rozita Swinton is alleged to have made in late March 2008. The calls prompted the invasion and evacuation of a suspected Texas polygamist compound that has separated 416 children from their mothers.

This article doesn't mention it, but this woman is supposedly, well, nuts. Whacko. A screw job.

THESE FUCKING NAZI'S ABDUCTED THESE CHILDREN ON THE WORD OF A CRAZY LADY! Even if she were stone-cold sane, how can you abduct these children without a trial? How about some child-specific evidence?

This is not about pedophilia. It's not about under-aged marriages. It's not about polygamy. It is all about a group of people that act and think differently from their neighbors, and they had to be shut down.

In America, if there are allegations of any breach of the law, the police are supposed to investigate and issue arrest warrants if needed.

In America, an entire group is not supposed to be presumed guilty by association.

In America, we have a Constitution that gives us the right to live our lives as we see fit as long as our actions do not infringe upon the rights of another. Even if we teach our children differently from the rest of society. Even if our beliefs are not mainstream.

So how the fuck can this be happening in Texas?
----------

I'll tell you something. I'm not much of a "joiner", so the likelihood of me ending up in a compound such as this would be very slim. But if storm troopers ever tried to abduct my kids prior to an investigation, a warrant and a trial, there would be blood in the streets.

Labels: communism, Constitution, criminal, nanny state, Political Correctness, Terrorism

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
--Edward Abbey (1927-1989)

While I don't agree with Abbey's political positions, I agree, very strongly, with his sentiments.

I think most people would agree that the primary job of the federal government is to protect the people of the United States. We have all agreed to create this institution for our mutual defense.

But that power to protect is bridled. The US Constitution lays out the limits within which the feds must operate. The belief of the founders - one with which I am in full agreement - was that if you don't restrain the government, it will evolve into a tyranny.

To ensure there was no ambiguity on the intent to limit federal powers, the Constitution contains the Tenth Amendment which clearly states that if a power is not specifically granted to the feds or restricted by the states, it is automatically the purview of the states or of individuals.

Yet, over the past one hundred years or so, we've seen a slow but steady shift in power from the states and the citizenry, to the federal government. Almost without exception, infringements upon our personal rights have been made in the name of safety for the masses.

I've state before that I believe the scales tipped with the passage and "ratification" by the SCOTUS of the Harrison Narcotics Tax act of 1914. Essentially, this act allowed the feds to control the consumption and sale of narcotics by individuals. Instead of people being imprisoned for an act which harmed another person or somehow deprived them of their rights, the federal government could now punish people for doing something to themselves.

Nanny Knows Best.

The concept of personal responsibility died a little bit. Instead of society shunning people that made the choice to become drug addicts, we now imprisoned them. More importantly, it started the notion that the feds knew what was best for us, and only had our best interests at heart. The federal government granted itself unconstitutional powers.

We've seen this continue at an alarming pace. The Second Amendment has been shredded beyond recognition. You used to be able to buy any gun, from any source (like the Sears catalog) and carry it for personal protection without having to ask permission.

The Fifth Amendment is largely intact - with the glaring exception that now the government can seize your private property simply because its sale to another private party will increase the tax base of the local government.

The Ninth is ignored. The Tenth, as stated earlier is not even considered any more.

Perhaps the most egregious damage has been done to the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Seems pretty clear: Unless there is a reasonable suspicion of a crime, and that suspicion is acknowledged by a judge, the government cannot look at nor take your personal property.

Again, this has been chipped away, little by little, to where we now willingly allow government employees to invade our privacy.

Think about one of my biggest pet peeves, DUI checkpoints. You are driving along, minding your own business, not displaying any signs of intoxication. There is no probable cause.

Still, a government employee funnels your car, and every other car on that road, into a checkpoint. That government employee is then allowed to ask you if you've been drinking. Without probable cause, let alone the review of a judge, how in Gods name could this have been upheld?

It was upheld because people were scared shitless by well meaning but misguided organizations, and public pressure got these unconstitutional laws passed. This happens all of the time. The law was challenged and the Supreme Court then utterly failed in its duties, and upheld the laws.

In the name of your safety.

This abhorrent intrusion into our lives will look like child's play when compared to this:

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell is proposing a plan that would give the government complete access to the content of any international or domestic email, file transfer, or web search, without probable cause or any warrants — in direct opposition to the Fourth Amendment.

Complete, unmonitored, unrestricted access to your Internet traffic. What site did you visit? What words did you type? What message did you send? What words did you read?

The premise of, "Innocent until proven guilty", has been replaced with, "We're watching your every move".

McConnell said that privacy will have to take a back seat in the name of security. He insists that he simply must have the ability to read all information crisscrossing the United States on the Internet in order to "protect" the United States from "abuse."

