Monthly Archives: February 2009

>Praxis: The Underground Rolls Its Own

>From the dead-drop over on Sipsey Street comes this post from Strategy Page:

***
The Underground Rolls Its Own

February 21, 2009: As the Sri Lankan Army closes in on the separatist LTTE rebel heartland, they are capturing the LTTE supply dumps, training areas, headquarters, medical facilities and weapons factories. This last item is common for successful rebellions. Making your own weapons is not that difficult. The main component is explosives and detonators, and these are smuggled from abroad in bulk. Both items are widely available on the international black market. But rather than just use it for bombs, rebels know that they can also build mortar shells and mines. The latter are banned by international treaty, but they are quite easy to manufacture. Metal working equipment, which is legal and easily obtainable, is used to construct the shells and mine bodies. Designs for both are widely available, even before the Internet came along.

These factories were widely used by guerilla movements during, and after, World War II. During the Vietnam war, such weapons factories were widely used, with the explosives often obtained from dud (unexploded) American bombs and shells. In Iraq, Islamic terrorists also obtained explosives from shells and bombs plundered from the many Iraqi Army weapons storage sites, left unguarded right after the fall of Saddam’s government. Most of these explosives went to build roadside bombs, which employed a wide range of wireless devices for detonators. In Gaza, Palestinian terrorists use metal working tools and common chemicals to manufacture propellant and explosives for their Kassam rockets. Note that rocket propellant is basically slow burning explosives. Once you know how to mix the chemicals, you can control the burn rate of the explosives.

It’s become an axiom of counter-terror operations to hunt down the weapons workshops and, in particular, those with the technical skills to mix the chemicals and build the devices. Israel used this technique very successfully to shut down the Palestinian terrorist bombing campaign inside Israel. In Iraq, U.S. and Iraqi forces applied the same tactics to destroy the terrorist bombing campaign there. But in Sri Lanka, the LTTE had territory under its exclusive control for over a decade, and were able to build camouflaged, or underground, weapons factories.

Even though there is increased effort to destroy these improvised factories, terrorists and rebels have gone to greater lengths to protect their weapons manufacturing facilities. Some are made mobile, others are put in underground bunkers and guarded carefully. Thus, even for “irregular” wars, logistics and manufacturing are key components of the conflict. Take out the enemy weapons production capability, and you take a large step towards defeating the foe.
***

Another color in the same palette was posted on Rawles’ place last week:

***
The Ayalon Institute is located between Nes Ziona and Rehovot. It is located on Kibbutz Hill and was made to fool the British into thinking it was a kibbutz during the British Mandate. In fact, it was a secret ammunitiion factory set up by the Jewish underground.

In the 1930s, it became clear to the Zionist leaders that they were going to need weapons to defend themselves against the Arabs and to fight for their independence. The Jews of Palestine were very resourceful in smuggling weapons and establishing clandestine arms factories. The underground factories churned out relatively easy to build Sten submachine guns, but the Haganah had difficulty obtaining the 9 mm bullets needed for the weapons…
***

Read the rest, please, and consider:

If there is going to be a confrontation, what will win or lose that confrontation will be each side’s ability to outlast the other.

Logistics are critical, and the Evil Ones plan to deprive freedom-lovers of their ability to stay in the field.

As you think about what you need, do everything you can to buy in “lifetime supply” quantities.

Alea iacta est.

>LeFevre: Abstain From Beans

>From Robert LeFevre at Lew Rockwell, via Bill St. Clair:

Abstain From Beans
by Robert LeFevre

In ancient Athens, those who admired the Stoic philosophy of individualism took as their motto: “Abstain from Beans.” The phrase had a precise reference. It meant: don’t vote. Balloting in Athens occurred by dropping various colored beans into a receptacle.

To vote is to express a preference. There is nothing implicitly evil in choosing. All of us in the ordinary course of our daily lives vote for or against dozens of products and services. When we vote for (buy) any good or service, it follows that by salutary neglect we vote against the goods or services we do not choose to buy. The great merit of market place choosing is that no one is bound by any other person’s selection. I may choose Brand X. But this cannot prevent you from choosing Brand Y.

When we place voting into the framework of politics, however, a major change occurs. When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will. Political voting is the legal method we have adopted and extolled for obtaining monopolies of power. Political voting is nothing more than the assumption that might makes right. There is a presumption that any decision wanted by the majority of those expressing a preference must be desirable, and the inference even goes so far as to presume that anyone who differs from a majority view is wrong or possibly immoral.

But history shows repeatedly the madness of crowds and the irrationality of majorities. The only conceivable merit relating to majority rule lies in the fact that if we obtain monopoly decisions by this process, we will coerce fewer persons than if we permit the minority to coerce the majority. But implicit in all political voting is the necessity to coerce some so that all are controlled. The direction taken by the control is academic. Control as a monopoly in the hands of the state is basic.

In times such as these, it is incumbent upon free men to reexamine their most cherished, long-established beliefs. There is only one truly moral position for an honest person to take. He must refrain from coercing his fellows. This means that he should refuse to participate in the process by means of which some men obtain power over others. If you value your right to life, liberty, and property, then clearly there is every reason to refrain from participating in a process that is calculated to remove the life, liberty, or property from any other person. Voting is the method for obtaining legal power to coerce others.

Robert LeFevre (1911–1986) was a businessman and radio personality, and the founder of the Freedom School in Colorado Springs, Colorado, whose purpose was to educate people from all walks of life in the libertarian intellectual tradition. Before it closed in 1968, it had featured among its rotating faculty Rose Wilder Lane, Milton Friedman, F.A. Harper, Frank Chodorov, Leonard Read, Gordon Tullock, G. Warren Nutter, Bruno Leoni, James J. Martin, and even Ludwig von Mises. His library and papers are housed at the Mises Institute.

More from Robert LeFevre later this week.

>Rhodes: The Mandatory Manual of Constitutional Interpretation

>NOTE: This article was first published in S.W.A.T. Magazine, where I write a monthly column called Enemy at the Gate which is dedicated to the Bill of Rights – and that means all of it. The publisher and editor of S.W.A.T. are committed patriots (and no, S.W.A.T. Magazine is not just for police. Its readership also includes military and non-military average folks). They have given their consent to my republishing this article online. I think it presents some foundational principles we should always keep in mind. Feel free to pass it on to others if you like, but be sure to give proper credit to S.W.A.T. Magazine.

By Stewart Rhodes

So great was the Founding generation’s distrust of powerful national governments that, when they rebelled against the Crown, they created a loose league of sovereign States under the Articles of Confederation. And even when some of the leading men of the time pushed for a national government with more power, the people would never have consented to such a leviathan as we now see, de-facto, in Washington D.C. They had just thrown off a government that claimed a power to legislate over them in all matters whatsoever and were not about to replace it with another.

