Monthly Archives: March 2010

>RIP: Marine Lance Cpl. Jacob Ross, Gillette, WY

>From the Casper Star-Tribune:

Wyo man dies in Afghanistan
Marine from Gillette, 19, had married just before October deployment

PETE NICKEAS – Star-Tribune staff writer
Posted: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 1:45 am

A Gillette teenager described by a comrade as “an excellent Marine” was killed in southern Afghanistan last week, according to military officials.

Lance Cpl. Jacob Ross, 19, died as a result of a “hostile” incident in Helmand province on Wednesday, U.S. military officials confirmed Monday.

The incident occurred about 11 a.m., according to Lance Cpl. Logan Curb, who attended the School of Infantry and was deployed to Afghanistan with Ross.

“We got into a firefight, and I got shot and I got [evacuated], and while in the emergency room another [helicopter] came in and they brought in Ross and he was on the bed, two beds down from me,” Curb said via telephone Monday from a hospital in Germany. “He got shot in the head and due to the nature of the wound, there was nothing the docs could do about it. He wasn’t conscious, and he wasn’t in any pain.”

Curb said two other Marines were hurt in the attack — one Marine was wounded by shrapnel after stepping on an anti-personnel pressure plate, and another Marine was injured by the concussion from that blast.

Curb described violence in southern Afghanistan that’s become more frequent as Marines established patrol bases and started “pushing out.”

“The first few months it was nothing, but whenever we moved down and established a patrol base, we started getting in firefights every single day,” Curb said. “We patrol every day. We leave from the patrol base — we live there, and we push out patrols every day.”

Ross was deployed to Afghanistan in October after being promoted to the rank of lance corporal in September, according to 2nd Lt. Timothy Irish. Deployment for most battalions lasts seven to eight months.

Sgt. Michael Cahill at the Marine Corps recruiting station in Gillette said Ross didn’t hesitate to enlist in July 2008 after graduating from Campbell County High School.

“He was a good recruit. He did everything you ever asked of him, and he was always there to help out others. He was a good, solid young man,” Cahill said. “From what I understand, as soon as he was able, he enlisted. He only wanted to be in the infantry.”

Ross was an assaultman assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 7, Marine Expeditionary Brigade-Afghanistan, according to a Marine Corps release.

Curb said Ross was a highly motivated Marine who was extremely proficient at his job.

“When it came to being a Marine, he was all about doing the right thing, one of the most motivated guys I met about going to war. He wanted nothing more than to go fight for his country,” Curb said. “He’s always got praise for being an excellent Marine, being a SAW gunner. One of the greatest SAW gunners in our platoon. His actions were so aggressive, and he’s always in the right place at the right time, always gets effective fire. He was good at everything I’ve seen him do. He was a great guy. I loved him.”

Friend Miles Fortner said he and Ross used to hunt, hike, camp and canoe together after meeting on a middle-school bus in Gillette years ago.

“He neighbored us, so we would meet on our property — we had a couple hundred acres — and shoot rabbits and skunks and fox and whatever we could rustle up,” Fortner said. “We got to doing that regularly, three, four, five times a week some weeks and really developed an amazingly tight friendship through all that.”

Ross is survived by his wife, Brittney. Fortner said Ross married his wife just before his deployment to Afghanistan. Fortner said that when Ross called him from a satellite phone a few weeks ago, Ross said he was glad he married at a young age.

“He said, ‘You know, Miles, I want to let you know that getting married at 19 is one of the best things I did.’ He has a super amazing wife, and a couple of the goals and accomplishments that he made was to be in the Marines, be a Marine, serve his country, and get married,” Fortner said.

Fortner said he will speak at Ross’ funeral later this week. Funeral arrangements haven’t been finalized. Ross’ remains are scheduled to return to Wyoming later this week.

I met Jake and his father five years ago in May.

We shared camp and talked into the late hours about all of the things that are discussed around campfires.

I was fortunate enough over the next few years to have several other opportunities to do so again with the Ross family.

Jake was a superlative young man — intelligent, modest, funny, kind, and decent.

He will be missed greatly by all whose lives he touched.

Please say a prayer for his family, his widow, and his friends.

Semper fidelis.

>Liberty Forum 2010: Tom Baugh and Starving the Monkeys

>
Folks who have read (and folks who have not read) Tom Baugh’s Starving the Monkeys – Fight Back Smarter will be interested in this series of eight YouTube videos of his presentation at the recent Liberty Forum 2010.

Part 1 of 8 is above; click the link for the rest. According to Tom, the “later portions are not for the faint of heart.”

Think about the challenges Baugh sets out.

Think hard.

There will be a test.

Pass or fail.

>Listen to the Panther

>Please read this article from American Thinker, along with its embedded article from Reason, on the evolution of Eldridge Cleaver from “insurrectionary rapist”/socialist ideologue to chastened anti-communist.

Sample:

***
REASON: When you were living in exile in Cuba and Algeria, what was it that started to make you rethink your view of them and their government?

Cleaver
: I had a great burning desire to help enlarge human freedom and no desire at all to increase human misery or totalitarianism, so I stood up in America to fight against what I saw as the evils of I our system. Then to go to a country like Cuba or Algeria or the Soviet Union and see the nature of control that those state apparatuses had over the people—it was shocking to me. I didn’t want to believe it, because it meant that the politics that I was espousing was wrong and was leading toward a very bad situation. So, I tried to figure out what was wrong.

You know, the communists teach you that the dictatorship is a transient phase—that once capitalism is eliminated, then the state will wither away and you will have freedom. Well, when you look at those governments up close and see how they treat their own people, you can’t believe in that. You see that people are using that preachment of the withering away of the state as their excuse to justify their own dictatorial power. The way that the goods and services of the economy are distributed, the way that the power mechanism is organized and the monopoly on power by the Communist Party, the control of the Communist Party apparatus by an elite—these things struck me as dangerous. And then when I had a chance to get to know people and see what the experiences had been in these countries since their revolutions, it made me realize that a new form, a worse form, of totalitarianism was creeping into the world and that it was necessary to sound an alarm against it, stand up and protest it—without sugar-coating anything that’s wrong over here.