I can hear it now: Come on, you un-American swine! We're fighting terrorists here! We're crushing your rights so we can save your life! Would you rather be dead and righteous, or alive and obedient?

I'll take the former, because the latter would be death as well. Just a lot slower and without any dignity or honor.

Labels: Constitution, nanny state, Terrorism, Thought Crimes

Law of unintended consequences....

Americans tend to get fat, dumb and forgetful quite easily. It generally takes a big kick in the nuts to remind us what our country stands for, and what our rights and responsibilities are as American citizens.

9/11 was one of those nut kicks. It reminded us that we have enemies. If those enemies say they want to kill us, we ought to take them at their word. If we get the chance, take them out before they take us out. We have the right and the responsibility to do so.

I'm doing a Risk Assessment for my bank on the impact of a terrorist attack somewhere in the country. I've been going through the various likely targets, methods of attack and responses - both on an individual and governmental level.

A number of the scenarios involve direct attacks against children. One of the most repugnant is an attack similar to the one that occurred in some Russian town in 2004. In this attack, they killed nearly 400 people - mostly kids. They did some pretty heinous things to these little children.

Terrorism experts have predicted that if schools are hit, they'll be middle schools. The girls are old enough to rape, but the boys not big enough to put up a real fight. Nice, huh?

In all of my research, there has been a common thread with all of the attacks: Target areas or facilities with tight gun control laws. They are specifically selecting areas that are relatively remote (slower police response) with little or no gun/hunting culture. If I were a terrorist, I'd do the same thing. Lower levels of resistance increases the likelihood of a successful mission.

I was looking for an attack scenario that would impact business, and as a result, the financial markets. It would have to be something so heinous that it got workers to stay home, regardless of the personal financial impact. People stop working, money stops flowing: Deposit rates drop, loan defaults increase.

One of the scenarios I've analyzed is a group of middle schools getting hit simultaneously. Five or six at once. Hundreds, if not thousands of kids killed, raped and maimed. Schools across the country would close for a couple of days. They would re-open a few days later after reassuring words from the President and other government officials.

After the collective sigh was released, the terrorists would simultaneously attack double the number of original schools, doing twice as much damage as before.

As a parent, what would you do? It would be my bank's financial nightmare: You'd leave your job, pull your kids from school, and they would not go back. Period.

As I was playing this scenario through my head, I was trying to imagine what a regular "working Joe" would do: He's working two jobs now, and is home in only short spurts. He'd get a gun for his wife that was now staying home with the kids. He'd tell her to carry it with her whenever she went out. Concealed carry permit be damned. He'd tell her that no government is going to throw a mother in jail that's just trying to protect her kids when her government is obviously unable to do so.

Even in states like California, New York and Massachusetts, people would insist that gun laws be loosened. The terrorists would demonstrate that the State is simply unable to protect the individual citizen. That the Second Amendment was included in the Constitution for a real, practical reason. That the instinct for self-preservation has the ability to change a screaming, liberal gun-grabber into a gun-totin' mama when her cubs are at risk.

That was one of the possible responses. Imposition of martial law or other draconian steps against the citizenry was another.

I believe that an attack scenario similar to the one describe above will indeed happen. It's a, "not if, but when" thing. It will be interesting to see how the American people respond.

Cower or courage?

Labels: Concealed Carry, Self-Defense, Self-Reliance, Terrorism

One more reason to despise this president...

I've said many times, that I've been against the war in Iraq since Day One. Aside from all of the WMD and "threat to America" bullshit, I never bought into the premise that you can easily and cheaply instill democracy in a region that is historically and culturally anti-democratic.

If you're going to do it, it takes massive force, trillions of dollars and decades of time. Think Japan and Germany.

What is most galling to me is that, for some unknown reason, the president and the boys at PNAC figured that we could do it on the cheap. In and out in a couple of years at most, roses in the streets, busts of Bush and his cadre adorning every public square in the country.

It didn't quite turn out that way (feign shock and horror).

Regardless, we're there. So what do we do now? We realized that this two-hand-touch-below-the-waist crap (AKA, Winning the Hearts and Minds) simply cannot work. Either get out, or bomb them into submission. Any other alternative unnecessarily puts our boys on the ground in peril.

I've said before that we don't have the political will to do the latter. Especially at this point in time, the American public does not want to see mangled bodies, dead kids and cratered-out neighborhoods. Our politicians don't have the backbone to do the only thing that will actually result in a "win" (whatever that means at this time).

When "The Surge" was proposed, I opposed it for similar reasons: It was a band-aid. It was buying Bush time, and our boys on the ground were paying for it with their lives. As I screamed back in January when The Surge trial balloon was released:

OK, so what will it [success] look like? How will we know when we've won this war? How will we know when to bring our boys home? What is our objective and how will we know we've met or missed it? If a president can't answer those questions, he shouldn't commit American lives to "a cause".

