"If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck"

Col. J. Cooper

Enjoy these classic firearms quotes:

Never let someone or thing that threatens you get inside arm’s length and never say "I got a gun". If you feel you need to use deadly force for heaven’s sake let the "first sound they hear is the safety clicking off" and they shouldn't have time to hear anything after that if you are doing your job.


'The average response time of a 911 call is over 3 minutes....the response time of a .44 magnum is 1400 feet per second.'


Clint Smith, Director of Thunder Ranch, is a drill instructor (Thunder Ranch is a firearms training facility in Arizona ). Here are a few of his observations on tactics, firearms, self-defense and life as we know it in the civilized world.


"The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win and cheat if necessary."


"Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way.."


"Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets. You may get killed with your own gun, but he'll have to beat you to death with it, cause it's going to be empty."


"If you're not shooting', you should be loading'. If you're not loading', you should be moving', if you're not moving', someone's going to cut your head off and put it on a stick."


"When you reload in low light encounters, don't put your flashlight in your back pocket.. If you light yourself up, you'll look like an angel or the tooth fairy...and you're going to be one of 'em pretty soon."


"Do something. It may be wrong, but do something."


"Shoot what 's available, as long as it's available, until something else becomes available."


"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If you have a gun, what in the hell do you have to be paranoid for?"


"Don't shoot fast, unless you also shoot good."


"You can say 'stop' or 'alto' or use any other word you think will work, but I've found that a large bore muzzle pointed at someone's head is pretty much the universal language."


"You have the rest of your life to solve your problems. How long you live depends on how well you do it."


"You cannot save the planet but you may be able to save yourself and your family."


"Thunder Ranch will be here as long as you'll have us or until someone makes us go away, and either way, it will be exciting."


More Excellent Gun Wisdom.......


The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.


1 Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.


2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.


3. I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.


4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.


5. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him 'Why do you carry a 45?' The Ranger responded, 'Because they don't make a 46.'


6. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.


7. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. 'Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?' 'No ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.'


8. Beware of the woman who only has one gun, because she probably knows how to use it very well.


'The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.' G. K. Chesterton


A people that values its privileges above its principles will soon lose both.


"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not..." - Thomas Jefferson

Nice list of quotes above comes from a comment on this zerohedge.com post.

Here's a few more:

”Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”
~Unknown


”The philosophy of gun control: Teenagers are roaring through town at 90MPH, where the speed limit is 25. Your solution is to lower the speed limit to 20.”
~Sam Cohen (inventor of the neutron bomb)


“The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting, and I know I’m not going to make very many friends saying this, but it’s about our right, all of our right to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there.”
~Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp


”An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.”
~Col. Jeff Cooper


“Already a couple of the faithful have sent in checks for a foundation memorial to the innocents who perished at the hands of the ninja at Waco. … I have been criticized by referring to our federal masked men as “ninja” … Let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic. It has long been my conviction that a masked man with a gun is a target. I see no reason to change that view.”
~Col. Jeff Cooper


“The conclusions seem inescapable that in certain circles a tendency has arisen to fear people who fear government. Government, as the Father of Our Country put it so well, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. People who understand history, especially the history of government, do well to fear it. For a people to express openly their fear of those of us who are afraid of tyranny is alarming. Fear of the state is in no sense subversive. It is, to the contrary, the healthiest political philosophy for a free people.” – Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries, vol. 4, no. 16, December, 1996


I heard another quote that I've been wracking my brain to remember goes something like this:


"My pistol is what I use until I can get to my rifle"  ...but I cant remember where I read it or who said it, but you get the idea...;-).

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.

My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will...

My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, or the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...

My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...

Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.

So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!

A Constitutional Agenda for Social Conservatives

by Gary North

I am an Old School Presbyterian Calvinist, a position so conservative within Presbyterian Calvinism that it was relegated to the fringes after 1870. And if you ask me, they were kind of squishy.


With respect to politics, I voted for Goldwater in 1964. In 1966, I voted for William Penn Patrick instead of Ronald Reagan in the race for the Republican nominee for governor of California. I thought Reagan was too liberal.


I was a speaker at the National Affairs Briefing Conference in Dallas in 1980, which launched the New Christian Right.


I sent my children to Christian day schools.


With this as background, I want to present my case for Constitutional social conservatism.