That’s been the mistake made by a lot of people in assessing what I have said. I have never intended to say that we can rest on our laurels or we can stay right where we are. But I wanted to point out that we had better be careful where we jump when we jump out of the frying pan…
***

Were that many of Cleaver’s supporters in the Sixties had such an epiphany.

>19 April 2010: Update to "Bring Your Sidearms and Longarms To The Banks of the Potomac"

>Good news!

We have the Park Service permit, it’s been reviewed by our attorney, and all is ‘go’!

Please bookmark the Restore the Constitution site, which has all of the latest details and which will be the primary internet resource from now until 19 April.

See you on April 19th on the banks of the Potomac — armed or unarmed.

>Shenandoah: Stasi Redux?

>Go read John Galt.

Then read this book cited therein.

Jacques has a long moustache.

>Cathouses & Casinos

>One nice thing about being born in northern Nevada — you get raised with all sorts of bawdy tales about gambling and other types of sporting houses.

At least I did.

Two rules my father (a transplanted New Yorker) taught me as a wee lad:

1) The House (in either type of entertainment parlor) always wins,

and

2) Neither establishment wants you to leave their premises with a single dollar in your pocket.

Whether by the free booze and disorienting absence of windows and clocks in a casino, or by the proffer of “some more fun” at the riding academy, unwary patrons of both enterprises are systematically depleted of their simoleons, as WC Fields might have said.

Relevance?

In reading Mike’s excellent “Do It To Julia!” post this weekend, I realized that both the political party elites and their wannabe-best-buds in the commentariat are pulling the same old cathouse and casino hustle:

“You must disavow violence under any political circumstances. It’s not the American Way.”

In other words, stay in the ballot-bawdyhouse until you are of zero remaining use to us.

Don’t think.

Don’t educate yourself.

Don’t draw your own conclusion as to the continued utility of the first three boxes.

Well, no.

In addition to being completely opposed to the historical record, this command from “sober voices” is utterly without merit as to even the upcoming 2010 election.

How many real Constitutionalists are running in 2010?

By my count, two — Ron Paul for re-election to his Congressional seat in Texas, and his son, Dr. Rand Paul, who is running for Senator in Kentucky.

Am I missing anyone? I’d really like to know.

And please don’t start with the Dead Elephant Party. They are in large part responsible for us being aboard this doomed ship today, and there is virtually nothing that could convince me that any national Republican figure is up to the task of restoring the Constitution.

So for me — I’m taking what remains of my paycheck and leaving the sporting palace.

It’s a rigged game, and there will be a LOT of broken hearts in early 2011.

The only way to win in either place is to leave with your wallet intact.

>III Flag Sale Completed

>As I advised in one of the first posts, processing of III flag orders would be done on a catch-can basis. All received orders as of this evening will be processed by end of week, with customers sending proper tender receiving either their flags, subject to very low inventory, or a return of their proffer.

Thank you for your support.

>Shenandoah: If You Can Leave The United States, I Would Suggest You GET OUT NOW

>Read John Galt’s short piece for orientation, then dive into its inspiration, Tyler Durden’s latest:

It’s Official – America Now Enforces Capital Controls

Per John Galt:

***
…The precursor to most major shifts within western civilization have always been the restrictions placed on the flow of capital. Without going off into woo-woo land on you, all I can say is that this is a warning shot that something major is about to occur which further restricts the freedoms of the citizens of this once great nation. When I did my radio show, I warned that this one event, a key moment or marker in any nation’s history, was something to be taken deadly seriously. In my opinion it means that a currency realignment or change or outright revocation of rights taken for granted was certain with a 90 day, maybe if we’re lucky, 180 day window…
***

Do you understand yet?

You soon will.

>Reflections on the (Coming) Civil War in Britain

>Read and think through this essay from Gates of Vienna:

***
Note from GoV editor:

El Inglés returns to the topic of a possible culturally enriched civil war in the UK during the not-so-distant future, and speculates about some of the characteristics and constraints that are likely to apply to such a conflict.

Reflections on the Civil War in Britain
by El Inglés

Given the obvious and apparently unalterable trajectory that Britain is charting towards violent conflict between the historic British people and our Muslim fifth column, it might be interesting to indulge in a little harmless futurology with respect to the likely characteristics of this conflict. The idle speculation that makes up the content of this essay is hereby offered up by a playful mind with, perhaps, too little to gainfully occupy it.

If the historic British people (hereafter referred to as HBP) and the Muslim fifth column (hereafter referred to as MFC) contaminating their country ever do descend into a Troubles-style conflict writ large across the whole of the United Kingdom, it is certain that the conflict will be highly asymmetric in nature. I do not imply by this that it will be a particularly close parallel of any classic asymmetric conflict, such as those in Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Malaya. Rather, I imply simply that the characteristics, strengths, weaknesses, and geographical dispositions of the two sides are so different as to preclude the possibility of them bringing to bear on each other the same types of violence with the same objectives. This point will become clearer as we proceed through the essay.

In the interests of imposing order on a subject matter that lends itself to disorderly rambling, I will organize this essay thematically. Each section will pick a specific theme and consider, as seems appropriate, the relative advantages and disadvantages of HBP and MFC in each regard.

Size

The UK currently has a Muslim population of approximately 2.4 million. Let us assume, conservatively, that 5% of this population is supportive of terrorist attacks against the British state and people by believers residing within it. This equates to 120,000 people who might be prepared to support, more or less directly, an attack of this sort.