Instead, what they consented to by ratifying the Constitution of 1787 was a dual sovereignty system, granting the new national government only certain, enumerated, and limited powers, with no general police power (a general law-making power to pass laws for the health, safety, and welfare of the people). Only the States had such a general power, which they retained, as the debates over ratification make clear:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce …The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberty, and property of the people; and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State. – James Madison, Federalist 45

Despite such reassurances, the Constitution would never have been ratified without the promise of a Bill of Rights, which the ratifying conventions of several States insisted on because they still feared misconstruction and usurpation of powers never granted.

The Federalists argued that no Bill of Rights was needed since the federal government lacked the power to infringe on any of the people’s rights and listing certain rights and protections could dangerously lead to the inference that the government otherwise had powers not granted, and to the inference that the people’s rights were somehow limited to those listed.

Fortunately, the people did not buy those arguments (imagine where we’d be now, without a Bill of Rights!) but they did address those “concerns” in their proposed amendments, to be doubly-damn sure the Constitution would not be misinterpreted as the Federalists warned. Thus the Bill of Rights itself tells us how we must interpret the Constitution.

First, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights clearly states that its purpose was to prevent misconstruction:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added …. (emphasis added).

As discussed last time, some of those “declaratory and restrictive clauses” are written protections for certain preexisting rights of the people (such as the right to bear arms) and guarantees of ancient procedural protections, such as jury trial. But two others give commands on interpretation “to prevent misconstruction”:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. – Ninth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. – Tenth Amendment. (emphasis added)

These are no mere suggestions. The Ninth Amendment uses the command language “shall not” and is as much a command as “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It also speaks of the enumeration (the listing) in the Constitution of certain rights, not the “creation by the Constitution of certain rights.”

This is no accident. As noted previously, the Bill of Rights does not create rights, but merely provides protection for rights that already exist.

And no, the Tenth Amendment is not merely a “truism.” It is a vital command on interpretation, just like the Ninth. The People meant it to have teeth.

There you go. The Constitution’s built-in manual for constitutional interpretation:

1. You shall not interpret the Constitution as creating rights, and you shall not interpret it as meaning that the people have only those rights listed. We the people have natural rights, and those rights go far beyond those explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights.

2. The national government does not have a general police power to legislate on anything it wants (despite the modern lies of the Supreme Court regarding the Commerce Clause to the contrary). It is a government of particular, enumerated powers, and you shall construe its powers narrowly, as the people intended. There are other powers, which we the people have not granted, and we reserve all of those other powers to our sovereign State governments, or to ourselves.

From all of this, St. George Tucker, in his 1803 commentaries on the Constitution, derived the principle that all of the Constitution’s rights protecting provisions should be read very broadly, while the power granting provisions should be read very narrowly. Tucker was correct, but you don’t need to be a legal scholar to figure it out.

The people who ratified the Constitution did not leave the vital question of its interpretation open to be manipulated by some smart-alecky modern law professor out for tenure and a book deal, or by some future federal judge playing God – they gave us their commands for how it shall and “shall not be construed.”

And it is their understanding and intent that matters, not the preferences of the Nine Nazgul on the Court. Any “interpretive methods” that are contrary to those commands are not only inaccurate, but are themselves violations of the Constitution. Think about that the next time you hear some smooth talking lawyer, judge, professor, or politician prattling on about his own pet “modality” of constitutional interpretation. Look past the smoke and mirrors, and ask yourself if what you are hearing squares with the commands of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

When you use the powerful interpretive lenses the Bill of Rights provides, you will see “Them” for what they are, and you will no longer be fooled.

If you enjoyed this article and would like to read other S.W.A.T. Magazine Enemy at the Gate columns by Stewart Rhodes, you can purchase back issues of S.W.A.T. online, here in electronic format (PDF downloads) or as printed back issues here. You can also subscribe here.

>Vanderboegh: For Freedom Float the Flags I Love

>Go over to Sipsey Street and read Mike’s latest in full. Money quote:

***
…You see, this is the difficult thing we face — now, today, in the near future. “For all who dare that flag pervert.” The thing is, the people who are even now laying claim to more of our liberty and property will send men to enforce their will. And when they do, they will be flying this flag:


It happens that this is our flag, too. Who then is entitled to claim it? Whose vision shall, in the end, this flag represent?

The Founders? Or the collectivists who have risen to power determined to kill off once and for all the Republic?

Whose flag is it?
***

That remains to be seen.

Audentes fortuna juvat.

>Follow-up: Iowa National Guard Weapons Confiscation Drills

>FINAL UPDATE 2355 est 21 Feb 09: Watch this YouTube video of Alex Jones’ interview with LTC Hapgood. Pay especially close attention to how LTC Hapgood answers Jones’ direct question as to whether he would obey an order to confiscate Americans’ firearms:

Part 2 of that interview is here.

Listen and draw your own conclusions.

UPDATE 1015 est 21 Feb 09: A message dropped over on Sipsey Street reads as follows:

Since Iowa HAS a dedicated MOUT / city warfare training compound already built on camp Dodge, why are still they insisting on this “door to door” public training event?

This dog doesn’t hunt.

Link to the base compound order sheet is here.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ogUn2nBuCBEJ:www.iowanationalguard.com/CampDodge/Documents/MOUT_SOP.pdf+%22MOUT%22+facilities+iowa&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Those wishing to push the issue further with LTC Hapgood, the Governor of Iowa, and that state’s Senators and Congressmen should save a copy of the Camp Dodge MOUT materials at:

http://www.iowanationalguard.com/CampDodge/Documents/MOUT_SOP.pdf

For the record, Google Maps shows that it is 80.2 miles from Carroll, Iowa (the planned exercise site) to Johnston, Iowa (where the Camp Dodge MOUT facility is located).

Draw your own conclusions re LTC Hapgood’s veracity.

UPDATE 0955 est 21 Feb 09: See this story from WND re the “scale back” of the ING’s plans.

Note the time of the WND story. Note next the timestamp (in est) of the email below from LTC Hapgood.

Funny how he didn’t mention the “scale back” in either my conversation with him, the subsequent conversation with Stewart, or the email itself…

My fave part of the WND story? This quote:

And while Hapgood confirmed the Guard had been inundated with objections from citizens concerned about soldiers patrolling the streets of an American town, he said most came from people out of state and unfamiliar with the operation. Iowans, he explained, typically cooperate with the Guard. The change in plans was based on troop evaluation, he said, not public outcry.

Shades of the old “outside agitators” cry raised by the old segregationists.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

***
See the attached email received this evening from LTC Gregory Hapgood of the Iowa National Guard:

RE: Guardsmen to conduct weapons confiscation drills in Iowa‏
From: Hapgood, Gregory (IA) (gregory.hapgood@us.army.mil)
Sent: Fri 2/20/09 6:08 PM
To: bloviate@hotmail.com

Peter: It was a pleasure talking with you this afternoon.

Per our conversation, theCarroll, Iowa-based Company A, 1st Battalion, 168th Infantry, Iowa ArmyNational Guard, working in cooperation with city leadership and residents of Arcadia, Iowa, has tentatively planned to hold a training event in Arcadia April 2-5.

