Arto Bendiken

Coastie with a Remington 870 short barreled shotgun.

Remember last month when I did a post on the IRS buying Remington 870 short barreled shotguns?

Go to Dave Workman's Examiner column here, entitled, "Why does Department of Education need 12-gauge shotguns?"

Go to the link above and read the whole thing, but here's one snippet:

Federal and state law across the American landscape (and certainly here in Washington State) almost uniformly declares schools to be “gun-free zones,” yet the U.S. Department of Education is in the process of purchasing more than two-dozen short-barreled police-style shotguns which are supposed to be delivered by March 22 to an address in Chicago, IL.

A source in New York stumbled over the solicitation notice, which carries the number: EDOOIG-10-000004.

The purchase is for 27 Remington Model 870 pump-action shotguns with 14-inch modified choke barrels (the legal minimum length for private citizens is 18 inches without a special license). These shotguns are to be fitted with Wilson Combat ghost ring rear sights, Knoxx adjustable stocks and Speedfeed fore-ends.

Here's another:

While this revelation may raise a few eyebrows, here’s something else to think about: Last August, Winchester Ammunition announced that it had been awarded a contract by the Department of Homeland Security to supply the division of Immigration, Customs and Enforcement (ICE) with a maximum of 200 million rounds of .40 S&W-caliber ammunition over the next five years. That’s just over 3.3 million rounds a month for a 60-month period.


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Winchester Ammunition was recently awarded a contract by the Immigration, Customs and Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security to supply a maximum of 200 million, 40 cal. rounds over the next five years.


Winchester produces superb ammunition and this is certainly an economic shot in the arm for a company that has served American shooters and hunters faithfully for generations. But what is ICE doing with 3.3 million rounds of ammunition a month? That seems to be a great deal of shooting, whether it is on the practice range or in the field.

It’s just your tax dollars at work.

And ICE is just one department. I guess they know something we don't know.

But still, it ain't gonna be NEARLY enough.

Mike
III

“A grievous blow has struck the ghetto. They are asking us to give up the best we possess - the children and the elderly. I was unworthy of having a child of my own, so I gave the best years of my life to children. I've lived and breathed with children, I never imagined I would be forced to deliver this sacrifice to the altar with my own hands. In my old age, I must stretch out my hands and beg: Brothers and sisters! Hand them over to me! Fathers and mothers: Give me your children!" -- Mordecai Chaim Rumkowski, Head of the Lodz Ghetto Judenrat, in a speech later entitled "Give Me Your Children" wherein he pleaded with the Jews in the ghetto to give up children of ten years of age and younger, as well as the old and the sick, so that others (including himself) might survive the Nazi terror.

Mordechai Chaim Rumkowski, "Useful Jew."

The term useful Jew was used in various historical contexts, typically describing a Jewish person useful in implementing an official authorities' policy, sometimes by oppressing other Jews. . . During the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Europe, the Jews who helped implement the Final Solution, such as members of Judenrat or the Jewish Police, were considered "valuable Jews" (German: Wertvolle Juden). They, and sometimes members of their families as well, were immune from deportation for extermination so long as they served the Nazis' purposes. Also, Jews who had helped plan the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin were considered "useful" and were spared deportation. -- Wikipedia.

I doubt that many of you have heard of Dan Shea, editor of Small Arms Review, but he is the big catfish in the little pond of Class III collectors and dealers. He is the owner of Long Mountain Outfitters, long-time board member and founder of the National Firearms Act Trade & Collectors Association (NFATCA) and Dan Shea is, last but not least, a very "Useful Jew" to the ATF.

Unfair characterization? Over the top? Perhaps. But if so, the complaint can only be only one of degree -- of the current situation of creeping proto-tyranny versus the full blown massacre of the Holocaust -- for trust me, Mordechai Rumkowski and Dan Shea would have understood each other had they lived at the same place and time. (JPFO has previously dubbed Shea and his NFATCA "ghetto Jews" here.)

As evidence of my assertion, I present Shea's latest "SITREP" column from SAR. He writes, in part:

I guess one of the positive side effects of this current political debacle is that the anti-firearms ownership crowd hasn't been able to launch any massive new legislation. . . There is also that pesky bit of history where former President Bill Clinton tried the silly, pointless and impotent "Assault Weapons Ban" resulting in the removal of his House and Senate majorities, thus neutering his political power. . .

That doesn't mean that a few individuals in ATF haven't had their Wheaties for breakfast since the Democrats took control of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. The end result has been a marked decrease in communication and working together with the community, as some of these people exercise their agendas, interpretations, and points of view in how the regulations are implemented. Fortunately, there is still a vast majority in the public service at ATF who are doing their jobs, enforcing the laws, looking for criminals, ensuring compliance, and not trying to create de facto gun control programs out of thin air by parsing words. So, at this point, it looks good for the status quo.

What does the future hold? Certainly more of the same. There are a few misguided crusaders on the pro-gun side who cross the line; probably the most dangerous people there are to us because they will sacrifice anyone and anything to their generally misguided and usually self-serving agendas. Up in the mountains, we used to have a self-mocking saying. "Hey, Elmer, why don't you go poke that stupid old bear over there with a stick. Stupid old bear." The problem here is that all of the rest of us are are near that bear too. One has to wonder how much damage has been done by this very small group of "true believers" who have attacked the general employees of ATF instead of trying to effect true change in policy, regulation or law. Generally, their arguments are poorly thought out and rely on parsing words, instead of reading the laws as written and working within that as well as the existing political structure to effect real, solid changes. We need good, solid well thought out negotiation and proper legal and legislative remedies to address our issues. Join the NFATCA and help.

I can't help but hope that this year, even as the dark clouds of fanatic modern liberalism are on the horizon, that the good people of our country, both liberal and conservative, and the countries of many of our readers, prevail and keep their freedom, their safety and their rights. We have real enemies out there, people sworn to killing off any who don't agree with them, abd we need to stand against them instead of tearing ourselves apart. -- Dan.

