Monthly Archives: November 2009

>III Flag Update


1) Am back on a computer that I can use for non-biz purposes.

2) Last batch of flags are in; will retrieve, along with all orders to date, and package for dispatch on Tuesday.

3) Remember — these may be the last III flags available at anything approaching a reasonable up-front layout and price. Get yours now.

>Codrea: CNN Goes After Oath Keepers

>Please read David’s latest Examiner column, then pass it on.

Hey, CNN, here’s the oath of office for a US Senator:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Ditto for the House; see question 3 in this FAQ:

“I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

And for a Supreme Court Justice?

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

So then why the nonsense in the CNN piece about Oath Keepers not swearing to “…obey the orders of the President of the United States…”?

Because they did not want you or their other viewers to know that only enlisted personnel swear to obey Presidential commands.

Not Federal judges.

Not Representatives.

Not Senators.

Not military officers.

Now you know.

>Israeli Soldiers Say ‘No’ to Land-for-Peace

>H/t to FR for this piece from Reuters:

Soldiers’ mutiny raises concern in Israel
Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:40am EST

By Jeffrey Heller

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu voiced concern on Tuesday over a mutiny by pro-settler soldiers that raised fears of more rebellion in the ranks in any future land-for-peace moves with the Palestinians.

“Our security and existence depend on the Israel Defense Forces,” Netanyahu told reporters. “If you promote disobedience, you will bring about the downfall of the state. There is no place for disobedience.”

In an incident on Monday played down by the military as an aberration and described by some political commentators as a crossing of a red line, a handful of soldiers protested against the partial dismantling of a settler-outpost in the West Bank.

Their action prompted 15 right-wing legislators in the 120-member parliament to propose a bill that would bar the military from forcing troops to remove Jews from settlements in the occupied territory.

Two of the soldiers disobeyed orders and refused to secure the settlement site, which had been built without government permission and where police razed two buildings. They were sentenced respectively to 20 days and 14 days in jail.

Two other soldiers, who held up a sign at an army base in the West Bank saying their battalion would never evacuate settlements, also faced a disciplinary hearing at which each received a month-long prison term.

“The military …must understand there are some soldiers who cannot implement these orders. It is like asking a man to strike his brother,” said Rabbi Elyakim Levanon of the Elon Moreh seminary in the West Bank where some of the troops had studied.

“Stop the anarchy,” countered a headline in Israel’s biggest newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, above commentary urging the army to crack down hard on soldiers who disobey orders.

The military’s chief of staff, Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi, told reporters he would do just that.

But Brigadier-General Avi Bnayahu, the military’s chief spokesman, played down the significance of the protests.

“This is not a political tidal wave washing through the military and the matter has not spiraled out of control,” Bnayahu said.


Ideological divides run deep in Israel, especially over the future of some 500,000 Jews who live among 2.7 million Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, areas captured in a 1967 war.

But the military, to which Jewish men and women are conscripted at the age of 18, has long been seen as off-limits to political debate.

Soldiers who participated in the removal of settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005 were hand-picked and specially trained for the task. Troops uncomfortable with the mission were quietly excused by their commanders.

Politically-charged demolitions at some of the dozens of outposts erected by Jews in the West Bank without formal permission are usually carried out by police rather than soldiers, who are assigned perimeter security duty.

The latest mutiny followed a protest last month by conscripts, who disrupted their swearing-in ceremony by calling for continued Jewish settlement in the West Bank, part of the territory where Palestinians hope to create a state.

After that incident, two soldiers were sentenced to 20 days in jail and removed from their unit.

“No one should be surprised if the signs of protest within the military against the evacuation of structures and settlements only grow,” wrote Alex Fishman, military affairs correspondent for Israel’s biggest daily, Yedioth Ahronoth.

“After all, these soldiers were sentenced to only a few days of detention, as if they committed a traffic offence.”

Anyone know how to say “oathkeeper” in Hebrew?


>Two takes on the upcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:

Chicago Boyz: How Obama Is Bringing Martial Law To America

Powerline: Trying KSM – Why?

Just remember — Team Freedom may well be prosecuted in this country by the same agencies currently (and half-heartedly) tasked against Team Hajji.

Or does someone seriously doubt that Team Freedom will be deemed by DoJ as “unlawful enemy combatants”?

Fun times ahead….

>Robb: Open-Source Insurgency Through Software Tools

>Go and read, then think.