After a review of the training plan by battalion and companyleadership, the unit will focus on squad and platoon tasks, which will shiftthe actual training to the unit’s armory in Carroll and away from Arcadia.The proposed training event simulates several combat tasks our Soldiers perform in Iraq and Afghanistan, including cordon and search, which is used to locate weapons caches and also persons of interests. By conducting the training in an urban environment close to where the Soldiers live, this enables our Soldiers to gain proficiency in the exact tasks they will be conducting in combat but without having to travel several hours to Camp Dodge, which is the only military training facility in Iowa. All private citizens who will participate have volunteered to be part of the training event-our unit has a great relationship with the unit’s hometown of Carroll and also with surrounding towns, including Arcadia, and we have conducted other training events in the area with outstanding cooperation by the localcitizens, law enforcement personnel, and first responders. The bottom line is that this training event is designed to build combat proficiency while maximizing training time and resources.

Peter, you will not find greater patriots or more committed defenders of theU.S. Constitution than the men and women of the Iowa National Guard. Don’t hesitate to contact me if you have additional questions.

Best regards.

Lt. Col. Greg Hapgood
Public Affairs Officer
Iowa National Guard

—–Original Message—–

From: bloviate@hotmail.com
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 6:43 PM
To: PAOIA
Subject: Guardsmen to conduct weapons confiscation drills in Iowa
Importance: High

To: IA National Guard, Public Affairs Officer
From: A Deeply Concerned American Citizen
Re: Confirmation/Denial of the Referenced Media Story/Iowa Guard to Practice Weapons Confiscation

1) Will you confirm or deny the substance of the below media story as linkedathttp://www.carrollspaper.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=7451&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=&S=1 ?

2) Who is your commanding officer, and what is his/her contact information?

3) Who is the commanding officer of the Iowa Guard, and what is his/hercontact information?

Your prompt attention to this inquiry is appreciated.

In my brief call with LTC Hapgood earlier today, he confirmed that this story was accurate in its substance, and he promised to send me the email above.

Stewart Rhodes also spoke today with LTC Hapgood; his blog entry follows:

***

I just had an interesting and rather emotional phone call with Col Hapgood, Public Affairs Officer, of the IA National Guard (Pete of WRSA sent me his phone number).

I introduced myself as a veteran and a writer for S.W.A.T. Magazine, and said I needed confirmation and clarification on the planned house to house search exercise scheduled for Arcadia Iowa for April 2-5, 2009 because people were very, very concerned.

The Colonel told me it is only to prepare them for Afghanistan and Iraq.He said that there are no full time military in Iowa, and therefore no place to train in the state to get them ready for MOUT and that is why they used local towns.He said they were baffled by all this [uproar] because it is just routine training to prepare them for deployment to combat in urban environments overseas.I asked him why that particular scenario was picked – of having NG troops searching for a “weapons dealer.”He said that in Afghanistan and Iraq, they have to do searches for weapons caches and need to train for it, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with domestic deployment or any plans for domestic.

I asked him that question twice – “so, it is not for domestic use or training for future domestic use?” And he said no, not at all. I told him, in no uncertain terms, that Americans, especially gun owners, were extremely concerned because of the current political climate and because of the potential for civil unrest in the future because of the economy – we hear all manner of rumors about preparations for such disturbances – and the use of a scenario of searching for a gun dealer seems aimed at gun owners – and in particular we are concerned because of who is now in power.

As an example of why we are concerned, I told him how Rahm Emanuel, who is called “the second most powerful man in America” gave a speech before the Brady Bunch in 2007 advocating that anyone on the no-fly list be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms, and anyone can be put on that list at any time.I told him that we know they want to disarm us.And that is why folks are so very alarmed by this exercise.I also told him that there were people planning on going there to protest.

He responded by saying that while he did not want to get into politics, he could assure me that all of the people in the Iowa National Guard are the most dedicated supporters and defenders of the Constitution and also of the right to bear arms.And I responded by saying yes, I took that oath too – most of us did – and we just want to be sure that oath is kept, and the very last thing we ever want to see in this country is it being veteran against veteran (and this is where my voice cracked and I got rather emotional), but, I told him. we are very concerned and our radar is up because the people in power in DC have no respect for the Constitution or our rights and that is why folks wanted confirmation and clarification of this story.

I was going to remind him of what happened during Katrina, to let him know how disturbing that was to many patriots, but because he was so frank, and sounded so sincere when he said that the people in the Iowa NG are dedicated defenders of the Constitution and of the right to bear arms, I did not do that to him.

MY THOUGHTS AFTER THE PHONE CALL:

That was a tough goddamn phone call for me. I truly hope that all men and women in uniform remember, and keep, their oath. I never, ever want to see in my lifetime veterans having to fight against our own troops in defense of our rights. God forbid it.I still have some serious concerns about this kind of training going on – especially when it is not made clear to the public that it is for training in preparation for overseas, and the “civilians” are supposed to be Afghan villagers and Iraqis.

But even with those qualifications, I still don’t like it, since the troops are still going door to door, in America, searching for weapons, and that is still conditioning them for that very act, regardless of the intent.And I don’t think the Colonel or the National Guard troops understand fully just how on edge people in this country are, and how suspicious we are (for very good reason) of anything the government does that even hints at martial law or going house to house in America looking for weapons.

And however sincere the Colonel or the rest of the troops in the NG, we still DO NOT trust the politicians in DC, who have already demonstrated that their oath to support and defend the Constitution was some damn joke, since they violate it all the time.The forked tongued bastards in DC cynically roll their eyes and mouth the oath with a bored expression on their faces because it is a mere formality before they get power and perks. They don’t mean it. They have nothing but contempt for the restraints in the Constitution.

But when us veterans took that oath to defend the Constitution and this Republic against all enemies, foreign and domestic, we MEANT IT with all our heart and soul, ready to give our lives to keep it. And we still mean it, because that oath was for life. I sure hope to hell that what the Colonel said about the NG troops’ commitment to defend the Constitution is true, and I hope that if/when The Day comes, they will side with the people, and not the politicians.

But I still feel like something else is needed to express to these troops our concerns, and our resolve, and to remind them of their oaths, and of our oath. It is just too important and vital an issue to leave to chance. We need to be sure they will be oath keepers when the chips are down.

Stewart Rhodes
***

I agree with Stewart that LTC Hapgood seemed to be an earnest and sincere professional.

Nonetheless, the ultimate question remains: what will LTC Hapgood, the Iowa National Guard, and the rest of America’s vaunted military machine do when (not if) they are ordered by the National Command Authority to collect, whether directly or in support of .gov forces such as the BATFE and their superiors in the FBI, firearms from American citizens?

I, like LTC Hapgood, “don’t want to get into politics.”

I and every other freedom-loving American simply wants to be left the hell alone by a grasping Leviathan that recognizes no bounds on its authority or power.