In comparison, the UK has a total population of 61 million people, of whom approximately 90%, or 54.9 million, can be considered white British. If a mere 1% of these people were to be supportive of terrorist attacks of some sort on the Muslim population of the UK, then we would already have some 549,000 white Britons in this category. A brief ‘exchange’ of terrorist actions between these two subsets of their relative populations would undoubtedly polarize the political situation, increasing the size of both terrorism-supporting groups, to an extent not amenable to being solved by any purely political means at all. As and when such natives minorities emerge and start to occupy themselves with their political agendas, we will be in a hard game indeed.

MI5, the British domestic security service, has repeatedly claimed to be stretched to the limit by the very real threat of Muslim terrorism. One is reluctant to believe everything people in such services say in public statements, but it does seem to be the case that the reason Mohammed Siddique Khan, ringleader of the 7/7 London bombers, was not put under continued surveillance was that there were simply not sufficient resources to do so, despite existing concerns about him. Given the massive growth in the Muslim terrorist threat in the UK in the last few years, and given further that any branch of government will be afforded resources roughly commensurate to the tasks it must undertake, it seems likely that MI5 will indeed have been struggling to make its budget cover the rapidly emerging Islamic threat.

Of course, budgets can be increased. But organizations cannot be usefully or speedily expanded simply by throwing money at them. An organization like MI5 must grow organically, screening and training new staff and incorporating them into its operational structure. Accordingly, the rate at which it can grow will be limited quite irrespective of the financial limitations imposed upon it.

Now imagine a state of affairs in which 549,000 people, amongst a population a hundred times as large, support in some fashion the use of violence by non-state actors against the UK Muslim population or some part thereof, and some smaller subset become involved in actively planning and attempting to carry out such attacks. Such a development would instantly dwarf the ability of MI5 and Special Branch to keep track of even a small fraction of the terrorist violence being plotted throughout the entire country, and this would be true as long as the conflict raged, as there is no conceivable way that these services could increase their capacity by a factor of, say, 50, to keep up with an entirely plausible (indeed, laughably conservative) 50-fold rise in the amount of tribal violence between MFC and HBP.

Geographic Distribution

This is, apart from size, arguably the single greatest asymmetry in the looming conflict. MFC is overwhelmingly concentrated in urban areas, most obviously London, the West Midlands, and the North of England. HBP on the other hand, have, unsurprisingly, a strong presence throughout the entire country, and are the only occupants of rural Britain to all intents and purposes. This situation has many and varied implications. I will discuss them mainly from the Muslim point of view, HBP’s advantages and disadvantages being implicit in the reverse position.
- – - – - – - – -
1. The urban concentration of Muslims gives them a high chance of being able to obtain some sort of local dominance in key areas. How long this dominance lasts is another question, but it is probable that certain areas will hemorrhage non-Muslims fairly rapidly.
2. The urban concentration of Muslims and the consequent urban nature of the battlefield (no Muslims, no battle) gives Muslim an advantage of sorts in that their ‘forces’ are all close at hand and their lines of communication short. In any serious breakdown of civil order, however, during which it becomes dangerous to be identified as the enemy outside one’s own territory, this will effectively trap Muslims in small urban enclaves from which they cannot easily escape, with all accompanying psychological and logistical pressures.
3. At least in its early stages, the conflict will still be at least somewhat amenable to being constrained by regular law enforcement activities. Urban areas are so saturated with CCTV cameras and will have such a short police response time that great risks will be taken by those who engage in paramilitary activity in these areas at first, be they Muslim or British.
4. The urban concentration of Muslims and the drastically reduced general mobility they will suffer when things start to get ‘hot’ will be a huge disadvantage. Curfews; house-to-house sweeps looking for weapons, explosives, and wanted individuals; aerial surveillance; all of these things will be much easier for the apparatus of state to perform on Muslims than on their opponents, who will be a) naturally dominant in more rural areas and b) able to move around there with little suspicion. Only very rarely does one encounter a cultural enricher whilst strolling England’s leafy pathways, and their sudden presence there will not go unresponded to in the event of unpleasantness between them and the British, by state or non-state actors.
5. Muslim enclaves cannot be considered self-sufficient in any way, shape, or form. Food, water, medical supplies, and power must all be provided, albeit in different ways, from outside. Any or all of these supply routes can, in principle, be cut. Rubbish collection can be disrupted; mobile phone masts can be shut down or signals jammed; phone lines can be cut. All Muslim areas will be subject to these pressures should conflict break out; British areas will not be subject to them at all except insofar as they are adjacent to Muslims areas. Furthermore, the technical expertise required to build and maintain infrastructure of this sort lies overwhelmingly in the hands of the British.
6. A significant majority of the land mass of the United Kingdom has virtually no Muslims in it at all. This will provide the British with a huge area of operations in which to train, drill, experiment with firearms and explosives, and also with plentiful opportunities to meet and plan in areas where both technical and physical surveillance on the part of the police/security services are hard to conduct.
7. Muslim enclaves are likely to expand, or at least consolidate, as ethno-religious cleansing forces both Muslims and British to retreat from certain areas in favour of others. This will simplify the situation for all actors and entrench the psychological divide.

People in Positions of Power

MFC has, thankfully, relatively low concentrations of people in professions which would provide privileged access of the sort that would be useful to would-be terrorists. Policemen, politicians, military personnel, civil servants, and the like: any such figure in a position to aid and abet any sort of terrorist organization would be worth his weight in gold to it.

Such figures are, of course, to be found overwhelmingly among HBP, and will likely prove to be recruitment targets for any underground organization which finds itself to be sufficiently underwhelmed by MFC to decide to try and attack it in some fashion. Even something as straightforward as an illicit flow of reliable intelligence as to the whereabouts and/or routines or potential targets in the Muslim community would massively increase the effectiveness of such organizations, for whom intelligence-gathering will be difficult due to the tribal nature of the conflict and the difficulties of infiltrating enemy groups.