Hmmm. But who is he talking about? Now, knowing more than a little bit about old Dan here, I have my informed suspicions. But I decided to write Dan an email asking that question and I provide it for your edification and amusement below.

From: georgemason1776@aol.com
To: MaximGun@aol.com
Sent: Wed, Mar 10, 2010 1:31 pm
Subject: re: SITREP & "Useful Jews"

Dear Dan,

Having read your latest SITREP in Small Arms Review, I am bit puzzled about a few things. Perhaps you can clear them up. You write:

"There are a few misguided crusaders on the pro-gun side who cross the line; probably the most dangerous people there are to us because they will sacrifice anyone and anything to their generally misguided and usually self-serving agendas."

I'm curious, Dan. Who specifically are you talking about? Aaron Zelman of JPFO? David Codrea of the National Examiner and War on Guns? Len Savage? My good friend R.A. Bear? ME? All of the above?

Really, if you won't tell your readers who you are warning them against, how can they be forewarned? Or was this written not for your readers, or for the NFATCA, but for your ATF butt-buddies, to once more ingratiate yourself with the "bears" (as you describe them) of the Chief Counsel's Office and other branches of the ATF?

Knowing something about your recent activities, I rather suspect you are nothing more than a "useful Jew" to them. (You may go to my blog http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com if you are unfamiliar with the term.)

But really, if you think that characterization of you is unfair, then, please, tell us who it is you are talking about.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
PO Box 926
Pinson AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com

Little Jimmy Vann, on suicide watch and not allowed to play with sharp swords, makes his mark in his new nom d'guerre, ZORRO!

When we last left CleanUpATF.org, Avatar had made some excellent observations about the Friesen and Savage cases and had a number of pertinent questions about what Eric Holder has in mind for ATF. In addition, Captain R.A. Bear had just been spotted by Gun Writer at the Dulles Gun Show and Doc Holliday, the moderator, said:

Posted 03 March 2010 - 09:56 AM

Gun writer and Avatar. When ATF uses these tactics, they are NOT, I repeat, NOT representing US, the field. We despise and are appalled what the attorneys have done to this agency. This win at all cost even when we are wrong mentality is not what we stand for. When the agencys must rely on tactics like you describe, we are all embarrassed. It is also a huge signal when the United States attorneys office declines a case and a hack ATF Attorney pursues it. Not exactly what I think the AG and President Obama meant when they said transparency.

Then, striking from behind the anonymity of a nom d'guerre, came the newly-joined "Zorro" from "Old California" who disputed Avatar's piece with some interesting information and a point of view that could only have come from the Chief Counsel's Office or the Firearms Technology Branch. Little Jimmy, ist dat du?

Posted 04 March 2010 - 09:09 PM

Avatar,

I'll start by saying I don't think this is the appropriate place for you to carry on your years long crusade with ATF as most of the people posting here know little or nothing of your jousting over the years. Using this forum for your agenda can only serve to muddy the water and taint the intent of this forum, providing cover and concealment to the very type of animal it was meant to expose because any partial truths you post will become the focus of any meaningful attempt to hold government employees accountable for their actions.

That being said, perhaps you could add some details to your post - like any criminal history of Mr. Friesen, the events which led to his prosecution and first trial, the unusual MKII/MKIII hybrid; the serial number no one could see, how it was found, and why it was different from other Erb stampings? And maybe what effect having two F-2 applications shown in the registration history could railroad an innocent person into a prison term? Let's assume it was not another example of ATF's historical leniency such as one of many manufacturers "papered" machineguns in 1986 prior to the ban, were later to have been found LYING on the application and instead of prosecution were allowed to submit a corrected F-2 and continue business as usual with ZERO sanction instead of a felony conviction. What would a duplicate F-2 entry indicate? Did your side's statistics guru address that?

You are leaving out some details out on the Atlanta case as well, although it sounds like you may be depending on a single source for that one which is a good way to end up looking silly or insane. Would you care to share?

If you want to rally the troops to your cause, you are better off to tell the entire story. If your goals are just, reasonable people will support you having all facts available to them. If you see this board as a place to vent or speculate, there are many other places more suited to it.

The views and opinions expressed by the author are just that. They are not the official opinion of anyone anywhere in any capacity.

Interesting disclaimer, no? Question: Was it written on a government computer, Little Jimmy? Er, ah, Zorro?

Then Len Savage, whose attention has been drawn to this discussion by others, decides he can shed some light on his case, and he shuns anonymity to do it. A braver man than Zorro, anyway. He writes using his company name, Historic Arms LLC.

NOTE: I know for a FACT that Avatar is another person entirely, and NOT Len Savage. And as I have said before, I am not a member of CUATF and do not post there.)

* Joined: Yesterday, 01:00 PM
* Location: Georgia

Posted Yesterday, 02:27 PM

Little known details that should "un-muddy the waters" for not only Zorro, but others as well:

Since I was present at US v. Friesen I do have some first hand knowledge.

First off the case was the result of a compliance inspection and the now infamous STEN machinegun present during the inspection. A real world situation is that STEN's when original built by England are S/N marked on the magazine well, not the receiver tube. American remakes using English parts are marked on the receiver tube. You can see where a mistake can occur with a firearm with two different S/N's.

The second issue is that ATF depends on manufactures to submit accurate information on the NFRTR. If a manufacturer where in a hurry...say weeks out of the May 19, 1986 cut off and did not accurately fill out the ATF form 2 [Charlie Erb testified he filed out the ATF form 2 as a completed firearms, even though they were just receiver tubes] a situation occurred where ATF relied on the form as true when it was clearly in error and NOT ATF's fault. The fact is Erb was in such a hurry he accidentally filled (2) ATF form 2's for the same list of machineguns. ATF caught that and made him fix it.

