Marines piss on the Taliban dead. Get perspective from veterans Allen West and Eugene Sledge

Verbatim post:

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a former Army lieutenant colonel, sends THE WEEKLY STANDARD an email commenting on the Marines' video, and has given us permission to publish it.

“I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.


“All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?


“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.


“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”

As an aside: I don't know about y'all, but I don't believe in coincidences. One media report earlier this week indicated that peace talks were getting started with the Taliban, and a couple of days later, we have a video of Marines pissing on Taliban corpses.  We have two factions in the fed.gov with differing opinions on how to proceed with Afghanistan, or the administration has a change of heart on the negotiations with the Taliban, and undermines it with the video. Interesting either way.

Getting back to the topic:
If anyone saw "The Pacific" on HBO, you would have seen depictions of our guys using Ka-Bars to dig out gold teeth on still living Japanese, and one character, Snafu, tossing pebbles into the open braincase of a Japanese soldier with the top half of his head missing.

Splash,...bop ...splash,....bop,...splash...



Here is (native Alabaman and great grandson of a Confederate Surgeon in the Army of Tennessee) the actual Eugene Sledge speaking at the Mises Institute in Auburn, AL about his experiences in the Pacific at Peleliu and Okinawa in 1994:

Texas Tenth Amendment Center brief on the TSA

verbatim from Tenth Amendment Center blog

TAC Texas Brief- Transportation Security Administration


Author: Dr. Daniel R. Coleman, D.B.A., Communications Coordinator, Tenth Amendment Center-Texas


Contributing Author: Steve Baysinger, Chair, Tenth Amendment Center-Texas


Background:


Prior to March, 2003, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was a division of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Today, the TSA is part of the Department of Homeland Security whose mission is to protect “the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce,” (TSA 2011).


According to a study by William and Mary University (Atkinson, Boardman, Walters, 2009):


Prior to the TSA’s assuming the responsibility for security at the nation’s airports, it was the responsibility of each individual airport, and the airlines providing service to the public, to provide transportation security.


Prior to the September 11, 2001, assault on America there were approximately 28,000 screeners in U.S. airports, with an estimated annual security cost of $1 billion to the US airline industry.


In 2002, the TSA was initially composed of a small group of employees with expenses totaling $95 million. As of 2009, the TSA had more than 50,000 employees and expenses of $4.733 billion!


Approximately 50,000 Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) work at 450 airports nationwide. The TSOs screen nearly 2 million passengers a day,” (TSA, 2011). According to John Pistole, Director of TSA (as of November 2010) there are 385 AIT scanners in 70 airports across the country, but “he expects to expand that number to one thousand by the end of 2011,” (as cited by CNN, 2011). Further, TSA declares “Anyone who refuses to complete the screening process will be denied access to airport secure areas and could be subject to civil penalties,” (as cited by CNN).


Analysis:


The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:


The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall not be issued, 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. “In the United States criminal court system, probable cause refers to facts or evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime or wrong doing has been, is being, or will be committed,” (Probable Cause, 2011).


The TSA’s apparent impunity from Fourth Amendment lawsuits is derived from the 1973, 9th Circuit Court ruling (U.S. vs. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908). The key wording in this ruling included, “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft…,” an administrative search is allowed if “ no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly,.” (Frieschling, 2010)(emphasis added).


TAC-Texas Position: The TSA physical searches are inherently a violation of the 4th Amendment, in addition to being unnecessarily intrusive and intensive. The 9th Circuit ruling does not supersede the rights of individuals and state/local authorities as guaranteed by the Constitution. The TSA should assume an advisory role to assist State and local entities.


Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995:
The Act is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. “The TSA concluded the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (did) not apply when rulemaking actions are taken without the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking. Accordingly, the TSA (did) not prepare a statement under the Act,” (Federal Register).


On Aug. 5, 2011, Congress passed an extension of the FAA authorization to collect:


The 7.5 percent tax on the base ticket price.


The domestic segment tax of $3.70 per person per segment (a single takeoff and single landing).


The international travel facilities tax of $16.30 per person for flights that begin or end in the U.S., or $8.20 per person for a flight that begins or ends in Alaska or Hawaii.


The 6.25 percent tax on the amount paid for transporting property by air. (IRS, 2011).