Of course, the answers to those questions were not contained in his speech. How could they be? Bush knows the way in which we are fighting this war is un-winnable. You cannot defeat a guerrilla force with a conventional military approach. You win by bringing terror to the terrorists. Like we're now doing in Somalia. Rain hell down on their heads until they beg for peace. You don't need 140,000 boots on the ground to do that.

As we all know, Bush still went ahead with The Surge. It has brought some minor progress, but it's mostly like killing cockroaches: If you target them in the kitchen, a few die, and the kitchen seems clean. But they've just moved to the bathroom. They breed (recruit), rebuild their numbers, and start anew. To fix the problem, you have to kill them all at once on a massive scale.

Because of the upcoming report to Congress, Bush took a little weekender to Iraq. To assess the situation and all. Shockingly (note the look of disbelief on my face. No, really...) he said this:

"When we begin to draw down troops from Iraq, it will be from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure," Bush told several hundred Marines assembled at an air base in Anbar province.

Huh? We're pullin' out?

Oh, wait.... I see. That was the plan all along. Preserve the legacy and all. Even the Bushies realize they can't win this war without a huge time, money and personnel investment. Americans won't buy off on that. Hell, even Republicans in both houses of Congress are turning against him. But, get in a couple of good shots against some terrorists, show a little progress in spots around the country, then get the hell out of Dodge while the gettin' is good.

How many American soldiers and Marines died so Bush could save face?

I so hate politicians. The Democrats were put into power to get our boys out. They've hemmed and hawed and let Bush have his way. Absolutely nothing has changed. Nothing. They didn't want to take responsibility should things go wrong with a pull-out. It's all about "gotcha!"

Ego-maniacs and cowards. That's who we've put in charge. Ego-maniacs and cowards.

Labels: presidential, Terrorism

Insert Ring Into Nose, and "Lead"...

This morning, I got my weekly email message from Ron Paul, this one titled, The Fear Factor.

While fear itself is not always the product of irrationality, once experienced it tends to lead away from reason, especially if the experience is extreme in duration or intensity. When people are fearful they tend to be willing to irrationally surrender their rights.

Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an essential component of those who would have us believe we must increasingly rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.

The statement “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin. It is clear, people seek out safety and security when they are in a state of fear, and it is the result of this psychological state that often leads to the surrender of liberty. [emphasis mine]

As Dr. Paul points out, this fear, when manipulated by a government, produces a pliable citizenry that willingly gives up rights. We have the USA PATRIOT Act, FISA fights - hell, the war in Iraq - as a result of selling fear to the country.

I'm reflecting on his piece, trying to think of what to do to stem this tide of fear. A few minutes later, this article on a new poll by ABC News comes across with this news:

Crime-fighting beats privacy in public places: Americans, by nearly a 3-to-1 margin, support the increased use of surveillance cameras — a measure decried by some civil libertarians, but credited in London with helping to catch a variety of perpetrators since the early 1990s.

Given the chief arguments, pro and con — a way to help solve crimes vs. too much of a government intrusion on privacy — it isn't close: 71 percent of Americans favor the increased use of surveillance cameras, while 25 percent oppose it.

I read this, and I'm in the bowels of despair. The article goes on to describe how the thousands of cameras in London helped to find (but not prevent) the recent bombers. NYC is installing 100 cameras right now, and will have 3,000 in three more years (can't have the Limey's out-camera us, can we?). Baltimore and Chicago are close behind.

Honest to God, what has become of our National Resolve?

"Let us chip away at this right, and we'll make it safer."

"Let us erode this freedom, and the bad guys won't get you."

"Give us a little more money, and you can sleep well at night."

Seventy percent of us want to drop our drawers, bare our collective ass, and let the world see us for the frightened little sheeple we've become.

We have so few true leaders. Instead of encouraging us to "buck up" and steel our spines, they advocate cowering and submission, and deterioration of ideals.

Dr. Paul finishes his piece with this:

Americans must reflect on their irrational fears if we are to turn the tide against the steady erosion of our freedoms. Fear is the enemy. The logically confusing admonition to “fear only fear” does not help, instead we must battle against irrational fear and the fear-mongers who promote it.

It is incumbent on a great nation to remain confident, if it wishes to remain free. We need not be ignorant to real threats to our safety, against which we must remain vigilant. We need only to banish to the ash heap of history the notion that we ought to be ruled by our fears and those who use them to enhance their own power.

Truer words were never spoken. Anyone listening?

Labels: nanny state, presidential, Self-Reliance, Terrorism