Third issue; Erb was hurried before the cut off (as was every 07/SOT at the time), and employed several temporary workers to help. He testified that several people sat around a table and stamped in the serial numbers. ATF did to it's credit search out all firearms on the ATF form 2 that the subject firearm was registered with. I examined and photographed these. Each and every one. No two where identical or marked identical or in the same location. There were several that the receivers were completed into British Sterlings, not STEN's [even though the NFRTR shows them as STEN MKII's]. The length on the receiver tubes were all different. Some were nearly identical in length as the subject firearm in the case. Some were just pieces of tubing that were never completed..Just piece of pipe with a S/N on it.

Fourth issue; When you stamp a number in a hollow tube that is made of thin metal (in this case about 1/16th of an inch thick), If you do not have something inside it to support it the tube will "dent" around the number. Erb testified he used a mandrel for this task. The subject firearm was measured with a micrometer at the serial number stamping. It showed less than two thousandth's of an inch difference than the rest of the tube. That can't be done on an unsupported tube as was put forth at trial. I know, I tried it several times. I have also found out through bitter experience when I started manufacturing firearms as a FFL.

The US v. Friesen case began as the result of errors by the original manufacturer. When ATF Chief Counsel continued to prosecute [James P. Vann was there throughout] when they discovered the truth was the real crime in my book.

The Atlanta case [US v. One Historic Arms Model 54RCCS "7.62X54R Caliber Conversion System, Machinegun, Serial NO. V1] concerns a MAC 10 machinegun replacement upper. The company consulted with Firearms Technology Branch prior to completion and submission. FTB stated it had concerns that prohibited persons could purchase and possess the replacement upper [as they can with any MAC upper currently] because ATF does not consider the MAC upper to be a firearm frame or receiver. The company proposed a solution to FTB's reasonable concerns. That solution was that if one could consider a MAC upper to be a firearm frame or receiver since it does house the bolt, is the attachment point of the barrel, and contains some of the fire control (27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11). It was agreed that the item would have a barrel of length less than 16 inches and be registered as a Short Barreled Rifle to prevent prohibited persons from possessing.

FTB later classified the submitted product as a machinegun and required an ATF form 2 be submitted prior to any return. The company was prohibited from registering an already registered firearm. ATF declared they would seize it if the company refused. ATF arrested the "upper" and the case now sits in front of a Federal Judge to determine if ATF's motion for summary judgment should be granted or if the company [claimant's] motion for summary judgment should be granted, or whether a jury trial will occur. The situation has been under consideration since December 11th last year.

I would have been fine with FTB's determination if they had not used a "conversion device" during testing. When that same exact conversion device [ATF loaned it to claimant during discovery] was applied to every known variation of MAC machinegun upper they all either fired once [firearm] or fired in the same manner as FTB claimed "the defendant" did [machinegun].

I am a licensee, I play by the rules....I require no less from ATF management and Chief Counsels Office.

Respectfully,

Len Savage
Historic Arms LLC

Now Zorro, new to the game and hardly willing to let Len's statement of events go unchallenged, answers back, and gives us all sorts of clues that this is certainly coming from CCO, FTB or both.

Posted Yesterday, 09:26 PM

Still muddy here. Although admittedly, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer so please bear with me while I ask some questions that may seem amateurish:

Sten markings: Got the mag well - no problem. What I am asking is how did 3 people including the registered owner not see serial #2 (the correct one) at the time of inspection and yet it was plainly visible when seized? How long did Mr. Friesen possess the Sten without seeing a serial number on it - or at least one that matched the registration and did he make any effort to contact ATF to correct the situation? As a licensee did he understand the marking and registration requirements of the NFA? He testified that he used what was it - a nail(?) and carefully removed some paint which revealed the true serial number which was not stamped as Erb said his guns were? At that time did he make any effort to contact ATF and say "I found it"? If I read your post appropriately, your contention is that Erb either lied or was simply mistaken about how he marked his guns - as in one of the temps used an electro pencil on Mr. Friesen's Sten without his (Erb's) knowledge?

I am still curious about what got this in court in the first place as ATF and AUSAs generally are not terribly aggressive with NFA violations minus other factors. Did Mr. Friesen have any criminal history that might have made him a more appealing target or was he literally just an average upstanding citizen minding his own business who was unlucky enough to be culled out from hundreds to be made an example of?

Could you describe your MAC caliber conversion system in more detail? Was it a PKM receiver as I have read elsewhere? If so, was it:

a ) built from scratch?

b ) welded from a destroyed PKM MG?

c ) built using a current production semi-auto receiver?


Could you tell us what features your receiver had or did not have that distinguished it from a PKM MG receiver?

How can an upper be a short barreled rifle? I'm having trouble making the connection of an upper to either "rifle" or "short barreled rifle" as it would not seem to fit either definition. I can see the possibility of machinegun if a PKM receiver was used (and if that info is incorrect, please set the record straight as sometimes internet myths are "less than accurate"). For example, a modern semi-auto receiver which derived its non-MG classification from features A, B, and C when one or more of those features was altered or removed in order to accomodate the MAC. That could revert it to machinegun status because it would be a frame or receiver and jamming the MAC up its backside for a fire control group would not undo the PKM receiver's MG status. It would just be a MAC and a PKM in close proximity to each other.

Regarding your commentary on the registration, I am of the understanding that you would not have to "re-register" a registered firearm; that you (the manufacturer) could simply submit a letter asking for correction of the existing registration based on FTB's classification - it seems reasonable that the NFA Branch would honor the classification letter from FTB and simply annotate the record to reflect the registered item as a MG instead of SBR. Did you attempt any such correction and, if so, was your notice of correction rejected?

As with avatar, I still say this is not the place for people with personal crusades outside the agency. Maybe subguns would be more fitting. That's where the gun law experts hang out and where I read so much good, accurate info about the intrigues of ATF. :rolleyes:

The views and opinions expressed by the author are just that. They are not the official opinion of anyone anywhere in any capacity.