CONSTITUTIONAL SOCIAL CONSERVATISM


I begin with a premise: "If a federal law is not in conformity to the judicial principles and precedents in American colonial law in 1788, it is unconstitutional, unless a Constitutional amendment has authorized it." This is simple to understand. It means that the Constitution was intended by the Framers to be the source of fundamental law restricting politicians and judges who hold office in the United States government. The Constitution was ratified by voters on that basis in 1787-88. That which is not authorized by the Constitution is prohibited.


Conservatives say they believe this. But do they?


The Constitution of the United States does not authorize the following:


1. Federal laws against pornography
2, Federal laws against alcohol
3. Federal laws against drugs
4. Federal laws against homosexuality
5. Federal laws against abortion
Social conservatives must decide: federal laws prohibiting any of the Big Five vs. Constitutional law.


The Constitution of the United States also does not authorize the following:


1. Federal laws legalizing local pornography
2, Federal laws legalizing local alcohol
3. Federal laws legalizing local drugs
4. Federal laws legalizing local homosexuality
5. Federal laws legalizing local abortion
Social liberals must decide: federal laws legalizing any of the Big Five locally vs. Constitutional law.


The two groups are generally agreed: Violate Constitutional law. This is the problem for American liberty. American politics is a contest over which group gets to decide which Constitutional restraints to ignore.


This is not how the two groups come to their donors. Each group pledges to extend justice. Each group blames the other for undermining the Constitution. Both groups are correct.


The social conservative says he favors local initiative. Then he votes for Washington politicians who interfere with local practices.


The social liberal says he favors national justice. Then he votes for Washington politicians who interfere with local practices.


The social conservative is inconsistent. The social liberal is consistent. So, the social conservative politician, when in office, attempts to pass laws that set legal precedents for the social liberals to use in the next election cycle: extensions of federal power. Then, in some future election cycle, the social liberals repeal the conservative laws by passing new laws that extend the power of the federal government. The new laws make illegal local practices that social conservatives favor. What the politicians do not do in this regard, the federal courts do. In both views, the federal government becomes messianic. It becomes a means of implementing federal control over local practices. We have seen this in action ever since 1788. It has done what the opponents of ratification said it would do, but on a scale undreamed of by the Anti- Federalists.


The social conservative goes to Washington vowing to bang heads locally. So does the social liberal. This question does not occur to the social conservative: "How much federal power must we consent to in order to bang heads locally?" This question occurs all the time to the social liberal. He has an answer: "More." When push comes to shove, this is the also the traditional social conservative's answer.


So, the social conservative finds himself defending the extension of federal power. He insists that this is for a good cause.


Yet here is the great irony: the word "social" means "voluntary." The historic position of American conservative political theory is this: The state is not society. The historic position of the social liberal is this: The state best represents society. We hear of "social justice." This is a code phrase for "welfare state." We hear of the Social Gospel. This is a code phrase for "welfare state." Liberals say "social," but the really mean "state."


In practice, so do social conservatives. Officially, they defend free association, but when push comes to shove, they join with liberals to vote in favor of an expanded federal government. When it comes to assessing the power of the state, both groups say "more."

Read the rest at LewRockwell.com and visit GaryNorth.com


The post 1865 federal leviathan has to be rejected in a popular return to local government. This was the intended way to avoid tyranny in this land.  350 million people were never supposed to be ruled by 1, or 9, or 100, or 435 people.  Each individual was to be represented and served by their elected representatives. The only system that works is where the people know each other and the person representing them, and can "reach" them when necessary.

Precision rifle cleaning

The art of precision rifle maintenance: One method demonstrated.


via Primal Rights



Of course, there are exceptions to the rule of thumb on cleaning rifles:


There is a guy in TX with a FAL he has not cleaned in over 15000 rounds, and still can hit targets to 500 yards...Ol' Dirty:



When or even if to clean a rifle...truly an artform. What works for you?

Replace Obama with Romney. Result: More of the Same BGBS

(BGBS: Big Government BS)

From TownHall.com:

Are you having difficulty finding a doctor who will see you? If you are, brace yourself. Things are about to get a whole lot worse.