>Absolved: Nemesis – The Six Apostles

>Go and read.

>Beck: Just War Principles

>From Billy Beck:

“In short, just war theory sanctifies the right of violent revolution within your own state if it is hostile to your well being. A bit of a sticky wicket there, eh what?”

Well, that goes both ways, Wendy. This is the part where the libertarians inclined to passivism must at least examine the value of war as a fundamental principle.

The necessity of war arises when people of evil intent join in a mass requiring a massed organization of the righteous in order to prevent the former from preying on the latter. This is a basic principle of human relations: there really are such things as bad guys in the world, and they really can get that big. The most important question here is organizational: how to meet them effectively. Certainly, no lover of freedom can abide forcing people into that against their will. Conversely, however, there is nothing wrong in individuals voluntarily agreeing to the project together in order to act for the value of freedom; no more than when they organize economically, through a division-of-labor economy, in order to produce refrigerators. Observe that the ethics drives the politics: the value of security against manifest military threat is the reason for the voluntary military organization of free people.

Understanding the basically military threat of the state, all of this applies to the matter of political rebellion. To reject the state is essentially an act of war, because of the state’s radical claim on the use of force, and all else afterward is merely organizational.

>Watermelons Regroup

>The claim is “no environmental deal at Copenhagen” next month, but that’s not how <a href="
/Copenhagen-climate-change-agreement-is-impossible.html”>this story from the UK Telegraph reads:

Copenhagen climate change agreement is impossible
World leaders have finally accepted that it will be impossible to come to a deal on climate change this year and have moved their attention to setting new deadlines for a global agreement.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 1:37PM GMT 15 Nov 2009

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December has been billed as the world’s last chance to stop global warming.

But negotiations soon broke down because the US refused to sign up to targets on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The deadlock has forced world leaders at a summit in Singapore to step in and admit that any deal this year will be little more than a “political agreement”.

However they insisted that a legally-binding treaty will be thrashed out by the end of 2010 and even suggested a timetable and deadline to ensure negotiations stay on track.

The new “two-step” plan, put forward by the Danes, increases pressure on President Obama to attend the talks in Copenhagen and reassure the world that the US is serious about tackling climate change.

It also gives the world a chance to rescue the Copenhagen summit from certain failure by giving lawyers more time to work on a hugely complex international deal.

The Danes are already drawing up a “politically binding” agreement and environment ministers will meet in Copenhagen this week to discuss the details.

But environmental groups are concerned the “rescue package” is a delaying tactic by the rich nations to wriggle out of cutting carbon.

The new plan was put forward by Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, over breakfast at an Asia-Pacific summit.

He suggested world leaders agree a “political accord” to keep temperature rise below 2C. However it will not be until further UN meetings in Bonn in June and Mexico in December that the details of how this will be achieved will be decided.

“Given the time factor and the situation of individual countries we must, in the coming weeks, focus on what is possible and not let ourselves be distracted by what is not possible,” he said.

“The Copenhagen Agreement should finally mandate continued legal negotiations and set a deadline for their conclusion.”

During the latest round of negotiations in Barcelona, developing nations walked out over the America’s refusal to commit to cuts in carbon emissions.

However the new plan gives President Obama time to push through the necessary legislation that will allow America to sign up to emission targets.

It also gives the world time to agree how much money should be given to help poor countries adapt to climate change and also cut emissions.

Ed Miliband, the UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said it was essential that President Obama attends the talks to ensure any political agreement is a success.

“I think as many leaders as possible – including President Obama – do need to come there because that will make a difference in the end to the kind of deal we want,” he said.

However environmental groups fear the deal could still be a failure because America cannot be trusted to cut emissions and developing countries may walk out unless they get enough money to tackle climate change.

Diane McFadzien of WWF said only a legally-binding treaty will force nations to take the necessary action to stop global warming.

“Legally binding is the only thing that will do if we want to see real action to save the planet,” she said.

>Beck: To Act Like Humans

>From Billy Beck:

“Human ingenuity, not wind, not sun, is the only truly renewable resource. Without it, nothing in nature would be transformed to further human life. Your car, your clothes, your food — none of these things are naturally occurring. If all we can do is take what we get, then we are but hunter-gatherers without tools or any remnants of cognition to help us along. But because humans are rational animals, we can identify the materials in our environment and mold them to suit us.