Again, that curious disclaimer. I rather think that these statements probably are "the official opinion" of someone, somewhere, in a very definite capacity. Be interesting to see if Len's case does go to trial what the true identity of Zorro is, for it could certainly be determined under oath, couldn't it?

Doc Holliday then tries to settle the matter:

Posted Yesterday, 10:24 PM

Zorro and Avatar, take this fight outside please. We are trying to raise the publics confidence in ATF which is by anyones measurement at an all time low. ATF is currently w/o leadership or agency integrity. Bottom line on this issue is: ATF works for the public and regulate a very important industry. After so many questionable FFL cases over the last couple yrs with confidential settlements or $25 fines, it is clear to me that we are not enforcing the law to the spirit of the law and we are not regulating the industry fairly and without prejudice. I support ATF pursuing doggedly any FFL who is intentionally and willfully trying to play games with the firearms laws. However, ATF never needs to cheat, lie, withold or bully to do this. Thats how we know we are the good guys. If we do this OR so Im told even give the appearence of inpropriety, we are wrong. I have been involved in hundreds of Federal prosecutions and am proud to say I have worked with some of the best prosecutors in the country, maybe the world. NOT ONCE have I ever seen a Federal prosecutor threatened with sanctions and so obviously withold evidence. ZORRO Please read the certified transcripts provided for you. Leave out the techy stuff and tell me you approve of this type of conduct? I believe it is incumbent upon ATF to be open to scrutiny and Americans be allowed to questions it governments regulations without fear of being labeled a malcontent or an enemy of the state. When was the last time ATF engaged the industry, especially those critical of the laws and/or regulations to have a quarterly sitdown to review upcoming regulations for their input. I just read an ATF FFL newsletter, in which I read that ATF is now unilaterally deciding that a pistol grip shotgun is not a shotgun, not a rifle and not a pistol, but not an NFA weapon. What is it?

Now, this last statement is absolutely true, and I happen to know the issue has been raised with FTB. They have not -- to date -- responded. I imagine they haven't finished scraping the crap out of their pants for the issue having been raised in the first place. When they do, and when they have determined the damage they have done to their little fireman from having stepped upon it again big time, we may get an answer -- in a couple of years or so. Or, until they try to prosecute somebody on the issue and once again, Chief Counsel's Office incompetence blows the self-inflicted issue up in their faces.

Mike
III

"If you take sexual advantage of her, you're going to burn in a very special level of hell. A level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater." Shepherd Book to Captain Malcolm Reynolds in Firefly: Our Mrs. Reynolds," 2002.

Sorry, I couldn't help but think of Shepherd Book's admonition after reading this.

Moviegoer Tells Woman to Stop Talking On Cell Phone, Gets Stabbed in the Neck

The stabbing occurred last Saturday at the Cinemark 22

By SCOTT WEBER

A woman talking on a cell phone during a movie didn't take to kindly to being 'shushed' by another moviegoer. Or at least her boyfriend didn't.

In a drama that turned more lively than the one on screen, the boyfriend allegedly attacked and stabbed the 'shusher' in the neck. With a meat thermometer.

According to KTLA:

The stabbing occurred last Saturday at the Cinemark 22 theater at 2600 West Avenue I in Lancaster, according to Detective Richard Cartmill of the Lancaster sheriff's station.

Deputies say that while the movie was playing, a woman was talking on her phone and the victim asked her to turn it off.

The victim was attacked by the woman's boyfriend and another man. Deputies say he was stabbed in the neck with a meat thermometer.

The stabbing victim is expected to survive and is recovering at a local hospital. Two others who tried to help the victim were also injured, according to KTLA.

According to Sheriff's officials, the suspects were described as black males. One man was wearing an orange hat with an orange jersey and the other man was dressed in a black hooded sweatshirt.

There was no word on why the man had a meat thermometer in a movie theater.

My thank to "The Anonymous Irregular" for forwarding this.

My thanks to Irregulars SK and AN for forwarding this.

Mike
III

Police act swiftly after gun purchases

ODOT worker who'd been put on leave is mentally evaluated after buying handguns, AK-47

March 09, 2010

By Anita Burke
Mail Tribune

Concerns about an Oregon Department of Transportation employee who purchased several guns after being placed on leave prompted law enforcement across Southern Oregon to step in.

Negotiators and a SWAT team from Medford police safely took a man — whose name wasn't released — into protective custody Monday morning in the 500 block of Effie Street, Medford police said in a news release.

He was taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for a mental-health evaluation.

The man recently had been placed on administrative leave from his job and was "very disgruntled," the news release said.

ODOT Communications Director Patrick Cooney said there were administrative, personnel matters involved that limited what the department could discuss.

However, the state agency had reported concerns about the man to law enforcement agencies, who started monitoring him, officials said.

"We had concerning information regarding a personnel issue and were watching the subject," Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters said.

In two days, the man bought a Heckler & Koch .45-caliber universal self-loading handgun, a Walther .380-caliber handgun and an AK-47 assault rifle, Medford police Lt. Bob Hansen said. All of those firearms were purchased legally, with required record checks by the Oregon State Police.

Authorities were "extremely concerned" that the man may have been planning to retaliate against his employers, the news release said.

"Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach," OSP Sgt. Jeff Proulx said.

Douglas and Jackson County sheriff's departments, OSP officers based in both counties and police in Medford and Roseburg collaborated, he said.

Medford police watched the man's home overnight, starting at about 9 p.m. Sunday, Hansen said.

Because he was known to have weapons, police wanted to defuse the situation and ensure the man wasn't a danger to himself or others before the neighborhood awakened and people started their daily activities, Hansen said.

Medford's hostage negotiators and SWAT team were called in at 3 a.m. Monday and arrived on the scene at about 5:45 a.m., he said.