Right now, the biggest problems are in Massachusetts. If you live in Boston and are trying to see a new family doctor, get prepared to wait more than two months before you ever get a foot in the door. For the state as a whole, the average wait to see a new family doctor is one month. More than half of all family doctors and more than half of all internists are not accepting new patients at all.


What if you live in another state? Just wait two more years. In Massachusetts people are lined up waiting to see doctors because of the health reform championed by the former governor (RomneyCare). And as Barack Obama has said on more than one occasion, RomneyCare is the model for ObamaCare.


Why? In both the Massachusetts health plan and the new health care law the mistake is the same: insuring the uninsured, but doing nothing to enable the medical community to deliver more care. Massachusetts succeeded in cutting the number of uninsured in half — a worthy accomplishment. But the state did nothing to expand the number of doctors, nurses or paramedical personnel. The result: a major increase in the demand for care, but no change in supply.


I learned what this means in human terms a while back from a Boston cab driver. She was on MassHealth (Medicaid) and her biggest problem, she told me, was getting care. "I went down a list of 20 doctors before I found one who would see me," she said. "Twenty doctors?" I responded incredulously. "Were you going through the Yellow Pages?" "No," she said, "I was going down the list MassHealth gave me."


In Massachusetts, this is what the advocates of health reform call "universal coverage."


Bad as all this is, it is actually rather mild compared to what is about to happen in other states. In Massachusetts, less than 10 percent of the population was uninsured before the reform set in. In Texas, by contrast, one in every four people is currently uninsured. Insure half of those and the demand for Texas doctors is going to soar.

Read the rest here.


Think Romney is the solution to Obama? Explain to me the difference between a Big Gov Republican socialist and a Big Gov Democratic Socialist. I have an open mind.

Third American Revolution, reasons to fight: Enemies Domestic -- Police State begins...

Oh, boy, this disturbs me.  Really disturbs me.

Residents of Leesburg, Florida were shocked to see their local Social Security office turned into a random Homeland Security checkpoint Tuesday morning, as DHS officers armed with semiautomatic rifles and accompanied by sniffer dogs checked identifications of locals.


“With their blue and white SUVs circled around the Main Street office, at least one official was posted on the door with a semiautomatic rifle, randomly checking identifications. And other officers, some with K-9s, sifted through the building,” reports the Daily Commercial.


The activity was part of Operation Shield, an unannounced drill conducted by the DHS’ Federal Protective Service centered around “detecting the presence of unauthorized persons and potentially disruptive or dangerous activities.”


Thomas Milligan, district manager for the Social Security Administration office, said staff were not informed their offices were about to be stormed by armed FPS officers. DHS officials refused to answer questions asked by local media and left with no explanation at noon.

WTF?


A social security office in Leesburg, FL!!?? Really, WTF!!??


I mean, if the program (Operation Shield) has any legitimacy, it could show up at certain places that intel indicates could be high priority targets, but a social security office in Leesburg, Florida?  A city of 20,000 people in north central Florida?  


To me, that only means that the people running the show at DHS are either incompetent or just starting to test the waters for real trouble.  Either way, it's bad.


Feel safer yet?


To echo Craig Cavanaugh's most recent comment on this blog, what to do about it?  I don't know, but I really don't want to wait anymore to see how this develops.  I really don't know what to do.


via Economicpolicyjournal.com, via infowars.com,


and I just noticed is also posted at Mayberry's blog: http://keepitsimplesurvival.wordpress.com/

Quote of the Day, 1/2/2012

The United States of America has become what the Greatest Generation fought to defeat:

The test of fascism is not one’s rage against the Italian and German war lords. The test is how many of the essential principles of fascism do you accept and to what extent are you prepared to apply those fascist ideas to American social and economic life? When you can put your finger on the men or the groups that urge for America the debt-supported state, the autarchial corporative state, the state bent on the socialization of investment and the bureaucratic government of industry and society, the establishment of the institution of militarism as the great glamorous public-works project of the nation and the institution of imperialism under which it proposes to regulate and rule the world and, along with this, proposes to alter the forms of our government to approach as closely as possible the unrestrained, absolute government. Then you will know you have located the authentic fascist.