The degree of intellectual and ideological corruption that swathes of our apparatus of state now labour under notwithstanding, there must still be high concentrations of people in the military, the police, and the civil service who are appalled at what the cancer of Islam is doing to their country, and who will eventually end up being well-disposed to those who would strike back against Islam on British soil. This will become all the truer if Muslims target the police or military on British soil, which they have already tried to do and will almost certainly try to do again in the event of serious conflict. The collusion of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army in at least some loyalist paramilitary attacks on republican targets during the Troubles is well known (though the scope of such collusion is still controversial).

Dispositions/Sympathies of Police, Military, and Ex-Military

Following on from the previous section, the British police are, for reasons I will not pretend to understand, perpetually trying to increase the representation of ethnic minorities within the force. Thankfully, these efforts seem to be doomed to failure, with all minorities remaining underrepresented. This is a huge blessing for those of us concerned about the shape of things to come. Irrespective of the degree of corruption the police manifest as an institution due to the political pressures already being placed on them, they will remain overwhelmingly white, and of working class and lower middle-class background. Their sympathies can therefore be expected to remain with HBP, and the degree of contempt and disgust the British bobby feels for MFC can only be expected to increase.

As with the police, so with the military. Muslims are massively underrepresented in the British military, with this too being a situation that the idiots at the Ministry of Defence are trying to ‘remedy’, with a similar degree of success. Trying to predict in any detail the likely deployments or attitudes of the military in the event of a serious breakdown of civil order between MFC and HBP is beyond the scope of this essay. Suffice it to say for the moment that it is highly unlikely that the rank and file of the military, having spent the last several years fighting Muslims across the world, will feel much sympathy for MFC. Nor can they be expected to be well-disposed to the idea of shooting their fellow white Britons to enhance the security of Muslims. Whether or not the officer class would be likely to pass along orders from their civilian superiors to engage in such shooting is a question I will have to leave to others to answer. Personally, I consider it unlikely. Forcing one’s troops to disobey one’s orders by ordering them to shoot their own people in their own country is an activity that no right-minded officer is likely to engage in.

Lastly, there is the question of the likely activities of ex-military personnel during conflict between HBP and MFC. At the risk of stating the obvious, it seems improbable that such folk would sit around watching the growing disorder on the television when they could be ‘contributing’ to it themselves. No longer constrained by chain of command, quite possibly full of hostility towards Muslims, certainly missing the smell of cordite in their new 9-to-5 office jobs where ‘combat’ consists of firing elastic bands at people, and with old military networks and know-how still in place, ex-military personnel are likely to flood into any organizations promising a chance to stick it to the believers on the shores of Albion itself. And there will be tens of thousands of them, many of them, one would imagine, in the police. If those in government tasked with considering these matters (as opposed to those tasked with singing the glories of our newfound diversity) are not having sleepless nights over this, then they are not doing their jobs properly…
***

Read the rest.

Then, using all supplemental materials at the student’s disposal, compare and contrast the coming Restoration of the Republic rumble here in the US of A.

There will be a test.

Audentes fortuna iuvat.

>Lesson Relearned

>Lesson learned from this weekend’s practical gunning:

Rate of decline in physical fitness increases dramatically with age.

Best to get traininghard — like your life will depend on it in perhaps as short as a few weeks.

I know I will be.

Tempus fugit.

>Arm Thy Neighbor

>David Codrea’s Examiner column links to this excellent essay by Matthew Bracken, author of the EFAD/DETR/FEAT trilogy:

If you don’t presently own any firearms, you may have been considering taking that step in order to protect yourself and your family. Or perhaps you already have what you consider to be an adequate home armory, but is it really enough? In the event that our economy tanks, one certain outcome will be much higher levels of criminal violence. Read Fernando Aguirre’s excellent “The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse,” based on his experiences in Argentina after 2001, to see what happens to civil society when a national currency collapses and the banks are closed. Today’s career criminals will be that much more desperate and willing to use violence against their victims. The feral youths who need little encouragement to bust heads for sport in times of relative plenty may be starving, and no moral consideration will keep them from sticking a gun in your face or a knife in your back.

At the same time, the federal government may define this surge of criminal violence as civil disorder and enact emergency decrees, especially if armed citizens begin to fight back on a wide scale. One need look no further than the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to see how officials react toward ordinary people with firearms during a period of civil disorder. A freeze on gun sales and/or ammunition is a predictable outcome during government-defined “emergencies.”

Most of the readers of this column probably don’t need to be convinced of the wisdom of owning and practicing with firearms. You may even believe that you already possess all of the guns you need, whether a .38 caliber revolver in your bedside table or a small battery of handguns, shotguns and rifles in your closet or gun safe. You may even own one or more of those liberally despised so-called assault rifles. In any of these cases you may think you don’t need to consider any more gun purchases.

There is, however, one reason to purchase at least a few more weapons: to arm thy neighbors. I can hear you saying, “What is Bracken talking about? If that foolish grasshopper of a neighbor didn’t bother about his security when guns were readily available, why should I worry about him now? Besides, he may even be an anti-gun liberal, so the hell with him!”

This reasoning is short-sighted on several levels. First, we have all heard the old saying that “a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.” When violence explodes during an economic collapse, millions of new conservatives will be created from former left-wingers. And besides philosophically anti-gun liberals, many folks simply grow up in families where guns are not present and reach adulthood having never touched a firearm. But no matter why they don’t own firearms, when the ultra-violence breaks out your neighbors down the street will deserve a way to defend themselves from criminal predation. Simple charity, Christian or otherwise, suggests that we should not leave the elderly couple, the widow or the single mom with young children defenseless against evildoers bent on rape, robbery or murder.

When the incidence of home invasions, carjackings and “express kidnappings” skyrockets, some of your neighbors will discover a sudden interest in acquiring firearms, just when firearms may not be available through normal channels. These unarmed neighbors may then ask if you have any extra firearms to lend to them. Which one of your carefully considered collection of guns will you hand over to arm your defenseless neighbor? Your high-end “concealed carry” pistol, which fits your hand like a glove? Your wife’s? Your pump-action shotgun? Your AR-15 Sport Utility Rifle? The fact is, you will be loath to give away any of them, not even to a neighbor in need. You have acquired each of them for a carefully thought-out reason! But your neighbor is still defenseless.