Be it stones or soft metals or iron or oil or electricity or fusion — or the sun — the human mind is the inexhaustible resource that makes all others possible. It is time for the government to recognize this alternative energy source, and to unleash it fully upon the world by getting the hell out of our way.”

Titanic Deck Chairs brings to clarity the function of humans in the world. It is our job to bring our only tool of survival — our minds — to bear on everything else that we find in the world, in order to adapt it all as values for the existence and advancement of human life. All government action prevents this, and to that degree it positively inhibits human survival and flourishing.

Why are you letting government kill you?

>Frame Four

>From Sunday’s Day by Day by Chris Muir.

Read the rest.

>Vandam: Nailing It

>Malone Vandam at the New Paltz Journal captures the intent of the Obama/Holder decision to try in Federal court the mass-murdering terrorist scumbag whose plan killed my cousin in the New York Fire Department and 3,000-plus others on September 11th:

Obama and Holder Launch Attack on America

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Has A Friend In The White House

“Morally Confused” Is The Least of It

Read each of Vandam’s brief posts, then pass them to others.


>Those not sufficiently horrified by this Pew graphic as posted by Jim Sinclair need to click on this report and watch as mass unemployment spreads from county to county across the nation.

And no, it is not going to get better soon.

It will be getting worse.

Just wait until the upcoming tax increases and punitive new regulations are effective.

Had enough yet?

>Remember The Future

>From the Ottawa Citizen:

Remember the future
November 11, 2009

It is once again our annual day of war remembrance. The day has been “clustering” with other anniversaries: Monday, for instance, was the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and also the 71st of Kristallnacht — the night when, across Nazi Germany, a murderous onslaught was launched against all Jews.

Wars stretch over months, years, sometimes decades; everyone has heard of the “Thirty Years’ War,” and the “Hundred Years’ War,” even if they have, thanks to state education, no idea to what these words refer. But Kristallnacht — “the night of broken glass” — observed in its way all of the Aristotelian unities.

In a single night, hundreds of synagogues across Germany were simultaneously attacked and trashed, along with thousands of Jewish businesses, by Nazi thugs, led by men in the smartly tailored uniforms of the S.S. Something like 100 Jews were murdered that night — a tiny number in light of millions to be murdered in the following years, but “it was a start” from the point of view of state propaganda. That night, about 30,000 Jewish men were rounded up, to be sent off to the new concentration camps of Dachau and Sachsenhausen, the spanking new facility of Buchenwald with its smell of fresh paint.

State-controlled media began to prophesy the “final end” of German Jewry, in “fire and the sword.” State legislation now banned Jews from public buildings, from public entertainment, from using public transport, from sitting on public park benches. Jews, who had for centuries been the leaven in the extraordinary cultural life of Germany, were now publicly removed, in violence and humiliation, from theatres and concert halls and art galleries and cinemas and publishing houses. Everything they owned was expropriated.

And the good citizens of Germany stood by. To their credit, it appears only a small proportion joined in the vicious assaults. God alone could read the minds of the rest of them; or explain the reply so many gave to allied soldiers at the war’s end, when shown the evidence of Buchenwald and Auschwitz: “We never knew.”

Canadians are no better than Germans. Human beings are what we are. In similar circumstances, confronted by apparently invincible state power, and in the presence of unambiguous evil, the great majority will stand silently by. An interesting minority will cheer, however.

I sense this when I look at the indifference of the great majority of Canadians today, to real evils that are exposed in our own public life, to the dark encroachments of our own increasingly arbitrary bureaucracies, to the progressive extinction of our liberties by our own Nanny State. These evils are arguably modest on the scale of what exploded in Nazi Germany, but we are utter fools to neglect the rising temperature in our own witches’ cauldron.

Let me not drift off-topic. The Jews have been called “the canaries in the mine” of history, and there is profound truth in this. I am struck by this “blurb” from a tract by David Solway, the remarkable Canadian poet (Hear, O Israel! — just published by Mantua Books):

“Hatred of the Jew is the perpetual vestige of Western resentment and vexation against its own civilizing imperative. This too was Winston Churchill’s understanding of Jew-hatred, which he described as Western civilization’s revolt against its own central values as manifested in art, science, and political and religious organizations …

“The spectacle we are observing today — the reluctance to deal adequately with terrorism, the political contriving against our own best interests, the serpentine efforts to exculpate the enemy, the relativizing of moral principle, the Left’s betrayal of its own liberal culture, the renewed ‘treason of the intellectuals’, and especially the mounting acerbity towards Jews in the court of public opinion, and the isolation of Israel as a pariah state — is merely the modern instantiation of this long offensive against our very survival.”