--John T. Flynn, 1944

via LewRockwell.com blog

Quote of the Day, 12/27

We must, and we will, exhaust all peaceful means we have left of defending our Bill of Rights.   But make no mistake, we, the American people, and especially we, the American veterans, will defend our Bill of Rights at all hazards, up to and including by giving our lives in its defense.   We are duty bound to do no less.  We will not leave our children to a world without the Bill of Rights.   Our fathers and grandfathers fought, bled, and died to defeat fascism over there. We will not abide it here at home.   They honored their oaths, and we shall do the same.  And we will set aside all other differences to take this stand.  For without the Bill of Rights, America ceases to exist.

Oathkeepers, calling for recall and removal of members of Congress who voted for NDAA

“There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.”- Marine General Smedley Butler.

Free Enterprise in the Christmas story

By Llewelyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

At the heart of the Christmas story rests some important lessons concerning free enterprise, government, and the role of wealth in society.

Let's begin with one of the most famous phrases: "There's no room at the inn." This phrase is often invoked as if it were a cruel and heartless dismissal of the tired travelers Joseph and Mary. Many renditions of the story conjure up images of the couple going from inn to inn only to have the owner barking at them to go away and slamming the door.

In fact, the inns were full to overflowing in the entire Holy Land because of the Roman emperor's decree that everyone be counted and taxed. Inns are private businesses, and customers are their lifeblood. There would have been no reason to turn away this man of royal lineage and his beautiful, expecting bride.

In any case, the second chapter of St. Luke doesn't say that they were continually rejected at place after place. It tells of the charity of a single inn owner, perhaps the first person they encountered, who, after all, was a businessman. His inn was full, but he offered them what he had: the stable. There is no mention that the innkeeper charged the couple even one copper coin, though given his rights as a property owner, he certainly could have.

It's remarkable, then, to think that when the Word was made flesh with the birth of Jesus, it was through the intercessory work of a private businessman. Without his assistance, the story would have been very different indeed. People complain about the "commercialization" of Christmas, but clearly commerce was there from the beginning, playing an essential and laudable role.

Read the rest here.

Merry Christmas to you and your families. I wish you all a happy and healthy New Year.

Arabs in Samaria stone defensless Jew

via IsraelNationalNews.com


How often do you think a gang of Jews surround an Arab to stone him?


How often do you hear about Jews lynching Arabs, and dancing around with the murdered person's entrails in their bloody hands? Image below from lynching of two Israeli reservists who took a wrong turn at the beginning of the 2nd intifada in 2000.

That's correct: NEVER

Quote of the Day 12/20/2011 from Denninger

...People are tired of being abused by both airlines and the TSA.


You want to grope me (virtually or in real life) to get on board? Go to hell -- I'll drive.


You want me to risk having to play "strip search" (virtual or actual) with TSA employees, and if I've got some sort of medical issue like a colostomy bag or similar have your people treat me like my medical condition is a terrorist threat? Go to hell -- I'll drive.


$50 extra to check a bag (and I can't carry anything on any more, including my damned toothpaste)? It costs me zero extra for as many bags as will fit in the car and I don't have to put up with that crap when it comes to my personal effects either -- I'll drive.


Surly airline personnel, unreasonable change/break fees and similar, never mind charging me $5 for a freaking soda in the airport when, not if, my flight is delayed -- after you refused to let me bring a sealed can of soda through the checkpoint? Go to hell -- I'll drive.


A "person of size" can take half my seat and I have no recourse? Oh, and after the airline does that to me (and they know, obviously, when the large passenger checks in that I'm going to get screwed) and leaves me with no recourse the airlines and airports then strand the plane on the tarmac and treat me like cattle about to be bang-sticked, flensed, grilled and served as Christmas dinner? Go to hell -- I'll drive!

Karl Denninger, market-ticker.org, 12/20/2011

Sick: 17 Day Hawaiian vacation for the Obamas and entourage cost $4 million taxpayer dollars.

We have a monarchical equivalent occupying the White House.  No one is in a position to question his vacation expenditures.  The President is supposed to be a public servant, and yet the Public serves him.


Is this his idea of leadership by personal example? 


Around $4 million (£2.6 million) – the expected total cost to the US taxpayer of the Obama Christmas family vacation to Hawaii according to the Hawaii Reporter (hat tip: Rob Bluey at The Foundry). This is an astonishing amount of public money to be spending in an age of austerity – when the president is supposed to be leading efforts to cut the US budget deficit, the largest since World War Two, and a towering $15 trillion national debt:


Hawaii Reporter research shows the total cost for the President’s visit for taxpayers far exceeded $1.5 million in 2010 – but is even more costly this year because he extended his vacation by three days and the cost for Air Force One travel has jumped since last assessed in 2000. In addition, Hawaii Reporter was able to obtain more specifics about the executive expenditures.