That is why I encourage you to buy a few extra firearms in anticipation of this future need. I would suggest that a revolver is the simplest entry-level firearm to provide to a non-shooting neighbor. There are no magazines, safety catches or slides to learn to manipulate. You simply open the cylinder, insert the bullets, close the cylinder and the revolver is ready to go. A revolver has the shortest “learning curve” of any firearm. Anyone can learn basic gun safety and effective close-range self-defense with a revolver in one afternoon. In dire extremes you could hand a revolver to a non-shooter after a five-minute period of instruction and dry-firing. Revolvers are intuitive; you can even see if they are loaded or unloaded simply by looking at the cylinder.

Of course, a much greater level of firearms training is highly desirable if there is time for it. If possible, take your non-shooting neighbor to a gun range now, in advance of a period of “civil unrest.” Training a non-shooter in the safe operation of firearms also shows your own overall knowledge of security issues. This demonstrated firearms proficiency will stand you in good stead when your leadership skills and tactical knowledge may benefit your overall neighborhood security posture.

Beyond the simple morality of providing a means of self-defense against criminal violence, there is another reason to be prepared to arm thy neighbors: the force multiplying synergy of multiple fields of fire. Recall the old cowboy movies when the gang of black hats rode into a town where the citizens were forewarned and prepared. As an historical example, consider what happened to the vaunted James Gang on the Northfield Minnesota Raid when they lost the element of surprise. Only Frank and Jesse escaped unhurt. The rest of the armed gang were killed by the townsfolk or captured shortly after, badly wounded.

An armed and alert neighborhood is a very dangerous environment for criminals. In a time of rampant violence, with the ever-present threat of home invasions, more armed neighbors mean more angles of fire for the criminals to confront. Instead of focusing their evil intent on a single home, selecting one sheep in a helpless flock, they will be threatened by fire from many directions and their retreat may be cut off. This compounds their risk compared to attacking a neighborhood where most folks are unarmed and cringing in corners, praying to remain unmolested.

Of course, it is best if your neighbors have all received a high level of firearms training. Otherwise, the risk of a “friendly fire” accident while repelling an armed gang with shots from multiple directions is increased. And of course, you should not provide a firearm to a drunk, a druggie, or a mentally unstable neighbor for obvious reasons. But the danger of living in an unarmed neighborhood is even greater, because such an area is a magnet for repeated violent criminal attacks.

The best outcome would be to leverage your training of individuals in safe firearms usage into general neighborhood self-defense drills. Then if the “James Gang” rides in…they won’t necessarily ride out! Word will get around, and your neighborhood will achieve an aura of armed strength that deters future criminal incursions. Consider why tiny Switzerland has never been invaded by its much more powerful and often bellicose neighbors. It’s not because of the Alps. It’s because the Swiss have a strong tradition of armed self-defense at every level. Both invading armies and criminal gangs go around “hard targets” that are known to shoot back!

If nothing else, from a strictly selfish standpoint, the humble .38 revolver you lent to that widow might provide you with a critical early warning of imminent danger when she fires it in self-defense. Forewarned is forearmed, even if the warning is a rapid series of pistol shots heard from up the street at oh-dark-thirty. But in any case, I would rather hear the widow’s defiant shots than her helpless screams.

So, consider buying a few extra firearms and ammunition while you can easily and inexpensively do so. A used revolver in good working condition can be purchased for as little as $250, a used pump-action shotgun for not much more. And if you don’t know what an SKS rifle is or what they cost, find out.

Then you will have the option of arming your neighbors in a time of extreme peril, without diminishing your own family armory.

>Montana’s Gift to the Nation

>As noted by Ed Rasimus, US Senator Max Baucus (Communist – Montana) explains why Bolshevism is good for us all.

The Montanans reelected to this traitor to the Senate in 2008 by a margin of 72.9% over his opponent.

The last, best place?

>Frank Rich Doesn’t Have A Clue

>And his Sunday column in the sclerotic NYT proves it.

Maybe he should read An Army of Davids.

And like his ideological ally Sergeant C., USMC, perhaps he needs to think some more about how the Constitutional Army of Davids plans to carry the day.

Starting with this taxpayer-funded tool.

Qui audet, adipiscitur.

Who dares, wins.

>Healthcare Consequences

>Earlier in the week we said:

I suggest that each reader who is employed and currently has health insurance check with your human resources department about the immediate/near-term impact of Obamacare on your benefits package.

Here’s why (link from Insty):

AT&T will take $1B non-cash charge for health care
By BARBARA ORTUTAY, AP Technology Writer Barbara Ortutay, Ap Technology Writer – 1 hr 47 mins ago

NEW YORK – AT&T Inc. will take a $1 billion non-cash accounting charge in the first quarter because of the health care overhaul and may cut benefits it offers to current and retired workers.

The charge is the largest disclosed so far. Earlier this week, AK Steel Corp., Caterpillar Inc., Deere & Co. and Valero Energy announced similar accounting charges, saying the health care law that President Barack Obama signed Tuesday will raise their expenses. On Friday, 3M Co. said it will also take a charge of $85 million to $90 million.

All five are smaller than AT&T, and their combined charges are less than half of the $1 billion that AT&T is planning. The $1 billion is a third of AT&T’s most recent quarterly earnings. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the company earned $3 billion on revenue of $30.9 billion.

AT&T said Friday that the charge reflects changes to how Medicare subsidies are taxed. Companies say the health care overhaul will require them to start paying taxes next year on a subsidy they receive for retiree drug coverage.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday that the tax law closed a loophole.

Under the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been able to receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs. But they could deduct the entire amount they spent on these drug benefits — including the subsidies — from their taxable income.