As a (Catholic) writer who has been called a “Jew-lover” by quite a few phone callers and e-mailers over the years since 9/11, I should like to admit the charge, and stand by the position. The synagogues of Europe have been painted with swastikas again, this time mostly by Islamists; the president of Iran has openly prophesied the “final end” of Israeli Jewry in “fire and the sword” — and the Chamberlain president of the United States seeks negotiations with him.

As World War II stirred from the ashes of World War I, so World War III seems to stir from the ashes of World War II. On this day of remembrance, we must think of the future.

It is the third verse of that beautiful rondeau, “In Flander’s Fields,” that we have forgotten:

“Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep.”

David Warren

© Ottawa Citizen


>Watch this Breitbart/Reuters video as sent by one of our regulars and read Moe Lane’s commentary on one Beijung entrepreneur’s idea:

What interesting times in which we live…

>Napolitano on The Current Situation

As posted at Thunder Tales.

One observation: the current practices will continue, accelerate, and increase in intensity until the actors are no longer permitted to do so.

Silence and acquiescence are consent.

>III Flag Update

>Good news?

The supplier and I finally ended our phone tag match today, and the last shipment is en route for Tuesday delivery.

Bad news? I am traveling for business starting Wednesday. All orders received to date will be filled upon my return.

Other news? It is unclear whether there will be another run of these flags, as prices and minimum order quantities have gone up significantly. More info on that front as I get it.

Bottom line? Order your set now, while you still can. Please remember that WRSA does not have a bank account, so all payments must be in cash or blank-payee money order.

Thanks for your ongoing support.

>In a Mature Society, "Civil Servant" is Semantically Equal to "Civil Master"

Read this post from The Smallest Minority; h/t to DW, who comments:

“I’ll just add, on behalf of GEN Casey, another: ‘Diversity is Strength'”.

Had enough yet?

>"The Legislation Is Very Fair In This Respect…"

>From Ace of Spades:


Seen on Hot Air, Infidels are Cool has this exchange:

Stone: Do you think it’s fair to send people to jail who don’t buy health insurance?

Pelosi: … The legislation is very fair in this respect.

The left continues pounding the table, insisting that right-wingers are “paranoid” and “extremist” to call Obama a socialist, or to use totalitarian imagery in posters to protest his agenda. Why, it’s just so not true! they bleat. You’d have to be a maniac like Sarah Palin to make these delusional claims! Why, it’s like bad science-fiction!


Socialism never attends a party without an escort of coercive state behavior. It is a historic fact — indeed, an economic fact — that as the state seeks to regulate and control more and more economic activity, they must, of course, control more and more human activity.

Economic activity is human activity, after all. Economics is not somehow divorced from humanity. Economic choices are not made of their own volition, passive-voice, without an actor. People make economic choices — and socialism demands an ever-increasing control over those choices, and therefore the people who make those choices. (Or, more accurately: formerly made those choices.)

Furthermore, apart from the basic definitional aspect of socialism that requires a loss of freedom in exchange, supposedly, for economic security: Socialism has almost never worked as intended, but rather creates new problems and new poverties and new ways to exploit the system (black markets, for one); socialism therefore always requires even additional laws against once-unobjectionable and perfectly-legal behavior. In other words, not only does socialism require a small buy-in, in the form of loss of freedom, but it is always accompanied by unplanned-for (?) additional losses of freedom to “correct” for all the systematic irrationalities and distortions it creates.

And then it gets even worse after that, because it always fails, whenever it’s been attempted, and the newly-empowered state will fight to survive, as any organism does, and any organism is willing to do an awful lot of violence when its very existence is threatened.

Note that the third part of that is the scariest step in the socialist takeover of the human condition, but even if that is avoided, the first and second stages are plenty objectionable in their own right. Although socialism has had a pronounced tendency to lead to full fascism and totalitarian control over the increasingly miserable citizenry it supposedly “serves,” and that is the point of all those Nazi posters, it cannot be emphasized firmly enough that even if Stage Three of socialism is avoided, Stages One and Two are anti-freedom and frankly anti-human as well.

Just less so.