About a dozen officers responded. They closed the street for about an hour and evacuated three homes to protect neighbors and prevent bystanders from gathering, he said.

After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man — who was alone in the home — agreed to come out, Hansen said.

Police seized the recently purchased firearms, as well as another .45-caliber Heckler & Koch handgun and a 12-gauge shotgun. Police are holding the weapons for safekeeping, but no criminal charges have been filed.

Meet Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the new Gauleiter of American Waters, the Commissar of the Fishing Hole, and Administrator of the Green Gulag ("Coming soon to a lake near you!"). I'd never heard of her, nor had I paid any attention to the "United We Fish Rally" a few weeks back.

Sign at the "United We Fish Rally," 24 February.

Pity the poor Fudds. Willing to bargain away our rights to own evil battle rifles because they are not for "sporting purposes," they figured once Leviathan got ahold of those it would be content. Now, even before they have grabbed our EBRs that the Fudds were willing to give them in order to be left alone, the Obamanoid central planners are going after sport fishing.

"Don't look now, Elmer, but Obama just stole yer fishin' hole."

Unbelievable, right? Doubling down on disaster doesn't seem like sensible politics does it? Pissing off EVERYBODY IN SIGHT about something near and dear to them doesn't seem rational, does it? I mean, not if you are trying to get re-elected. What kind of politics is that? Collectivist dictatorial politics, friends. They apparently know something we don't. Like, we're through the looking glass now, and the old verities no longer apply and the Red Queen can have anybody's head lopped off. "Never let a good crisis go to waste," even if you have to manufacture the crisis.

Go here. Follow the links. The story below is real, all right. Unbelievable, but real. Kinda lends a whole new meaning to this:



Don't it?

Mike
III

Obama: The Will Of The People Be Damned - I’LL Decide Who Can Go Fishing

*Now* he means to ration recreational fishing and boating, folks

Posted by Dave Poff (haystack) (Profile)

Tuesday, March 9th at 2:44PM EST
59 Comments

It all started here this morning:

The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.

I had to read that 3 times before it sank in…and then I did a little research. Guess what old Barack (I’ve never had a fishing rod in my hand a day in my life) Obama has been up to since last year? Plotting a Federal takeover of all our bodies of water (freshwater…saltwater…doesn’t matter), in an effort to set up MORE bureaucracies and circumvent the rights of the States to determine fair use and access rules amongst themselves based on the local interests of everyone involved.

If he was out to ban recreational fishing this piece would be easy enough to write; scream a little, stomp my feet, vow he’ll have to pry my fishing rod from my cold dead hands, etc…and be done with it. Problem is, this is much darker and more corrupt than that.

The White House plan would establish 9 regional planning bodies (bureaucracies) whose job would be to bring “Federal, State, and Tribal Partners together” to look for ways to “decrease user conflicts; improve planning and regulatory efficiencies and decrease their associated costs and delays; and preserve critical ecosystem function and services.”

It should come as no surprise that the Administration is no longer accepting comments or input from the public (though you should click through to see some of the doozies that WERE accepted), and it should come as no surprise that a member of Obama’s Administration (Jane Lubchenco, NOAA administrator) has some interesting ties with a couple private charities and goofy greenie groups whose interests will be very well served by a Federal takeover of our various bodies of water:

While she possesses impressive academic and professional credentials as a marine biologist, she also has close ties to those who produced the November document. For example, she was a trustee of the Environmental Defense Fund, and served on the Pew Oceans Commission.”

More below the “who needs jobs and successful multi-billion dollar industries anymore, anyway?” fold…

More info here, and a call for some Asian Carp-killing love here. Don’t miss the policy pdf here if you really want your head to explode. Read between the lines folks…this will lock down oil exploration faster and farther than the moratorium Congress JUST let expire ever did, and allows the greenies to set policy for fishing AND boating (at the expense of millions of jobs and billions of boating and fishing industry dollars).

ALWAYS worry when you read this from Obama’s people: “The planning process would be fully transparent and participatory.” and don’t forget to laugh out loud when you follow up with this timeless classic: “Places Science-Based Information at the Heart of Decision-Making. Scientific data, information and knowledge, as well as relevant traditional knowledge, will be the underpinning of the regionally developed plans.”

How’s that “settled” climate change science mumbo jumbo working out again?

"Did ya get rid of the body, Billy?" "Yeah, Tommy, and I drove the federal man's car over the bluff into Dead Man's Holler." "So, we can go fishin' now?" "Yeah, Tommy, now we can go fishin."

Even when I've just got a couple of bucks in my pocket (which is more often than not) I stop by my local thrift store. Today was a good score, but not atypical of results.

First, I picked up an old GI duffel bag, canvas, not nylon, with the single strap not the twin pack straps, for $2.99. Got a modern one in nylon, just like the photo above for the same price last week. (I gave that one to Pete).

Duffels are extremely useful for carting objects around and nobody takes much notice. I invite reader feedback on the largest, most unusual or most deadly thing they have ever concealed in a duffel bag.



Today, I also scored a copy of Pat Frank's Alas Babylon, the Perennial Classics trade paperback edition of 1999 for $.99. I'll end up finding a good home for that as well, probably with the teenage kid of a friend.

Finally, there are always those items that get mis-marked. Once, I picked up a PASGT K-Pot size small in the bike helmets for 1.99 because some new employee looked at it, saw "helmet," checked against the list and didn't know the difference. Today's bonanza is a pair of Japanese made Hurricane 7x35 binoculars. Given the individually focused eyepieces, the brown leather strap and leather case, I'd guess that they were made in the 50s or 60s. (Can't find an image on the web to correspond to these fine little glasses.) The markings say "Hurricane Coated Optics No. 56299 M" & "7x35 Field view at 1000YDS: 320FT" and on the front "Made in Japan."