The total cost (based on what is known) for the 17-day vacation roundtrip vacation to Hawaii for the President, his family and staff has climbed to more than $4 million.


This $4 million figure is nearly 100 times the average annual salary of an American worker, which currently stands at $41,673.

Gorging at the public trough much?

By all means, be our guest, help yourself!! Not an imposition at all...

LINK  to Telegraph.co.uk. 


 Gee, I wonder why this isn't getting more airplay in the MSM here in the States...

California law allows 12 year olds to consent to vaccines and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases without parental knowledge

AB499, approved by Governor Brown in October 9, 2011:

The state of California has just passed bill AB499, which will permit minor children as young as 12 years old to be vaccinated with sexually transmitted disease vaccines like Gardasil without parental knowledge or parental consent. This means that if you live in California, school or medical personnel would be allowed to vaccinate your child against an STD without your ever knowing it.
At issue, of course, is whether 12-year-olds are mature enough to fully analyze the benefits versus risks of vaccination (or any medical treatment for that matter), or recognize the alternatives to STD prevention, such as abstinence. Meanwhile, a child could suffer a vaccine reaction and the parent, not knowing the child had been vaccinated, could mistake it for the flu or another condition, delaying getting help until it is too late. LINK.


Another perfect argument for States' Rights, minarchism, republicanism (as opposed to pure democracy), and libertarianism:


1. Smaller government = less incentive for lobbying organizations to exist.  Big Pharma wouldn't have this reach.


2. Smaller government = more of a chance for the sovereign people to control their republic and hold their elected representatives to their mandate.  The people should know where their representative lives, so that they can express their pleasure or displeasure with the job performance of the representative.


3. We have a Natural Right to private property, including what we put in our bodies


4. A twelve year old is unable to understand risks, benefits and alternatives: They will do what the person in the uniform tells them to do, unless they have been specifically taught otherwise.


5. States' Rights: If a State is too Progressive or Conservative for the individual, there are 49 other experiments in democracy happening that could be considered as optional places to live: this applies to California here, since this law is state-specific.  Unfortunately, there are very conservative areas of Northern Cali that probably don't cotton to this idea.
Only options: Move to another state, secede, openly defy the law and become a criminal, or submit to the will of the majority.


6. In a republic, despite the will of the majority, certain rights are not to be infringed upon. In a democracy, the will of the 50.1 percent is imposed on the 49.9%.

Light, incredibly accurate bullpup sniper rifle: Desert Tactical Arms SRS

This rifle is amazing, and the shooter in the video below is amazing, IMHO.


A bullpup bolt action rig that you can change out the barrel and action in one minute, with a perfect return to zero. Most snipers and long range shooters out there may be familiar with the Desert Tactical Recon SRS, but in case you've never seen one before, start drooling.

These are 1/2 inch dots, at 100 yards, with the barrel changed in between each shot, in an extreme "return to zero" test. Great shooter using an amazingly engineered rifle.

The bolt cycling looks like it can be awkward, but other than that, this rifle is really cool...


I comes in .308, .338 Lapua, .300 Win Mag, and .243 for the main chassis, and also comes in a "hard target interdiction" chassis chambered in .50 BMG, .416 Barett, .408 and .375 Cheytac.


.308 rig is 11.5 lbs, 33 inches long, and has an effective range of 800 yards. Company website.


Sweet Georgia brown! I gotta get me one of these!  


Actually, I have been lusting after this for about a year and a half, and am saving up...:-)



Reviewer's website is recommended: www.primalrights.com

The oligarchy and its institutions vs. the people, summed up: Gee, Officer Krupke

GEE, OFFICER KRUPKE

ACTION
Dear kindly Sergeant Krupke,
You gotta understand,
It's just our bringin' up-ke
That gets us out of hand.
Our mothers all are junkies,
Our fathers all are drunks.
Golly Moses, natcherly we're punks!