On that awful day, when the President as Commander-in-Chief orders LTC Hapgood and the rest of the good men and women of the US military into action against “gun terrorists” and “weapons dealers”, we will all be plunged hip-deep into the cataclysm that inevitably results when politics are divorced from morals and ethics.

The hard truth is that many military men and women will obey those orders, and many others will not.

Welcome to the jungle, now known as the “polygonal battlespace”.

Audentes fortuna juvat.

>Amnestia Approaches

>Vanderboegh sends this item:

***
El Piolín Interviews President Obama
February 18, 2009 · 5 Comments

Yesterday, President Obama was a guest on “El Piolín por la manana” (on of the nation’s popular radio shows that boast an enormous Latin@ following). Obama and the First Lady were on his show several times during the campaign and yesterday he made the commitment to continue to have a regular presence from the Administration on the show.

During the interview, Obama pledged his support of the Latin@ and immigrant community and his continuing commitment to fixing our broken immigration system. You can read the full transcript after the jump, but here is a good highlight:

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I’ve said every time I’ve been on the show, Piolín, we’re going to make sure that we begin the process of dealing with the immigration system that’s broken. We’re going to start by really trying to work on how to improve the current system so that people who want to be naturalized, who want to become citizens, like you did, that they are able to do it; that it’s cheaper, that it’s faster, that they have an easier time in terms of sponsoring family members.

And then we’ve got to have comprehensive immigration reform. Now, you know, we need to get started working on it now. It’s going to take some time to move that forward, but I’m very committed to making it happen. And we’re going to be convening leadership on this issue so that we can start getting that legislation drawn up over the next several months.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release February 17, 2009

INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT

BY EDDIE “PIOLÍN” SOTELO, RADIO

Via Telephone

1:48 P.M. MST

THE PRESIDENT: Hello.

Q Hello.

THE PRESIDENT: Who am I speaking with?

Q Piolín.

THE PRESIDENT: Piolín, my friend, this is President Barack Obama.

Q How are you doing? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: I am doing good. I promised you that I would be on the show when I was President, and here I am on the show. (Laughter.)

Q You promised me that you were going to be in the studio –

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven’t gone to Los Angeles yet, but I should get credit for keeping my promise this way.

Q Oh, yes, yes. (Applause.) Yes, but we’re waiting for you because we are celebrating together. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: How have you been?

Q Great, great, Mr. President. We have Mr. President Barack Obama with us. And thank you, Mr. President, for taking the time to speak with us today. And you make history — we’re so proud. I know you are the President for everybody.

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. Well, you know, it was wonderful being on your program when I was running. And now I want to make sure that we continue to reach out because you have so many listeners and I think that it’s so important that the Latino community, the Spanish-speaking community, continues to stay involved in politics.

We’ve got a very tough economy and we just signed a stimulus bill today that’s going to put people back to work and provide health care to people who don’t have it. We signed the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Now legal immigrants are able to get health care for the first time, which is something that the Latino community had been arguing for, for almost a decade.

And so I think we’re making real progress, but we’re going to have to keep on making sure that all of you are involved as much as possible.

Q Mr. President, you know, I just want to begin by saying now, today is an exciting today. Congratulations on your accomplishment.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

Q And how soon can we expect to see the positive effect of the stimulus package?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that right away what you’re going to start seeing is, first of all, states and local governments, they’re going to be able to keep people in their jobs. There was — the budgets are so bad at the state level that people who were teaching in schools, or police officers, or firefighters, a lot of people were going to be fired from their state jobs. And so we’re going to be able to keep those jobs open.

We’re also going to be making investments and rebuilding roads and bridges and school construction, and that’s going to put a lot of people to work, especially people who are in the construction industries. With the housing market in such bad shape, they’ve been out of work. Now, hopefully, some of these construction jobs will become available again. It will probably take six months to a year before we start seeing a big impact, but at least we’ve now gotten the process moving so that we can start doing a lot better than we’ve been doing over the last several months.

Q So that means, Mr. President, that now that you have signed the stimulus package, I’m going to receive a raise, a pay raise?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, the — you, Piolín, are already making so much money that you probably won’t get a pay raise. (Laughter.) You know, but for people who aren’t as rich as you, I think that they’ve got a good chance of getting help –

Q I’ve been playing, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. Well, and the other thing is, you know, the — a lot of people who’ve been laid off of their jobs, they need unemployment insurance. And what this bill does is it makes sure that they keep on getting unemployment insurance. It means that they have a easier time keeping their health care, even if they’ve lost their job. So it’s really going to provide a lot of relief to people who need it.

Q Mr. President, how will the stimulus package help persons who are losing their homes, and how will it benefit those who want to buy a home for the first time?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that’s actually a separate piece of legislation that we’re going to be announcing tomorrow. And the key there is to make sure that we work with the banks and the homeowners to try to reduce the monthly payments that they make. And so I’ll be announcing that program, but it’s something that should help a lot of families who are making their payments, but are having a much, much tougher time because home values have gone down so drastically. So we’ll have an entire separate home program — housing program that we’re going to be announcing tomorrow.

Q Thanks a lot, Mr. President. We have Mr. President Barack Obama with us. And let me tell you this, Mr. President; I’m sure you know, but it’s important to let you know once again, we make a big contribution to our country from all across art, music, labor. And most important a lot of Hispanics are in Iraq defending the United States, even without being American citizen.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q We need your help.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I’ve said every time I’ve been on the show, Piolín, we’re going to make sure that we begin the process of dealing with the immigration system that’s broken. We’re going to start by really trying to work on how to improve the current system so that people who want to be naturalized, who want to become citizens, like you did, that they are able to do it; that it’s cheaper, that it’s faster, that they have an easier time in terms of sponsoring family members.

And then we’ve got to have comprehensive immigration reform. Now, you know, we need to get started working on it now. It’s going to take some time to move that forward, but I’m very committed to making it happen. And we’re going to be convening leadership on this issue so that we can start getting that legislation drawn up over the next several months.

Q Mr. President, is there some sort of network we could establish to be in communication regarding the comprehensive immigration reform, and personally what can I do?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, the key thing right now is obviously we’ve got to make sure that all the people who are involved in immigration reform issues, that they sit down together and they start thinking about how we’re going to approach this problem. Politically it’s going to be tough. It’s probably tougher now than it was, partly because of the fact that the economy has gotten worse. So what I’ve got to do is I’ve got to focus on the economy, I’ve got to focus on housing, and make sure that people feel a little bit more secure; at the same time, get the various immigrant rights groups together and have them start providing some advice in terms of what strategies we’re going to pursue in Congress.

Q That’s one of the things, Mr. President, I would like to happen. I’m working for media and knowing that our people worked so much. And, you know, they came out from the houses, going to work — scary because they don’t even know if they’re going to be deported. And can we try to establish like a signal, like a network — for example, I like what you did with the financial — financial people, that you set it up, for example — the newspaper from LA, is part of that — those groups of advisors, financial advisors that you put — I like the idea. How can we have kind of like the thing where I can receive information? What do we need to do so we can receive a comprehensive reform?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’ve got some wonderful people on my White House staff who are working on this issue on an ongoing basis. And what we’ll do is we’ll make sure that one of those people can appear on your program on a regular basis, giving you information about what we’re doing. And hopefully at some point you’ll be able to come visit us at the White House.