The case was marked $.59! The binoculars were separate, unmarked. I took them up front and asked. "Well," said the manager, "the binoculars go with the case. Somebody mis-marked them, but today is your lucky day." So, I walked out of there with a set of fine, almost new tactical glasses for, tax and all, SIXTY-FIVE CENTS. So, I got a multi-use duffel bag, a great book and a set of excellent quality binoculars for a little over $5.00 including the tax.

If you're not checking out your local thrift store on a regular basis, you're missing the militia quartermaster's best bet.

LATER: I cleaned the binoculars' lenses and just tried them out in my neighborhood. They seem extremely crisp and clear, almost as good as my 1943 Navy 7x50 "night glasses." (And one heck of a lot smaller and lighter.) Looks like I can retire my Navy's.

David Codrea asks a darn good question. Also, follow the link to the Pajamas Media story on this.

Folks,

Dan Thomasson, long-time advocate of citizen disarmament is at it again here in a column entitled "The several varieties of gun nuts."

Go, and read. My email reply to him follows.

Mike
III

From: georgemason1776@aol.com
To: thomassondan@aol.com
Sent: Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:20 am
Subject: All the world bows before your scintillating wit . . .

My dear Dan,

All the world bows before your scintillating wit . . .

But only in the mirror and only in your dreams.

I will not attempt to argue with you about your latest anti-firearms, pro-citizen disarmament screed. Having done that in the past, I realize the futility of the exercise. I would merely like to point out a section of the Law of Unintended Consequences as it applies to you.

In 1999, your buddy Bill Clinton changed the American rules of war as they then applied. The Serbs were being recalcitrant, so, in his frustration, he decided that the politicians, the news media and the intellectuals who laid the predicate for the enemy's war effort were legitimate targets of war. To this end, he dispatched precision guided munitions into the homes of various politicians and the broadcast studios of Serbian radio and television. They managed to kill some security guards, makeup artists and janitors.

Fast forward to today.

Now, a recent CNN poll showed that 56% of the American people now view the federal government -- you know, the one you are so enamored of, the one you wish to give a monopoly of violence to by disarming the citizenry -- constitutes a clear and present danger to their liberties. This is the eternal question: Which is to be the master? The government or the people? You obviously believe the answer is the government. At least 56% of your countrymen disagree. And this question, THE question, MUST be answered, WILL be answered, and one side or the other will lose. And if politics fail, as it now seems likely, many, many people will die in the process.

Indeed, the country was not this divided in 1861. Yet, here you are, parroting the line of the imperial federal government at a time when a considerable portion of our people (as evidenced by the incredible numbers of firearms and ammunition now being purchased in this country) are preparing for any eventuality, up to and including civil war.

So, my question is, what makes you think that the people who insist upon their traditional liberties regardless of your "enlightened" opinions WON'T play by Bill Clinton's rules of engagement after the shots begin to fly?

You are either very clueless, or very brave.

But I mention it just in case you hadn't thought the unintended consequences of your advocacy of federal tyranny through to their, shall we say, uncomfortable conclusion.

Have a nice day.

Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters.
PO Box 926
Pinson AL 35126
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com

Folks,

The write-up below is from Western Rifle Shooters.

Here's my two cents.

I will be speaking here. So, too, will Bob Wright. 19 April is a Monday, and so many folks will not be able to make that. Many folks also will not want to come, so close as we seem to be open conflict -- and we are but one unpredictable agency misadventure from that. These reasons I understand.

I am going because I believe it is the right thing to do, at the right time. I am going because the Beltway crowd will crap their pants at the sight of it. I am going because when I face my God I want to be able to say I did my best to avoid conflict in every manner that I could. I am going to help reclaim a right that the Founders took for granted. It will be in their faces. It will be seen by Leviathan as provocative. It will be the act of free men and women.

I am going.

Hope to see you there.

Mike
III

19 April 2010: Bring Your Sidearms and Longarms To The Banks of the Potomac

The latest on the April 19th "Restore The Constitution" rally on the Potomac:

As it stands now, [the above] is how I plan on attending the Restore the Constitution rally on 4-19 at Ft. Hunt and Gravelly Parks.

Pistol loaded, openly carried. Rifle unloaded, slung to rear. Bandoleer of magazines containing ammo. All in accordance with rules below. Please note that guidelines below are subject to final coordination with the Department of the Interior:

Participants and attendees are expected to know and abide by all applicable state and federal firearms laws. None of the information provided below is legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by reading or relying upon this information. If you have questions, then you are expected to know the applicable state and federal firearms laws before attending the event.

Anyone prohibited from possessing a firearm by state or federal law may not possess a firearm at this event.

Participants and attendees may not bring any firearm prohibited by state or federal law.

1. ALL rifles and shotguns carried by participants at this event are to be unloaded (chamber empty, no magazine inserted, no ammo inside the rifle or shotgun, no ammo touching the rifle or shotgun whatsoever) and slung to the rear or to the side, away from the hands.

Although the law does allow for carry of some types of loaded rifles and some types of shotguns in some circumstances, our guidelines are simpler and more strict due to the relative novelty of this event and the high level of attention it is likely to receive from law enforcement, government, and the media.

2. While we do ask that your rifles and shotguns be unloaded, you are perfectly welcome to carry ammunition and loaded magazines on your person if you so choose, so long as no magazines are actually inserted into rifles and so long as you are not prohibited from owning a firearm.

3. Open carry of a loaded pistol is allowed.

Concealed carry of a pistol is allowed for those with a valid Virginia concealed handgun permit or a concealed handgun permit from a state for which Virginia allows concealed carry in Virginia (See the Virginia State Police’s website for a list of those states; we do not vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of that list).

Anyone carrying their pistol openly or concealed cannot have in it a magazine capable of holding over 20 rounds and cannot have a pistol designed to accept a silencer or suppressor.