The new law allows companies to only deduct the 72 percent they spent.

AT&T also said Friday that it is looking into changing the health care benefits it offers because of the new law. Analysts say retirees could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers as a result of the overhaul.

Changes to benefits are unlikely to take effect immediately. Rather, the issue would most likely come up as part of contract negotiations between the company and unions representing its employees and retirees. AT&T is the largest private employer of union workers in the U.S.

Candice Johnson, spokeswoman for the Communications Workers of America, which represents more than 160,000 AT&T workers, said these employees have contracts in place until 2012. An agreement covering retirees also runs through 2012.

AT&T rival Verizon Communications Inc. was among 10 companies that sent a letter to congressional leaders in December warning that their costs would increase with the health care changes. Verizon spokesman Peter Thonis said the company had no comment.

Also on Friday, Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said they are asking the CEOs of Caterpillar, Verizon, Deere and others to testify at an April 21 House subcommittee hearing on claims that the health care law could hurt their ability to provide health insurance to workers.

Shares in AT&T, which is based in Dallas, climbed 9 cents to close Friday at $26.24.

Any bets that AT&T, Cat, Deere, and Valero won’t be the only companies slashing private health insurance?

Any bets we weren’t right when we said:

Team Freedom has a helluva recruiting opportunity coming up with the folks who didn’t think Obamacare really mattered to them.

By the way, that ain’t all – Denninger lays out why these hammers are just the beginning.

Welcome to the Obamanation, suckers.

Make sure you and yours just lay back and take it anywhere they want to stick it.

Your masters insist on it.

And besides — it’s the American way.

>Repost: Reynolds on Out-of-Doors Political Activity

>From 2009:

Having previously commented on the efficacy of political violence, Professor Reynolds discusses the utility of lesser steps along the action continuum:

***
SO I’VE
WRITTEN IN THE PAST ABOUT “OUT-OF-DOORS POLITICAL ACTIVITY,” and that’s led to some reader questions about what it might involve today.

As I’ve suggested, I think an early phase is internet satire. Tea Party protests are another. Or pranks.

But what if you’re in the Hugo Chavez world — not quite outright military government, but not exactly democracy, either? Or just afraid you’re moving that way?

One step going beyond mere protests and mockery, but well short of violence, is something like the U.K. fuel protests. Or what would happen if a lot of people showed up at banks and started withdrawing a lot of cash all at once? (Most banks couldn’t deal with much in the way of cash withdrawals — a few dozen people withdrawing a few thousand each at once would overload many, no doubt panicking the powers-that-be). Heck just a bunch of people driving at exactly the speed limit might have a drastic effect on some areas . . . .

I don’t have any answers, and we’re pretty clearly not at that point yet. At any rate, I’d encourage those interested in this to read Pauline Maier’s book. We’re not in colonial times any more, but while the specifics might change the principles are evergreen.
***
Withdraw your consent.

Encourage others to do the same.

Prepare to stand.

>Repost: Reynolds on the Efficacy of Political Violence

>A repost from 2008:

Instapundit today cited this WSJ Opinion Page item about another media cave-in based on “…cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.”

Professor Reynolds observed:

Will other religious groups take the lesson that violence works? Because, in a world of the spineless, it does, and at very low cost.

Thanks, guys, for establishing this incentive structure.

As I read that comment, it struck me that the modern Western world’s political and corporate institutions are more afraid of and submissive to a tiny group of murderous adherents of a seventh-century pedophile than they are of the combined power of the West’s free men and women.

Responsibility for this pathetic state of affairs lies in part with Mohammed’s more enthusiastic supporters, who have correctly diagnosed and continue to ruthlessly exploit the Western elites’ elemental cowardice.

Accountable, too, are the Western elites themselves, who, having abandoned any concept of either the secular or the spiritual Eternal, are interested solely in today and being viewed by their peers as properly progressive.

But primary culpability must ultimately lie with each ostensibly-free Western woman and man – this author included. Each of us is responsible for the actions of those we send to represent us, and our failure to remove our agents whenever they violate their representative mandate leaves the problem squarely with us. Instead of replacing cowardly leaders and cultural Quislings with this generation’s Churchills and Jacksons, most in the West simply click the remote control, grab another handful of greasy snacks, and dream by the glow of their flatscreen TV of tomorrow’s visit to the mall.

We are truly our own worst enemies.

Hajii has taught the West well that to achieve an ever-widening cultural collapse, all that is necessary is the graphic murder of a few thousand innocents, buttressed with a very few graphic videos of butchery and a drumbeat of murderous threats.

Simply put, hajii knows that violence – the nastier, the better – works to influence political behavior, for better or worse.

And the more cowardly one’s opponents, the more effective is targeted, intense violence – thereby reducing the need for large doses of the tactic against irresolute foes.

Hajii has proven those hypotheses over the past several years vis a vis the Western media and governments, including our own.

Relevance?

As I write this piece, I suspect analysts in law enforcement “fusion centers” across the country are tracking the recent Internet brouhaha over Mike Vanderboegh’s writing. Those analysts are trying, if they are competent in their jobs, to create an estimate for their bureaucratic masters as to the actual resistance probability and capability of America’s gun owners.

The governmental mandarins that employ those “intel pukes” know full well the lesson that hajii has learned since 9/11 – violence works, especially when used against soft, scared targets.

After all, they have employed it repeatedly themselves – “demonstrations”, if you will, of what could happen on a much wider scale if folks get too uppity.

It’s not clear at all whether or not the LEO crowd, their political masters, and the hordes of supporting bureaucrats can even conceive that they too might be at the receiving end of a similar “demonstration” by free men and women against future outbreaks of governmental bad behavior.