Q Any time, Mr. President. And I would like to be there when you sign the comprehensive immigration reform.

THE PRESIDENT: All right. Well, thank you so much, Piolín. It’s great to talk to you.

Q Mr. President, you know we are close friends and you know that I have your BlackBerry phone number and you have mine. (Laughter.) So keep in touch.

THE PRESIDENT: You know I will. Thank you so much. Tell everybody in the studio I said hello. I had a great time when I visited you, and everybody there was so nice. And you were very nice to my wife, as well, when she was on the program. So thank you so much, Piolín. Take care.

Q Take care, Mr. President. You know, you are in our prayers. You have our support, and we want to help in any way we can.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Thank you, guys. Bye-bye.

END 1:57 P.M. MST
***

Anyone care for 10 million plus new pro-Socialist voters?

Manana.

>Why They Must Disarm All Thinking Americans

>Denninger explains:

***
On Our Fraudulent Economy

This morning Rick Santelli went nuclear on the entire “fraudulent mortgage” game – the culmination of a series of rants that he has (correctly) launched over the last year.

(As an aside, great minds must think alike, as we both had the “extra bathroom” thing in our morning rants!)

You can view it here (can’t embed as its a CNBS video clip)

Here’s the point folks, when you get down to it:

  • The entire last two decades of so-called “Economic Growth” has been fueled by one fraud after another, starting with the Internet Bubble.
  • This fraud has been systematic and the mainstream media has been both an implicit and explicit enabler of these frauds, instead of doing its job, which is to root them out. The looks on the faces of the other CNBC “anchors” was one of abject fear – perhaps parts of “The Fourth Estate” is coming to realize that when the pitchforks and torches come out – and they certainly will if we hold the course we’re on – they might have some trouble explaining why they shouldn’t be near the head of the list of those being “sought”?
  • The conflicts of interest in the media, where their advertising dollars come from those who are promulgating and profiting from these frauds means that they must choose between their job of protecting the public (their essential purpose under The First Amendment) and being a willing accomplice in the theft being performed by the prime actors in these frauds.
  • With the exception of a few months around 1995 (which roughly coincided with Microsoft’s release of Win/95, the first “consumer” system of wide acceptance that had a dialer built in along with a web browser) the Internet NEVER doubled in size every three months. Yet this was paraded as the statistic to justify all the bubble companies up until the bubble burst in the spring of 2000. I was one of hundreds if not thousands of people with access to the core of the network and KNEW this was a lie. Nobody would report the truth. Proof? Read all about it:
    • And that’s not the only thing Denninger feels strongly about. Though the Internet made him a millionaire — his stake in MCS was rumoured to be worth US$12 million at the time of the company’s sale — the feisty Midwesterner has nothing but scorn for the industry overall.

      “I refused to take any stake in the acquiring firm. The shell game being played by these corporations is astounding,” he said.

      Denninger has also steadfastly avoided investing any of his personal fortune in the Internet: “I refuse to have anything to do with the Nasdaq 100. There will be a shake-out, and when it comes, it will be ugly and it will happen fast.”

      He might as well have been speaking of Black Week, April 10 through April 14, when the Nasdaq crashed.

      The volatility of Net stocks in the past few weeks makes Denninger seem prescient, but his dislike for the unseemly marriage of breathless hype and dubious business plans is visceral.

  • When the Internet bubble collapsed it was decided to intentionally pump liquidity into the system and ignore both banking regulations and the law, making possible the housing bubble.

  • When the leverage ran out Henry Paulson, who was then with Goldman Sachs, came to Congress and the SEC and asked for the ability to run what would turn into effective infinite leverage. The request was granted.

  • The very same Henry Paulson, having done this, then bailed off and became The Secretary of the Treasury. He was fully aware of what was going on when the bubble started to come apart in 2007 because he personally lobbied for the changes in law that made the terminal blow off possible!

  • Every single one of the firms that has blown up has had leverage far higher than the former 14:1 legal limit. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman – all had leverage at least twice the former legal limit when they blew up. After the first blowup Treasury and the SEC could have slammed the door on this and forced leverage to be taken back down – in August of 2007. Government intentionally refused to take that action despite myself and others screaming about it.
  • Hundreds of billions of dollars were siphoned off by the banksters and common Americans as a consequence of willfully-blind and even fraudulent “lending.”

If you measure “prosperity” by stock prices we’re somewhere back in 1997 or 1998. But if the entirety of these two bubbles were fraud-driven (and they were) then a realistic expectation is that we will not only return to 1995 stock prices (about ~450 on the S&P 500) but we will over-correct significantly because the debt that this fraud created still remains in the economy!

That could easily cut the S&P in half again, which puts my 210 “oh God” print on the table, no?

Let’s be clear here: There is no way out of this box, and the corruption and fraud have permeated every corner of our financial, media and governmental systems.

We give “free” education and health care to illegal aliens, paid for out of citizen tax dollars. Our government supports this.

We propose to give “foreclosure relief” to people who lied on their mortgage applications; how many of the so-called “rescue” programs would have ANY uptake among the public if as part of the refinance or assistance process the original paperwork was re-underwritten to discover if you lied, and if you did, you were prosecuted instead of being helped?

We have done exactly nothing to indict and prosecute the banking executives, the housing industry executives and others in the business world who contributed to these lies and frauds, in some cases explicitly.

The Congresspeople who got “special deals” from Countrywide Financial (and others) on their mortgages remain in office and are not being charged and tried for what, in my opinion, amounts to public corruption. The amounts involved here are not small – the “savings” in many cases ran into the tens of thousands of dollars.

It has been disclosed that several sitting Congressmen received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Stanford Financial (now under investigation on suspicion of not only bilking investors but also money laundering!); the firm also allegedly gave eight hundred thousand dollars to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee during a year that Congress was debating a bill that would have tightened anti-fraud provisions against the securities industry. The bill was killed in a Senate committee.

We learned that government employees are also profligate tax cheats! Not only the high-profile ones like Geithner and Daschle either – this is an across-the-board problem:

The Internal Revenue Service is trying to collect billions of dollars in unpaid taxes from nearly half a million federal employees. According to IRS records, 171,549 current federal workers did not voluntarily pay their federal income taxes in 2007. The same is true for 37,752 active duty military and nearly 200,000 retired civilian and military personnel.

Documents obtained by WTOP through the Freedom of Information Act show 449,531 federal employees and retirees did not pay their taxes for a total of $3,586,784,725 in taxes owed last year.

What?! Oh, and with the exception of the IRS, you can’t be fired as a government employee for not paying your taxes either. You can’t make stuff like this up folks – nobody would believe you.