Participants and attendees are required to keep all pistols holstered. Participants and attendees are required to keep all rifles/shotguns slung over their shoulder, muzzle-down, unloaded, with the safety on, and with no magazine inserted. Brandishing of firearms is prohibited by Virginia law. Under Virginia Code Section 18.2-282, it is unlawful for any person to (a) point, hold, or brandish any firearm in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or (b) hold a firearm in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another being shot or injured. Do not engage in any horseplay, demonstration of firing positions, or exchange of or other handling of firearms at Fort Hunt, Gravelly Park, or any other location or vehicle of transportation associated with this event.

By federal law, firearms are prohibited in federal facilities (defined by federal law as a building or part thereof owned or leased by the federal government, where federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties).

Do not transport a loaded rifle or shotgun in any vehicle on any public street, road, or highway during this event.

Participants and attendees are not to consume, possess, or be under the influence of alcohol or illegal substances at this event.

Again, these guidelines are, as of now, subject to final coordination with the Department of the Interior.

More info asap.

Spread the word!

Doubling down on disaster, Lindsey Gramnesty and Chuck "Shithead" Schumer, have decided to make us all get biometric cards in order to insure that we won't get "another wave" of illegals. What about the last five waves they've done nothing about? I know some of you libertarians are all for open borders and don't mind amnesty, but is THIS what you had in mind?!?

MARCH 9, 2010

ID Card for Workers Is at Center of Immigration Plan

By LAURA MECKLER

Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.

Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker.

The ID card plan is one of several steps advocates of an immigration overhaul are taking to address concerns that have defeated similar bills in the past.

The uphill effort to pass a bill is being led by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who plan to meet with President Barack Obama as soon as this week to update him on their work. An administration official said the White House had no position on the biometric card.

"It's the nub of solving the immigration dilemma politically speaking," Mr. Schumer said in an interview. The card, he said, would directly answer concerns that after legislation is signed, another wave of illegal immigrants would arrive. "If you say they can't get a job when they come here, you'll stop it."

The biggest objections to the biometric cards may come from privacy advocates, who fear they would become de facto national ID cards that enable the government to track citizens.

"It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people's privacy," said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We're not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We're also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification."

Mr. Graham says he respects those concerns but disagrees. "We've all got Social Security cards," he said. "They're just easily tampered with. Make them tamper-proof. That's all I'm saying."

U.S. employers now have the option of using an online system called E-Verify to check whether potential employees are in the U.S. legally. Many Republicans have pressed to make the system mandatory. But others, including Mr. Schumer, complain that the existing system is ineffective.

Last year, White House aides said they expected to push immigration legislation in 2010. But with health care and unemployment dominating his attention, the president has given little indication the issue is a priority.

Rather, Mr. Obama has said he wanted to see bipartisan support in Congress first. So far, Mr. Graham is the only Republican to voice interest publicly, and he wants at least one other GOP co-sponsor to launch the effort.

An immigration overhaul has long proven a complicated political task. The Latino community is pressing for action and will be angry if it is put off again. But many Americans oppose any measure that resembles amnesty for people who came here illegally.

Under the legislation envisioned by Messrs. Graham and Schumer, the estimated 10.8 million people living illegally in the U.S. would be offered a path to citizenship, though they would have to register, pay taxes, pay a fine and wait in line. A guest-worker program would let a set number of new foreigners come to the U.S. legally to work.

Most European countries require citizens and foreigners to carry ID cards. The U.K. had been a holdout, but in the early 2000s it considered national cards as a way to stop identify fraud, protect against terrorism and help stop illegal foreign workers. Amid worries about the cost and complaints that the cards infringe on personal privacy, the government said it would make them voluntary for British citizens. They are required for foreign workers and students, and so far about 130,000 cards have been issued.

Mr. Schumer first suggested a biometric-based employer-verification system last summer. Since then, the idea has gained currency and is now a centerpiece of the legislation being developed, aides said.

A person familiar with the legislative planning said the biometric data would likely be either fingerprints or a scan of the veins in the top of the hand. It would be required of all workers, including teenagers, but would be phased in, with current workers needing to obtain the card only when they next changed jobs, the person said.

The card requirement also would be phased in among employers, beginning with industries that typically rely on illegal-immigrant labor.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn't have a position on the proposal, but it is concerned that employers would find it expensive and complicated to properly check the biometrics.

Mr. Schumer said employers would be able to buy a scanner to check the IDs for as much as $800. Small employers, he said, could take their applicants to a government office to like the Department of Motor Vehicles and have their hands scanned there.
—Alistair MacDonald contributed to this article.

Write to Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com

Go here for images of our collectivit opponents. I must say, this one I laughed at the most. 'Bout busted a gut, actually.



And these are the people who are threatening to arm themselves and "eliminate" us?

PS: Thanks to TypeA for forwarding this.

Meet the bangalore torpedo.

One of the points of Absolved is that there are no obsolete weapons, only obsolete tactics. Old weapons are also often reinvented with a wrinkle or two that make them much more useful.

Such it is with the rather old idea of the bangalore torpedo. From Wikipedia:

A Bangalore torpedo is an explosive charge placed on the end of a long, extendible tube. It is used by combat engineers to clear obstacles that would otherwise require them to approach directly, possibly under fire. It is sometimes colloquially referred to as a Bangalore mine, bangers or simply a Bangalore.

It has been estimated that the modern Bangalore torpedo is effective for clearing a path through wire and mines up to 15 metres long and 1 metre wide.

Overview

The Bangalore torpedo was first devised by Captain McClintock, of the British Indian Army unit the Madras Sappers and Miners at Bangalore, India, in 1912. He invented it as a means of exploding booby traps and barricades left over from the Boer and Russo-Japanese Wars. The Bangalore torpedo would be exploded over a mine without the sapper having to approach closer than about three metres (ten feet).