ACTION AND JETS
Gee, Officer Krupke, we're very upset;
We never had the love that ev'ry child oughta get.
We ain't no delinquents,
We're misunderstood.
Deep down inside us there is good!


ACTION
There is good!


ALL
There is good, there is good,
There is untapped good!
Like inside, the worst of us is good!


SNOWBOY: (Spoken) That's a touchin' good story.


ACTION: (Spoken) Lemme tell it to the world!


SNOWBOY: Just tell it to the judge.


ACTION
Dear kindly Judge, your Honor,
My parents treat me rough.
With all their marijuana,
They won't give me a puff.
They didn't wanna have me,
But somehow I was had.
Leapin' lizards! That's why I'm so bad!


DIESEL: (As Judge) Right!


Officer Krupke, you're really a square;
This boy don't need a judge, he needs an analyst's care!
It's just his neurosis that oughta be curbed.
He's psychologic'ly disturbed!


ACTION
I'm disturbed!


JETS
We're disturbed, we're disturbed,
We're the most disturbed,
Like we're psychologic'ly disturbed.


DIESEL: (Spoken, as Judge) In the opinion on this court, this child is depraved on account he ain't had a normal home.


ACTION: (Spoken) Hey, I'm depraved on account I'm deprived.


DIESEL: So take him to a headshrinker.


ACTION (Sings)
My father is a bastard,
My ma's an S.O.B.
My grandpa's always plastered,
My grandma pushes tea.
My sister wears a mustache,
My brother wears a dress.
Goodness gracious, that's why I'm a mess!


A-RAB: (As Psychiatrist) Yes!
Officer Krupke, you're really a slob.
This boy don't need a doctor, just a good honest job.
Society's played him a terrible trick,
And sociologic'ly he's sick!


ACTION
I am sick!


ALL
We are sick, we are sick,
We are sick, sick, sick,
Like we're sociologically sick!


A-RAB: In my opinion, this child don't need to have his head shrunk at all. Juvenile delinquency is purely a social disease!


ACTION: Hey, I got a social disease!


A-RAB: So take him to a social worker!


ACTION
Dear kindly social worker,
They say go earn a buck.
Like be a soda jerker,
Which means like be a schumck.
It's not I'm anti-social,
I'm only anti-work.
Gloryosky! That's why I'm a jerk!


BABY JOHN: (As Female Social Worker)
Eek!
Officer Krupke, you've done it again.
This boy don't need a job, he needs a year in the pen.
It ain't just a question of misunderstood;
Deep down inside him, he's no good!


ACTION
I'm no good!


ALL
We're no good, we're no good!
We're no earthly good,
Like the best of us is no damn good!


DIESEL (As Judge)
The trouble is he's crazy.


A-RAB (As Psychiatrist)
The trouble is he drinks.


BABY JOHN (As Female Social Worker)
The trouble is he's lazy.


DIESEL
The trouble is he stinks.


A-RAB
The trouble is he's growing.


BABY JOHN
The trouble is he's grown.


ALL
Krupke, we got troubles of our own!


Gee, Officer Krupke,
We're down on our knees,
'Cause no one wants a fellow with a social disease.
Gee, Officer Krupke,
What are we to do?
Gee, Officer Krupke,
Krup you!

The real death of Liberty in America

"The National Defense Authorization Act"


--As usual with Congress, the name of a bill is either innocuous, confusing, or completely obfuscating what it actually is going to do once signed by the Executive.  


In this case, American citizens, we are to assume at this point only Muslim extremists, can be arrested and held indefinitely without charge or trial.  This is suspension of Habeas Corpus.  It is the abrogation of the Bill of Rights.   This bill is the sine qua non of a Police State.


Liberty dies with the passage of this bill.


At the time of this writing, Liberty is still warm, rigor mortis hasn't set yet, so most people don't notice.


The individuals that take note of the death of Liberty have had their hands on the pulse of Liberty for some time, and watching the (legislative) heart monitor, knew that it's demise was close, and inevitable. The monitor flatlined on the 220th anniversary of the passage of the Bill of Rights.


Most Americans won't notice until Liberty is so long dead that it has begun to rot, and the smell hits them.


Why is liberty dead?