I’m tired of people demanding that I cover the bad bets they made as a consequence of fraud throughout the system, while the people responsible, including those in industry and Washington DC go unpunished.

The fruit of a poison tree is also poisonous and if you were a victim of that fraud (that is, you didn’t knowingly buy a house you can’t afford, you didn’t overstate your income and you didn’t intentionally speculate on home price appreciation – you instead bought responsibly, you didn’t exceed 36% DTI on the back end, you put significant money down and you took a conventional mortgage – not one of those fancy “Option ARM” rent-a-house products that you’d NEVER be able to pay off on the original terms) then you should be looking to those who DID commit fraud for recourse, not the government and everyone else’s tax dollars.

If on the other hand you did overstate your income, you did take out an OptionARM, you did lever yourself up to your neck, you did play the “House is an ATM” game or you did speculate with your house then you deserve exactly nothing for help because you participated in an intentional attempt to game economic and financial reality and lost.

Now for those who merely speculated and lost (and there are a lot of them) I believe we should reverse the Bankruptcy “reform” act so you can access the courts and find relief, both spreading the pain to the lender who imprudently granted you credit and accepting a lot of that pain yourself in the form of a destroyed credit rating for the next seven years.

But for those who overstated their income or otherwise committed some form of fraud – and let’s be clear here folks, mortgage fraud is a federal offense – what those people deserve is a long stay in prison.

Since we seem to have a shortage of prison space I recommend that we immediately decriminalize all non-violent drug possession and consensual sales between adults, expunging their sentences and releasing those prisoners. We can then tax drug sales (and sell them in DRUG STORES, which are conveniently named), use the money to pay for treatment programs, but more importantly we will have plenty of room to jail all the fraudsters, including the banking executives and Congresspeople that got us into this mess.

Our economy must contract to a sustainable level – period. This is not a matter of what we want, it is a matter of what is possible.

A bubble economy built on fraud cannot be reflated once it pops and the fraud is exposed at the level to which it occurred in this case. It is simply not possible.

We must deal with the underlying rot in our financial and political systems, and until we do in a forceful and forthright fashion we will continue to see economic malaise and destruction.

Wake up America.

***

Do you really think that the bankers, their bought-and-paid-for politicians, the lumpenproletariat Looters, and the armies of armored henchmen who protect them all want you to have any ability whatsoever to say “No!”?

Especially if your objections come in the form of high-velocity action, rather than mere words?

Veritas vos liberabit.

The truth will set you free.

But you will be damned uncomfortable along the way.

>Propaganda for Liberty: "Land of the Free"

>http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=8298479803481414932&hl=en&fs=true

Watch.

Think.

Observe.

Brace for impact.

Stand.

Alea iacta est.

>Diversity

>From Concerned Carolinean, for your use as you deem fit.

Audentes fortuna juvat.

>Crew-Served Machine Guns — 5.56-mm and 7.62-mm

>

Today’s reading is FM 3-22.68, available online at the link, or in convenient CD format here.

The FM contains a separate chapter each for the M249, M60, and M240B. Chapter 1-3 covers operation from general disassembly to clearing procedures. Includes information on the M122 and M122A1 Tripod. Chapter 4 is on machine gun marksmanship training covering topics from: firing positions, night fire, engagement of moving targets, application of fire, changing the barrel, crew drill, transition fire, and other topics. Chapter 5 covers combat techniques of fire and Chapter 6 is on train the trainer.

I prefer the ring-bound hardcopy available at Commando Military Supply in Columbus, GA, which also has other educational materials.

Audentes fortuna juvat.

>Living in an Imperial World: National Guard Weapons Confiscation Training in Carroll, Iowa

>As dead-dropped somewhere over on Sipsey Street, a hint of things to come:

***
Guardsmen to conduct urban training at Arcadia in April

Daily Times-Herald (Carroll, Iowa)
By BUTCH HEMAN
Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 17, 2009

The Carroll National Guard unit will train on urban military operations by holding a four-day exercise at Arcadia.

The purpose of the April 2-5 drill will be to gather intelligence, then search for and apprehend a suspected weapons dealer, according to Sgt. Mike Kots, readiness NCO for Alpha Company.

Citizens, law enforcement, media and other supporters will participate.

Troops will spend Thursday, April 2, staging at a forward operations base at Carroll. The next day company leaders will conduct reconnaissance and begin patrolling the streets of Arcadia to identify possible locations of the weapons dealer.

The primary phase will be done Saturday, April 4, when convoys will be deployed from Carroll to Arcadia. Pictures of the arms dealer will be shown in Arcadia, and soldiers will go door to door asking if residents have seen the suspect.

Soldiers will knock only at households that have agreed to participate in the drill, Kots noted.

“Once credible intelligence has been gathered,” said Kots, “portions of the town will be road-blocked and more in-depth searches of homes and vehicles will be conducted in accordance with the residents’ wishes.

“One of the techniques we use in today’s political environment is cordon and knock,” Kots explained. “We ask for the head of the household, get permission to search, then have them open doors and cupboards. The homeowner maintains control. We peer over their shoulder, and the soldier uses the homeowner’s body language and position to protect him.”

During this phase of the operation, troops will interact with residents and media while implementing crowd-control measures and possibly treating and evacuating injured persons.

The unit will use a Blackhawk helicopter for overhead command and control, and to simulate medevacs.

The drill will culminate in the apprehension of the suspected arms dealer.

Alpha Company will conduct a review of the drill on Sunday, April 5.

A meeting to give residents more information and accept volunteers will be held 7 p.m. Monday, March 2, in the Arcadia American Legion hall.

Kots said the exercise will replace Alpha Company’s weekend drill for April.

“We have a lot of extended drills this coming year,” he added.

In addition to surveillance, searching and apprehension, the exercise will also give the troops valuable experience in stability, support, patrol, traffic control, vehicle searches and other skills needed for deployment in an urban environment.

“This exercise will improve the real-life operational skills of the unit,” said Kots. “And it will hopefully improve the public’s understanding of military operations.”

The pre-drill work with residents is as important at the drill itself.

“It will be important for us to gain the trust and confidence of the residents of Arcadia,” said Kots. “We will need to identify individuals that are willing to assist us in training by allowing us to search their homes and vehicles and to participate in role-playing.”

“We really want to get as much information out there as possible, because this operation could be pretty intrusive to the people of Arcadia.”
***

Folks wanting more details (or to express your opinion) should contact the Iowa National Guard Public Affairs Office:

The Iowa National Guard Public Affairs Office provides guidance, counsel, planning, and assistance to the Iowa National Guard Adjutant General and staff and subordinate units of the Iowa Air and Army National Guard in support of internal and external information programs including Community Relations, Internal Information, and Media Relations. The public affairs office also handles key personnel biographies.