Last year, airlines and passengers contributed $2 billion in taxes and fees to the TSA. The federal government — in other words, taxpayers — picked up the rest of the organization’s $8 billion tab (CNN Money, 2011). This amount does not include the economic cost of wait times forced upon travelers.


TAC-Texas Position: Mandated licenses and clearances for private individuals and companies, as well as screening activities have economic costs well in excess of $100 million dollars required for TSA’s Federal Register disclosure. The activities of the TSA, without proper disclosure, have created substantial costs on the airline industry, citizens, residents and visitors to the United States, in violation of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995; and therefore should be discontinued.


The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and the Presidential Executive Order 13132:


The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution states: “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.” The TSA has analyzed its policy under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. “We (TSA) determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, we have determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications,” (Federal Register, 2001).


TAC-Texas Position: Airports are located within the jurisdiction of State and local governments and no enumerated power in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to regulate them. The actions by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (e.g. physical searching, seizing of personal possession, and/or detainment) at airports or other transportation venues without probable cause that a weapon or explosive will be brought aboard by an individual are a violation of the federalism principle. Except in times of national emergency, (like every other government agency), the TSA is subject to the Constitution of these United States. As a national emergency has not been declared, the TSA is in violation of the Tenth Amendment, as well as is culpable in failing to publicly disclose its impact on Federalism in the Federal Register; and therefore should cease and desist from further unlawful activities.


Action Points:


The following recommendations are made to restore the integrity of the states and the bounds of the Constitution:


Reestablish: Unabated and untaxed travel within the boundaries of an individual state or between states is a right of every American citizen, legal resident and authorized visitor.


Reestablish: Free travel can only be interrupted if there is a reasonable suspicion or evidence that a crime has been, is being, or likely to be committed. The Fourth Amendment places the burden of proof on government officials to prove probable cause, and/or obtain warrants.


Reestablish: Choosing to purchase an airline ticket from a business is a private choice. Choosing to fly on an airplane does not constitute probable cause that a crime will be committed. Therefore physical searches of travelers and their personal effects by federal agents are a violation of the search and seizure laws in the absence of probable cause.


Reestablish: Airport security is the responsibility of the individual states and localities to enforce, as provided in the Tenth Amendment.


Reestablish: Travel within the State is not in the purview or authority of the federal government or its agencies.

Join me as I say no to the NDAA

via Gonzalo Lira blog

When I was about 15 or 16, I read Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago. The book is a history of the Soviet concentration camp system between 1918 and 1956, based on the testimony of actual prison inmates, of which Solzhenitsyn was one—and it had a profound effect on me, both politically and as a future writer.


But most of all, it taught me something crucial: What is legal is not necessarily the same as what is just.


Because you see, the Gulag system of forced-labor and concentration camps was completely legal: Proper laws had been properly passed, which allowed innocent people to be shipped off to their doom in a properly legal process. Even before the Nazis came up with the Wannsee Protocol, Lenin and his Soviets had perfected the idea of using the law to rape justice and the rights of human beings.


We today look at such abuses of the law as perversions typical of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes—


—but what about in a democracy? What about in our democracy? What about in America?


Recently, the United States’ Congress duly and democratically passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which President Obama duly and democratically signed into law.

The NDAA makes it legal for the executive branch to unilaterally declare anyone, including an American citizen, a terrorist suspect. And on merely the strength of this suspicion—not an act, not even a plan, but merely on a suspicion—an accused person can be “detained” indefinitely.


read the rest here

Passive resistance should be a part of Resistance (with no other options off the table--HM).


AP--Thought of you when I saw Lira's reference to Solzhenitsyn


...passive or active...resist

TSA cartoon 1/11/2012

http://homelandsecuritytheater.com/?p=3574

Quote of the Day, 1/11/2012

"When we asked Obama to stop illegal immigrants, we didn't mean to make the U.S. so sh*tty they wouldn't want to come anymore."

--Eric Cartman, recent episode "Last of the Meheecans" on South Park

First Amendment violation: Cuffed by the NYPD for 26 hours following attempt to protest NDAA

h/t to zerohedge.com


Protest held at Grand Central Terminal in NYC by Occupy Wall Street.


After her arrest, she got: no phonecall, no toiletpaper, no access to medical care. Cuffed for 26 hours. Nice.  Can't wait til they come for me.


Coming soon to a PD near you.

"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.