I think it was put down (i.e. quietly euthanized/executed) in the legislature because the oligarchical powers that be know their economic endgame is afoot.  With the loss of economic sustainability of the Corporatist state, the oligarchy (insert the oligarchy of your choice here, whether it be the two party system that does all it can to stifle alternate political parties, or the Banking/Corporate powers behind the mainstream two political parties, it doesn't matter.  The oligarchy is there, it controls, and We the People are irrelevant other than as a source of productive wealth to confiscate.  Some of the wealth is kept by the oligarchy, some is redistributed.  The redistributed portion of the confiscated wealth of the People serves the two parties and their natural constituents. The purpose of the Neoconservative right is served by using taxes or borrowed money to assuage the aggressive nationalist portion of the People, while the Progressive wing is served by distributing their share of loot to Unions, those sympathetic to Marxist philosophy, and the impoverished and/or nonproductive portion of the People.)


If the people become restless, as they must when they cannot support themselves or their families, they threaten the status quo for the oligarchy.  


The People must be made to come to heel, and the portions of the NDAA that concern Constitutional conservatives are designed to do that. If not now, then when it may be needed. 


If the People cannot be distracted with bread, circuses, or shovel-ready jobs paid for by someone else's confiscated wealth, they must be kept docile by fear. Fear of foreign menace, fear of planetary disaster, or fear of the SWAT team breaking down their door at 4 am all serve the purpose.  We have arrived at the Fear stage.


What happened to the greatest and freest country in world history?  We fell into the trap that destroyed other Nation-States.


Self determination leads to nationalism.  (Those of us who believe in Southern nationalism think of this as a good thing, and one of the reasons that I support the League of the South is that their economic vision is the classical liberal vision [i.e. true free market laissez faire capitalism]).  Any people bent on self determination must be wary and cautious of the economics and worldview of their nationalism.


Sometimes, the size and power of the Nation state reaches a tipping point that triggers an agressive form of nationalism. This typically has lead to imperialism. Imperialism leads to economic overreach by war, which leads to the death of the nation state. Certainly liberty dies along the way, because such an evolution is necessarily coercive to the population, and the coercion logically must increase as the economic situation deteriorates. This has been true in many other countries, and other empires. It is not a historical inevitability, but follows logically when certain conditions are met.  It happened to Rome, Persia, Alexander, Great Britain, and the AustroGerman peoples, to name a few examples.


It has happened to the United States of America. I do not mean the 18th and early 19th Century "these United States of America" of the republic. I mean the involuntary Nation of the United States of America born in 1865. That Nation turned more and more to the aggressive form Nationalism, leading to Empire, overreach, and soon, collapse.


Here are some relevant quotes from Ludwig von Mises:

Modern imperialism is distinguished from the expansionist tendencies of the absolute principalities by the fact that its moving spirits are not the members of the ruling dynasty, nor even of the nobility... but the mass of the people, who look upon it as the most appropriate means for the preservation of national independence.


-- Man, Economy, and the State (Nation, Staat und Wirtschaft), 1919.


It would be a mistake to ascribe the ascendancy of modern nationalism to human wickedness. The nationalists are not innately aggressive men; they become aggressive through their conception of nationalism. They are confronted with conditions which were unknown to the champions of the old principle of self-determination. And their etatist prejudices prevent them from finding a solution for the problems they have to face other than that provided by aggressive nationalism.


-- Omnipotent government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War, 1944


Interventionism generates economic nationalism, and economic nationalism generates bellicosity. If men and commodities are prevented from crossing the borderlines, why should not the armies try to pave the way for them?
--Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, 1949.



Our choices at this point:
1. I believe in the system and will vote.
2. I will be completely passive (i.e. "There's nothing I can do about it")
3. I don't believe in the system and will go to ground, maybe even go Galt.
4. I can be proactive to resist by signs and placards.
5. I can be proactive by joining an organization I think might make a difference.
6. I can be proactive by actively resisting the State.  Cyberattacks, passive resistance, active physical resistance, whether it is a brick through a window when you know no one is around, or planning for guerilla warfare.


There may be other choices that you can think of that don't quite fit this list.


What will you choose?


Comments please.