The public affairs office is located in the Chief of Staff’s office on the second floor of the Joint Forces Headquarters – JFHQ Armory at Camp Dodge, Johnston, Iowa. Normal business hours are Mondays through Fridays 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Phone: 515-252-4582 / DSN 431-4582
515-252-4305 / DSN 431-4305

Email: paoia@ng.army.mil

Here’s the email I have just sent to them:

To: IA National Guard, Public Affairs Officer
From: A Deeply Concerned American Citizen
Re: Confirmation/Denial of the Referenced Media Story/Iowa Guard to Practice Weapons Confiscation

1) Will you confirm or deny the substance of the below media story as linked at http://www.carrollspaper.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=7451&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=&S=1 ?

2) Who is your commanding officer, and what is his/her contact information?

3) Who is the commanding officer of the Iowa Guard, and what is his/her contact information?

Your prompt attention to this inquiry is appreciated.

Any replies will be posted.

Alea iacta est.

>III

>
Coming soon, along with a 3′ x 5′ version of the flag below. Details as soon as inventory in hand.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.

>CNBC’s Rick Santelli Calls for Revolution — Live On-Air

>Watch all of this video from this morning’s CNBC programming.

Then pass it on.

Audentes fortuna juvat.

Graphic courtesy of Denninger

>Rhodes: The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation

>From Dirt Rhodes Scholar, courtesy of S.W.A.T. Magazine:

NOTE: This article was first published in S.W.A.T. Magazine, where I write a monthly column called Enemy at the Gate which is dedicted to the Bill of Rights – and that means all of it. The publisher and editor of S.W.A.T. are committed patriots (and no, S.W.A.T. Magazine is not just for police. Its readership also includes military and non-military average folks). They have given their consent to my republishing this article online. I think it presents some foundational principles we should always keep in mind. Feel free to pass it on to others if you like, but be sure to give proper credit to S.W.A.T. Magazine.

By Stewart Rhodes

Ben Franklin reportedly remarked that the Constitution formed “a Republic … if you can keep it.”

Well, you can’t keep it if you don’t know what it is.

So, what is it? As George Mason said, “no free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” What are the fundamental principles of our Republic? Should we look first to Supreme Court decisions for such guidance?

Hardly.

As Jefferson said:

They [the judges] are … in fact the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States and to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate.

And that was when the ideas of the Enlightenment still reigned supreme, long before the infestation of Marxism among legal elites. No, the Court has long ago gone astray. Let us begin with our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness ….

There, at the heart of our Republic, are not just the concepts of equality and consent of the people, but also natural rights. The Declaration of Independence is fundamentally a natural law document and the “long train of abuses” that made revolt necessary were not only deprivations of representation (as we were taught in school), but also of natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property, and the abuse of all of the ancient, hard won procedural protections of those rights, such as habeas corpus and jury trial in a civilian court, rather than a court of admiralty. They finally shot back when the government attempted to strip them of the means of resisting the already ongoing abuse of their other natural rights.

Rights come first, and then government is created to protect them, not the other way round. This is something modern political and legal elites want us to forget. They don’t believe in inalienable, natural rights that are ours by virtue of ‘nature and nature’s God.” Instead, they share the view of Karl Marx, that such “rights” are merely artificial political/legal constructs, that man is just an infinitely malleable animal (to be shaped by social engineers), with no inherit rights whatsoever, and your only “rights” are whatever society wants to “give” you. Black’s law dictionary defines this as “positive law” – man made law – as opposed to natural law.

Thus, Janet Reno once told a group of federal law enforcement officers “You are part of a government that has given its people more freedom … than any other government in the history of the world”(emphasis added).

Under this view, which flips the Declaration on its head, on what grounds can you ever rebel? Since your rights are “gifts” from government, and merely whatever the government courts say, with no higher power or law, it is never legitimate for a people to rebel, no matter how ridiculous the government’s “interpretation” of its own powers or how arbitrary and murderous it becomes once its servants in black robes “make it legal” by interpreting your so-called rights out of existence. Without natural rights there is no right to revolt, which is precisely why these elites think it totally illegitimate for you to have effective means of resistance.

Remember that all of the Crown’s actions were upheld by the English courts as legal and “constitutional.” However, for the Founding generation, that was not the end of the argument because they knew their rights were not just whatever the government robed lawyers said.

In harmony with that timeless, self evident truth, the Bill of Rights does not grant any rights. It is really more a bill of protections of rights. The First Amendment does not say “the people are hereby granted a right to free speech, freedom of the press, free practice of religion, and assembly.” Instead, it says “Congress shall make no law respecting … [those rights].” It is a prohibition on Congress, to protect pre-existing natural rights.

The same is true of the Second Amendment. It does not say “the people are hereby granted the right to bear arms.” No. It says “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is a prohibition on government action, meant to protect a pre-existing right.

Likewise, the Fourth Amendment does not grant us a right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures. It declares that our right to that security “shall not be violated” and then it sets forth procedural requirements to protect that preexisting right. Nor does the Fifth Amendment grant us a right to life, liberty, or property. It merely prohibits the government from depriving us of those pre-existing rights without due process of law, and spells out specific procedural protections for those natural rights. The same holds true for jury trial.

Thus, whenever you hear a judge, politician, lawyer, or talking head in the media speak of what rights you do or don’t have under the Constitution, you are hearing at best an ignorant statement, and at worst, a lie. And whenever you find yourself running to look in the Bill of Rights to see whether you have a right to do something, you are making a fundamental error.

Your rights are inherently yours by nature and by nature’s God.

With that fundamental principle as our background, I will next delve more directly into constitutional interpretation, showing how the Bill of Rights mandates how we must interpret what the people consented to as the means “to secure these rights.”

If you enjoyed this article and would like to read other S.W.A.T. Magazine Enemy at the Gate columns by Stewart Rhodes, you can purchase back issues of S.W.A.T. online, here in electronic format (PDF downloads) or as printed back issues here. You can also subscribe here.

>The Obamessiah’s ‘Civilian Expeditionary Workforce’?

>
Spartacus asks:

Could this DoD directive be the administrative foundation for The Dear Leader’s ‘civilian national security force’?

Read it all.

>Possible Ban on Imported Military-Caliber Ammunition?

>UPDATE 1016 est 18 February 2009: Thanks to commenter Aklaft, we have this follow-up from Shooting Wire:

Politics and Pistols

Last Friday, we reported that Canadian authorities had sent word of a United States State Department proposal that would ban several ammo calibers sale by United States companies to Canada. It’s safe to say that the story kicked off quite a storm on both sides of the border.

In Canada, calls to their Parliament protested the idea that whole classes of ammo could, effectively, be stopped at the border. Here in the US, it taught me to be a good bit more exact with the concepts of import and export. The intent of the story was simple – to let our readers know the United States Department of State was considering a ban on the export of US ammo in several calibers to Canada.

Although the .50 BMG, 7.62 x39mm Soviet, 7.61 x51 NATO, .308 Winchester, 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington are considered by some to be purely military rounds, they are, in fact, very effective for hunting anything from varmints to polar bears. The US State Department, however, seemed to be trying to use the military application of those rounds and classify them as for military sales only. Technically, it’s not a “gun ban” or even an “ammo ban” but a “reclassification” – but the effect would be the same. Those calibers of ammo would be restricted export items for American companies.