On a personal level, I go ’round and ’round with myself as to whether Nazi imagery is “civil” or helpful, politically: On one side I know for a fact that socialism tends in this direction. Every. Single. Time. Even in socialist states where fascism is avoided — Britain, say — it is nevertheless the case that the citizenry there exists under a much-diminished concept of “freedom” than your average American would find tolerable, or even imaginable.

On the other hand, I doubt the effectiveness of such imagery, for the simple fact that few can imagine such things, they seem too speculative and too impossible to contemplate, and so I usually make the case that rather than talk up the farther-off (yet still quite possible, and not quite so far off as some would like to imagine) possibility of Stage Three socialism, we should talk up instead the quite-objectionable-enough and much more immediate and imaginable defects of Stages One and Two.

Back to this leftist insistence that we’re all paranoid to even think this way, to even define “freedom” in an antique, right-wing fashion, meaning “stuff you are permitted to do or not do without penalty and coercion from the state:” It is especially risible to me, in gallows-humor way, that the left continues to call us lunatics for fretting about increasing state control and increasing state coercion and increasing state outlawing of previously-legal behavior and freedoms even as, in their very first bill out of the socialist box, they propose jailing Americans for engaging in unobjectionable behavior which no one ever before dreamt of being a crime.

Think about this.

The left says: You are crazy to claim your so-called freedoms are being taken away, and you are a lunatic to scream about an overly powerful state which will use violent coercion (no one goes to jail without the threat of violence if he doesn’t, after all) to enforce its notions of the “economic good.”

And with the next breath the left says: By the way, you shall either buy health care insurance or we will throw you in prison for two or three years.

I’m paranoid? Really? I am not fretting here about some remote and unlikely possibility. We are not speaking here of “slippery slopes” or in terms of “what comes next?”

We are instead objecting to a black-letter law spelled out for all to see in the very first piece of legislation you’re proposing.

Right out of the box. The state here — Pelosi, Reid, Obama — are claiming that they can imprison people for behavior that has never before even been hinted as being a crime, on the theory that such behavior constitutes unpatriotic economic behavior which is detrimental to the state’s balance sheets.

Think about what a broad, all-encompassing term “economics” is. 80% of our waking hours are spent in economic activity of one sort or another. The state here is asserting the right to imprison people for behavior they consider not actually morally reprehensible or harmful as other crimes are, but instead merely detrimental to the Great Push Forward, the state’s master plan of economic health and well-being.

Right out of the box they propose sending people to jail for acting as economic subversives and economic traitors and yet I am, somehow, paranoid if I point out that the first step here is to reduce human freedom and increase state power.

And this is just a down-payment, remember…

Read the rest.

Do you understand yet?

>Beck: To Forge The Cannibal Pot

>It’s all about gaining control over peoples’ live by force. It’s not like an ordinary robber or extortionist stepping up to you and putting it to you right then and there to submit or fight.

No, this is to to lay upon people chains made of concepts, only at the very bottom of which lies the final resort of “law”, with its nonetheless murderous power to make you not-your-own in ways that most never imagine, let alone see.

And the pace of this thing is picking up.

(link: Taxprof)

>Subversives Apply Here

>Hat-tip to reader DW for this entry from Samizdata:

You put a standard sticker on some physical evidence of intrusion, threat, surveillance, overregulation, nannying… by or authorised by, an official body. You photograph it. You send in the photograph to them and/or publish it by other means… and that’s it. There’s a running competition for the best pics.

It is a smart use of the networked world to do something that is not quite the direct action loved by old-fashioned activists, but more directive action, to get the public’s attention on the world around us and how needlessly oppressive it has become. And it is a game, too.

Alex Deane of BBW tells me he has already had hundreds of requests for stickers, and some very serious and respectable think-tankies appeared to be taking them at a meeting I attended last night.

I wonder whether anyone will manage to tag an FIT unit?


Remember the demonstrated performance of the freedom team to date, from the perspective of Obama/Emanuel/Axelrod:

– multiple large rallies across the country that are utterly disregarded by both the legislative and executive branches

– no effective opposition party

– no demonstrations of civil disobedience

– no broken windows

– no graffiti

In other words, continued submission to whatever outrages are effected by the ruling class in Washington.

Any question why the Bad People think they can win?

If you dare not spray-paint a Roman numeral ‘III’ on some outpost of Leviathan, you ain’t gonna be able to do the harder tasks.