The Brady Bunch thinks discussion of such an eventuality is outrageous:

***
…In the wake of the Vanderboegh letter, to one degree or another, armed revolt has been treated as a legitimate policy answer to popular gun control measures by one blogger after another in the gun community (emphasis in original)- rather than denounced as immoral or as street-corner gibberish uttered by one who wears a tinfoil hat…
***

Since 2001, The Prophet’s frothing followers have proven that the West’s politicians, media moguls, and institutions are gutless and weak – save for the US military, which of course is controlled by the civilian government’s cultural incontinents.

The essential question then – for the analysts, their masters, and ourselves – is whether or not the Second Amendment community is, in Professor Reynolds’ words, “the world of the spineless.”

If we are, then a few sharp shocks directed against a few high-profile RKBA activists should be all it takes to cow America’s gun-owning Walter Mittys into submission.

On the other hand, if there are even 3% of Mike Vanderboegh’s supposedly-mythical “Three Percenters” with the commitment of hajii – then we can expect some very harsh lessons for the spineless statist utopians as they attempt to deliver hoped-for change and reasonable new gun control laws, inspired by the majority’s words in Heller.

We’re on a short path to an answer to that question.

Tempus fugit.

III

>Vanderboegh Makes the Washington Post

>

Brick, Liberty Tool, Model Mark One dash A

Go and read it all.

>Dr. Leviathan Will See You Now

>Will Grigg explains the new nationalized medical apparatus.

Do read, especially in light of the successful reconciliation.

Will you comply?

Will you submit?

Will we see you on the Potomac on April 19th?

Tempus fugit.

>It’s All In Uranus

>Take a few minutes to read this piece and the associated comments.

For those still enamored of the voting process, remember the vote of each of these moonbeams cancels out the vote of a right-minded person.

And for the record: can someone tell me if Pluto is related to Goofy, if only by star sign?

>Vanderleun: The Assignment

>Vanderleun looks into a crystal ball and intercepts a near-future conversation fragment from The People behind the throne.

See also the embedded link.

And check the Gleiwitz station as well.

There is nothing new under the sun.

And the collectivists have been improving their game with each iteration.

Tempus fugit.

>Coryell: Rattling The Second Amendment Saber

>Skip Coryell, organizer of the April 19th Second Amendment March in DC, posts this essay on Human Events today:

According to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, the term “saber rattling” is defined as:

a threatening of war, or a menacing show of armed force.

Some people call it posturing. In the animal world it’s related to establishing “pecking order”. Some people would have us believe that a pecking order is a bad thing, that it’s barbaric, and should be reserved only for the animal world. I disagree. It’s a natural thing that will happen no matter how much people try to suppress it. Pecking order keeps the world in a state of organized cosmos. Every playground has one, every corporate board room, and even the halls of Congress. It’s the way the world works, and without it there would be chaos and unending strife. People have to know who is in charge and who must bend the knee and kiss the ring that rules.

I suppose that’s why firearms are so important. They are the equalizing force, available to all free people everywhere. They tell the 200-pound sexually aggressive male that he must not rape the 120-pound female, who is alone on the street at night with no one around to protect her. The firearm gives her the ability to kill the stronger male.

Firearms tell the sociopath that he must not break into your family’s home at night and kill your family as you sleep. There is always the chance that you will awaken, get your firearm and shoot him until he dies. Dead sociopaths and dead rapists. That’s a good thing, a necessary thing for society to function in an orderly fashion.

Without the right to keep and bear arms, we revert to humanity’s default state of “law of the jungle”, where only the strong survive, where the big rule the small, and where the weak die in a puddle of blood, flesh and urine. We need the firearm and the freedom to use it or our children will live in a binary world of masters and slaves, with no check on immorality, no governor to hold the strong accountable, and no way to protect the weak from the strong.

In a world without freedom and firearms, only the evil will have guns, and they will use them to the detriment and enslavement of good people everywhere. History has taught us that, and it’s a lesson we should forget only at our own peril.

So what does all this have to do with saber rattling, a threatening of war, or a menacing show of armed force?

Look at the present situation in America. Many say we are on the brink of economic collapse. Our elected officials exude an unprecedented arrogance, totally ignoring the will of the people, hell-bent on dragging us into a world we neither want for ourselves nor our children. In short, the pecking order has been established, and it’s 180 degrees out of phase. They are the ruling class and we are subservient to them.

Or are we?

I hear the clank of metal on metal in the distance.

All across the country, Americans are rising up and biting the hand that feeds them. In some cases, the hand is getting ripped clean off! In Virginia, in New Jersey, and even in Massachusetts. The chain is chafing their necks and they want it gone!

The politicians…they ignore us.

For the past year we’ve heard a lot about the TEA parties and the nine-twelvers. People like Glenn Beck (God bless him) continue to educate America on Freedom 101 and the original intent of our founding fathers. We the people have been exercising our First Amendment rights to the hilt. We’re screaming! We’re protesting! We’re faxing! We’re phoning and marching and yelling….

But still…they ignore us.

I hear the clank of metal on metal in the distance, but not so distant today as it was yesterday or the day before, or the day before, or the day before.

I have a feeling, just a feeling, that I’m not alone. There are a lot of people out there like me who will no longer tolerate the arrogance of politicians who ignore us. I’ve been told that there’s only one thing worse than being abused, and that’s being ignored. If you kick me, at least I know I exist. But if you ignore me, then I’m not even worth the trouble.

And here’s the million-dollar question: “What happens if the First Amendment fails?”

Our founding fathers answered that when the King of England ignored their pleas for fairness, for equal representation, and for basic human rights. The founders rattled their sabers for years, hoping above hope that they would never have to use them. But, in the end, the King acted like a King and tried to dominate and disarm his disloyal subjects.

Several years ago, I was teaching a husband and wife in a private firearms class. We were on the range behind their barn, shooting at targets up against an embankment. The woman was shooting a nice, 9mm Glock, and she honestly could not hit the broad side of a barn from the inside. I tried everything I knew to get her on target, but it was no use. I couldn’t find the problem. Her husband told me she was a good shot, and that she usually shot better than he did.