Another whispered action, the requirement that all firearms require DSP-83 End Use Certificates (and the $250 export fee per firearm) was also apparently couched as another reclassification. Again, not a ban, but a very effective “non-ban” on gun sales.

Fortunately, we’re starting to hear some denials of these ideas – from both sides of the border. The denials are coming from some normally anti-gun politicians in Canada, leading our sources in Parliament to suspect the protests from Canadian gun owners had an impact. As expected, our officials “can’t comment on something that’s only been proposed” but it seems the idea may be losing steam. And it should.

Another story from Washington is getting its share of attention. President Obama’s administration is defending – at least for now – the rule enacted by President Bush in his final days as president that allows concealed carry in national parks. That’s not an unconditional bit of support, but it’s jaw-dropping for many of us who have a hard time seeing the current administration supporting anything to do with firearms.

The qualification on the support is based on the fact the administration is also looking to determine whether the Bush measure follows environmental filing procedures. It’s a small detail, but one the Brady Campaign, the National Parks Conservation Association and the National Coalition of National Park Service Retirees have used as a basis for a lawsuit seeking to overturn the rule. They argue the regulation was enacted without the requisite environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. They also proffered the position that the concealed carry rule might prevent some visitors and school groups from going to the national parks.

The Justice Department filed a response that says the new rule “does not alter the environmental status quo, and will not have any significant impacts on public health and safety.”

Despite that response, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has asked for an internal assessment of whether the measure might, in fact, have any environmental impacts that need be taken into account.

We’ll keep you posted.

– Jim Shepherd

See also David’s take, along with the commentary there.

From Virginia Shooting Sports Association:

State Department Floating Ammo Import Ban?

It looks like those who said the Obama Administration would strike while the iron is hot may have been correct, and the Administration may be doing it in a way that does not require them to even get a vote in Congress. In this morning’s edition of the Shooting Wire, Jim Shepherd writes that Canadian officials have it on “good authority” our State Department may be on the verge of cutting off all imports of certain calibers of ammunition.

Ammos listed for this rumored ban include the .50BMG, 7.62x39mm Soviet, 7.62x51mm NATO, .308 Winchester, 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington. Additionally, we’re hearing that an expansion of this proposed ban might be broadened to include the 6.8mm SPC, 9mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP- among others.

In other words, State Department officials may be floating a trial balloon to see if there are howls of protest, or whimpers of compliance. Canadian elected officials who have directed this information to me say the move seems to be motivated by “emboldened” anti-gun officials who think they have a kindred spirit in President Obama.

Shepherd continues that there may also be a plan to ban exports on certain firearms to Canada from the US, resulting in the State Department hammering gun manufacturers, distributors and exporters in the United States while simultaneously making firearms -and ammunition – ownership and acquisition more difficult for Canadians.

Many in the pro-rights community have said since the election that Obama could circumvent Congress by using regulations in his various cabinet departments to attack gun owners. It appears that it may have already begun.
Posted by VSSA President at 8:01 AM
Labels: Barrack Obama and guns, regulating guns and ammo
3 comments:
Scott said…
You can ban weapons with a pen, but not thoughts and dissent. Our country is reaping the rotten fruit of our politicians corruption. They soon will find as Maria Antoinette it is better to pay attention to grumblings of the masses.

February 18, 2009 9:40 AM
Harry said…
This “story” is pure fantasy…. This stuff is put out by guys who financially benefit from selling more stuff to their conservative flock of sheep…. The wackjobs who actually believe these rumors are the same guys who stocked up on ammo for Y2K and the “armageddon” it was supposed to create….

February 18, 2009 1:12 PM
Harry said…
Oh my God, what a load of crap… This “rumour” is so false, its hard to believe someone had the audacity to print it… I guess if the facts don’t fit your belief system, you just have to make them up…

February 18, 2009 1:34 PM
Post a Comment
***

Corroboration/further info will be posted as it becomes available.

>Rhodes: Montana Moves Closer to Secession

>Dirt Rhodes Scholar has the details on Montana’s sovereignty resolution, as recently introduced in their Legislature.

Read it all, including the comments section, in which a bold Westerner asserts:

The largest employer in Montana is the hospital and health industry. Montana also has a very large elderly population. So, secede from the Union and you lose all current SS and medical health benefits, and all future health and welfare benefits. Plus any other federal employment. In addition, one of the chief source of jobs and economy is from dams and hydroelectric power sold to the “the other 49” states, which would also be jeopardized. Montana is a “net receiver” of funding , which means it receives more money from the federal government that it provides. So take away all the subsidy too.

All because a couple of “cowboys” want to shoot their guns.

That boy’s looking for a face-to-face meeting at the intersection of Tar and Feathers.

Audentes fortuna juvat.

>From Theo, With Love

>
From Theo (click image to enlarge).

>Codrea: 2009 NRA Director Questions

>
David’s Examiner column yesterday featured these questions to be asked of all prospective NRA Board Members:

1. Do you believe that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” and that the Bill of Rights acknowledges a birthright of all Americans?

2. If so, should these rights be proactively protected from infringement by all levels of government, including city, county and state?

3. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider constitutional.

4. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider unconstitutional.

5. Does the right to bear arms include the right for any peaceable citizen to carry them concealed without a permit, as in Vermont?

6. Do you believe that Americans have a right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern?

7. Do you support or oppose Project Exile, and do you agree with current NRA management’s call to “enforce existing gun laws”?

8. Do you support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms? Why?

9. What specific gun laws will you work to get repealed?

10. If elected to the NRA Board, will you back your words of support for firearms rights up with consistent actions? How?

11. Do you agree with the way NRA assigns political ratings? If not, what would you change and why? Who would you have given a different rating to, what would it been and why?

12. Do you disagree with any policies being promulgated by NRA management? What is your biggest area of dissent? Have you offered superior alternatives and worked with others to implement them?

13. Have you ever publicly spoken out against an NRA management position because you thought it was wrong? When, where, and what were the results?

14. What reforms do you think are needed at NRA and why?

15. If elected, how will you inform members of your performance and voting record? Will you let us know when you dissent and why?

16. Do you agree with Executive VP Wayne LaPierre, who stated: “[W]e believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America’s schools, period … with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel”? If not, what do you plan to do about it?

17. Will you have an “open door” policy letting NRA members know how to contact you with their concerns?

18. Would you consider engaging in and recommending civil disobedience over a gun law? If “Yes,” give some examples of what your line in the sand would be.

Read the whole article. Pass it to other voting-qualified NRA members.

Then remember that, at current course and speed, the current NRA leadership will be signing off on a renewal of the AWB within the next year.

Got ammo?

Audentes fortuna juvat.

>WRSA Grid-Down Medical Course – Peyton, CO – February 27-March 1

>
Last call for this class — details here.