Keynesian vs. Austrian Economics

via economicpolicyjournal.com



Some sites where you can learn about the Austrian School of Economics:
mises.org
tomwoods.com
lewrockwell.com
economicpolicyjournal.com
www.ronpaul2012.com

220th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights: December 15, 1791

Verbatim post, via Tenth Amendment Center Blog

It's a bit faded and moldy.  So faded, in fact, that no one in DC can read it anymore.
Perhaps it's time to re-write it with new no-fading ink, and a firmer hand than the original.

With the 220th anniversary of the adoption of the Amendments commonly known as the Bill of Rights only hours away (December 15th), a majority of the American people still do not understand the true intent of the Amendments. They believe the Amendments are the source of their individual rights and the federal government was granted the general power to secure those rights. In reality, the Amendments did not create any individual rights or grant the federal government any general power.


When the “Bill of Rights” was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it contained 12 proposed amendments and was prefaced with a preamble that spelled out the intent of the Amendments. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, if adopted (2 were rejected 10 were agreed to), would not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the federal government any general power; they would place additional restraints and/or qualifications on federal power concerning the rights enumerated therein.


The best way to explain the intent of the Amendments was to re-write them through the preamble. This re-write helps explain the original intent of the Amendments, without resorting to the preamble, and makes them easier to understand. Some words have been changed to reflect modern usage and the sentence structure has been slightly altered in a few of the Amendments. The author suggests the reader, after reviewing the preamble [http://www.billofrights.org/], compare the wording of each Amendment to the original.


Article I……… Congress is expressly denied the power to enact any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Article II……… Because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe the people’s right to keep and bear Arms. (EN 1)


Article III……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to quarter any Soldier in any house, in time of peace, without the consent of the Owner, or in time of war, except in a manner to be prescribed by law. (This Amendment grants the federal government a very narrow lawmaking power to qualify the restraint.)


Article IV……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the federal government is expressly denied the power to issue Warrants, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Article V……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to hold any person to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall the federal government subject any person to a prosecution for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall the federal government compel any person in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor shall the federal government deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall the federal government take private property for public use, without just compensation.


Article VI……… In all criminal prosecutions, the federal government is expressly denied the power to negate the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; nor shall the federal government deny the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; or the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him; or the right to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, or the right to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Article VII……… In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the federal government is expressly denied the power to negate the people’s right to a trial by jury, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any federal Court, than according to the rules of the common law.


Article VIII……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to impose excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments.


Article IX……… The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to grant the federal government the power to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Article X……… The powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (No change on this Amendment is needed)


Even through the Constitution established a government of limited enumerated powers and under this system of government every power not granted was denied, the States decided that “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were needed to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” Thus, the insertion of phrases like “the federal government is expressly denied the power” is consistent with the intent of the Amendments.


After establishing the original intent of the Amendments, three things are certain. First, the purpose of the Amendments was to place additional restraints and/or qualifications on the powers of the federal government. Second, the Amendments did not grant the people of the individual States any so-called constitutional rights. Third, the Amendments did not grant the federal government the general power to secure the rights enumerated in the “Bill of Rights.”


In the author’s opinion, government and the American public school system are intentionally suppressing the preamble and the original intent of the Amendments because government wants it that way. If government wanted students properly educated on the “Bill of Rights,” it would insist that the civics curriculum incorporate this information into classes and textbooks.


By advancing the myth that the “Bill of Rights” grants the American people individual rights, the federal government has been able to assume the role of “protector” of those rights. This has allowed it to transform restraints on power into grants of power. The federal government now claims it has the power to impose “reasonable restraints” on any right enumerated in the “Bill of Rights.” This is an absurdity because the Amendments were specifically written and adopted to restrain the powers of the federal government. If the federal government is allowed to assume this power, then the Constitution is meaningless as a written document because government can simply modify or remove every restraint on its power.


Now that you know how to properly read the Amendments in a manner that is consistent with original intent, as expressed in the preamble, don’t be a victim of the government’s public school system on December 15th when we celebrate the 220th anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights Restraints.


Endnote 1-The word “because” can used at the beginning of a sentence to introduce a dependent clause. The first part of the Second Amendment is a dependent clause because a well-regulated militia is dependent upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms not visa versa. Therefore, it is, and would have been acceptable to use the word “because” at the beginning of the Amendment This change maintains the intent and sentence structure of the Amendment but makes it read in a manner that is more in tune with modern sentence structure.


Bob Greenslade  has been writing for www.thepriceofliberty.org since 2003.