I questioned her some more, and she finally threw up her hands in frustration and said, “I don’t even know why I’m doing this! I could never shoot anyone anyways. My husband made me take this class!” At her remark, a light went off in my head, and I interjected. “What if someone was trying to kill you? Could you shoot someone then?” She said, “No! I couldn’t kill someone to save my own life. I’d just go ahead and die!”

I thought that was rather odd, but I could tell she was sincere, so I thought about it a second, and then I said.

“Okay, let’s use a little training technique called visualization.”

She nodded her head impatiently.

“Okay, here’s the scenario: You’re at the gas station filling your tank. A man drives up and parks next to your car. He gets out, walks over, reaches through the open window of your car, removes your daughter from her car seat and puts her in his own vehicle. He then starts to get into his car to drive away.”

There was a horrified look on the young mother’s face.

“At that moment in time, could you take another human life?”

Without hesitation, this proper Christian woman said, “I would kill that son of a bitch!”

I said, “Okay then, that target down there is the man who is stealing your daughter. Fire away.” She never missed the target again.

My question to everyone reading this article is this: “For you, as an individual, when do you draw your saber? When do you say “Yes, I am willing to rise up and overthrow an oppressive, totalitarian government?”

Is it when the government takes away your private business?
Is it when the government rigs elections?
Is it when the government imposes martial law?
Is it when the government takes away your firearms?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating the immediate use of force against the government. It isn’t time, and hopefully that time will never come.

But one thing is certain: “Now is the time to rattle your sabers.”

If not now, then when?

When the government ignores the First Amendment, it is time to rattle the Second Amendment sabers. It’s all about accountability. So long as our elected officials believe we will rise up and overthrow them under certain conditions, then they will not allow those conditions to occur. Their jobs and their very lives depend on it.

I understand that sounds harsh, but these are harsh times. Now is the time to rattle the saber. Now is the time to answer the very personal, very serious, very intimate question: “When do I remove the saber from its scabbard?”

I hear the clank of metal on metal getting closer, but that’s not enough. The politicians have to hear it too.

They have to hear it, and they have to believe it.

Come and support me at the Second Amendment March on April 19th on the Washington Monument grounds. Let’s rattle some sabers and show the government we’re still here.

We are here, and we are not silent!

——————————————————————————–
Skip Coryell is the founder of the Second Amendment March, a former United States Marine, author and President of White Feather Press.

——————————————————————————–

See you on the banks of the Potomac on April 19th — armed or unarmed.

>Cut My Throat If It Feeds Your Need

>Read this pungent piece of analysis from Jaded Heaven.

Remember: the fundamental issue is one of theft.

Does someone’s need justify theft, either directly by them or via delegation of that use of force via the ballot box to government actors?

And even more importantly, if you disagree, are you willing to fight against those who answer ‘yes’ to that first question?

By any means necessary.

>What Are We Fighting For?

>Please go to Restore The Constitution and read the latest there.

Hope to see you on the Potomac on April 19th — armed or unarmed.

>Vandam: Here’s The Future

>Malone Vandam looks into the crystal ball.

But November will make it all OK, won’t it, Mommy?

>Robb: Rage and Health Care

>Read John Robb’s latest Global Guerrillas essay, which begins:

Here’s some fun thinking about drivers of political fragmentation and the slow failure of America.

We expect the universe to make sense, to be consistent, and when the contingencies change, we get testy. Interestingly, this is not unique to humans. In one experiment, two pigeons were placed in a cage. One of them was tethered to the back of the cage while the other was free to run about as it wished. Every 30 seconds, a hopper would provide a small amount of food (a fixed interval schedule, as described earlier). The free pigeon could reach the food but the tethered one could not, and the free pigeon happily ate all the food every time. After an hour or so of this, the hopper stops providing food. The free pigeon continues to check the hopper every 30 seconds for a while, but when it’s clear that the food isn’t coming, it will go to the back of the cage and beat up the other pigeon. Now, the interesting thing is that the tethered pigeon has never eaten the food and the free pigeon has no reason to think the other is responsible for the food stopping.

The frustration is irrational, but real nonetheless.

John Hopson, a game researcher at Microsoft.

The above example illustrates the driver behind the furor over the passage of health care legislation in the US. The trigger, or the change in the game (the economic system) that prompted the confusion and anger we see today was the 2008 financial crisis. The inchoate anger this crisis caused is now being directed against the US government and the party in power. Here’s a fuller explanation for this.

We have collectively developed the belief that the capitalist system that we work in and our system of governance, although very messy at times and often harsh, is fundamentally fair. The financial collapse proved that these beliefs were completely unfounded and we (collectively) were fools for believing in such nonsense. Here’s how this realization rolled out, step by step.

First, the meager rewards of system (the status quo game) stopped coming:

•Easy, endless debt in lieu of gains in income (for increasingly productive hard work) was either made impossible to get or converted into usurious debt.
•Wealth, particularly in the form of home values/pensions/expected future earnings, evaporated.
•Incomes tumbled (cut backs in hours, permanent to temp status, outsourcing, or outright termination) while prices (education to health in particular) kept accelerating.

Second, in contrast to the game depicted above (where the pigeon was first given regular rewards and then suddenly and without explanation denied those rewards), it was now generally known why our rewards for participation in the system had at first dwindled and finally stopped: our capitalist system had become so corrupt that a relatively small group of people were able to perpetrate the greatest financial theft in the history of mankind.

The final and most damning step in this process was how that even after this theft had become public knowledge (on the front page of every newspaper from here to Timbuktu), the governmental system we expected to punish malfeasance didn’t work. Not only didn’t it work by failing to punish these traitors (as those who damage a nation in the worst possible way are termed) for their acts, it actually rewarded them. It made them rich with hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts and tens of trillions in public guarantees (to protect them against losses on their future thefts), in effect extending them a golden invitation to pillage our future again…

Read the rest.

And this is just the beginning….