In World War I

By the time of World War I the Bangalore torpedo was primarily used for clearing barbed wire before an attack. It could be used while under fire, from a protected position in a trench. The torpedo was standardized to consist of a number of externally identical 1.5 metre (five feet) lengths of threaded pipe, one of which contained the explosive charge. The pipes would be screwed together using connecting sleeves to make a longer pipe of the required length, somewhat like a chimney brush or drain clearing rod. A smooth nose cone would be screwed on the end to prevent snagging on the ground. It would then be pushed forward from a protected position and detonated, to clear a 1.5 metre (five feet) wide hole through barbed wire. An example of this technique can be seen in the silent film Wings, the 1927 film that received the Academy award for "Most Outstanding Production".

In World War II

The Bangalore torpedo was later adopted by the U.S. Army as well during World War II, as the M1A1 Bangalore Torpedo. It was widely used by both the U.S. and Commonwealth forces, notably during D-Day. The use of a Bangalore Torpedo to clear a barbed wire barrier is depicted in the D-Day beach invasion scene in the films Saving Private Ryan, The Longest Day, and The Big Red One as well as the games Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, Medal of Honor: Frontline, and Call of Duty 2: Big Red One. In The Big Red One, screenwriter and director Samuel Fuller, a veteran of D-Day, expressed through the narrator his disdain for the inherent hazards of assembling and employing the weapon: "The Bangalore Torpedo was 50 feet long and packed with 85 pounds of TNT, and you assembled it along the way - by hand. I'd love to meet the asshole who invented it!"



Post WWII development

The Bangalore continues to be used today, in the little-changed M1A2 version, although primarily to breach wire obstacles, allowing soldiers to subsequently clear a path of mines using hand-emplaced demolitions, grappling hooks, or other means. British Royal Engineers and American combat engineers have also been known to construct similar field versions of the Bangalore by assembling segments of metal picket posts and filling the concave portion with Plastic Explosive. The PE is then primed with detonating cord and a detonator, and pickets are taped or wired together each to make a long torpedo producing shrapnel that cuts the wire when detonated. This method produces results similar to the standard-issue Bangalore, and can be assembled to the desired length by adding picket segments.



The newest evolution of the Bangalore is the Bangalore blade, an updated version made from lightweight aluminium and using explosively formed penetrator technology to breach obstacles which the original Bangalore would have been unable to defeat. In a test detonation conducted on the television show Future Weapons, the Bangalore Blade blasted a gap roughly 5 metres wide in concertina wire, and also created a trench deep enough to detonate most nearby anti-personnel mines. The Bangalore Blade was developed in the United Kingdom by Alford Technologies and is intended for use with both standard army and Special Forces units that require a lightweight, portable obstacle-clearing device.

Other recent path-clearing devices

The U.S. Antipersonnel Obstacle Breaching System (APOBS) and the British RAMBS II rifle grenade breaching system are starting to replace the Bangalore for path-clearing due to their ease of use, effectiveness, and flexibility—they can clear a path several times longer than the Bangalore torpedo.

From the US Army manual on the use of the M1A1 --

USING A BANGALORE TORPEDO

A bangalore torpedo comes in a kit that has 10 torpedo sections, 10 connecting sleeves, and 1 nose sleeve. Use only the number of torpedo sections and connecting sleeves needed.

All torpedo sections have a threaded cap well at each end so that they may be assembled in any order. Use the connecting sleeves to connect the torpedo sections together. To prevent early detonation of the entire bangalore torpedo if you hit a mine while pushing it through the obstacle, attach an improvised (wooden) torpedo section to its end. That section can be made out of any wooden pole or stick that is the size of a real torpedo section. Attach the nose sleeve to the end of the wooden section.

After the bangalore torpedo has been assembled and pushed through the obstacle, prime it with either an electric or nonelectric firing system (app B).

Once the bangalore torpedo has been fired, use wire cutters to cut away any wire not cut by the explosion.

Obviously employing the bangalore in its classic form by hand is dangerous in the extreme. Still improvised bangalores have been used in modern conflicts to breach enemy wire, as any Vietnam veteran can tell you about VC and NVA sappers.

The subject came to my mind when I was forwarded this article from Strategy Page.

Bangalore Torpedo Gets Upgraded Once More

February 19, 2010: Britain has used, for the first time, in Marjah, Afghanistan, the latest version of their bangalore torpedo. The new device, called Python, is a rocket that carries an explosives filled, 228 meter (700 foot) tube filled with 1.4 tons of explosives. When the tube lands, the explosives go off, destroying over 90 percent of mines, or other explosive devices, in an area 180 meters long and 7 meters wide. The cleared area has to be double checked for mines or devices that survived Python, but this can be done quickly, and troops and vehicles can rush through the cleared lane if they are under fire.

The Python is basically an update of a similar system developed in the 1950s (Giant Viper). The U.S. has a similar system (the Mk 154 Mine Clearance System), which uses rockets to propel a cable (stuffed with explosives) down a road. The explosives are detonated, and all mines, and road side bombs, are detonated or disabled over an area of 14 by 100 meters. The Mk 154 was originally designed to quickly clear mines during combat. But it turns out to work against booby traps and roadside bombs as well. All these systems are developed from the World War II era bangalore torpedo, where the explosives filled tube had to be pushed into position. The original bangalore torpedo was developed during World War II, for quickly clearing barbed wire barriers.

Here is an article from the London Times from February.

From Times Online

February 17, 2010

'Python' is British Army's winning weapon against Afghan roadside bombs

An explosive hose has become an unlikely weapon against roadside bombs, the biggest killer of British soldiers in Afghanistan.

The 230-metre long snake-like device, attached to a series of rockets, is fired on to an area thought to contain improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

Moments after impact, the hose explodes, detonating bombs nearby and clearing the way for soliders to advance forward.

Royal Engineers fired the Python rocket-propelled mine-clearing system for the first time in Afghanistan on Saturday, clearing a suspected IED belt in Nad Ali as part of a major offensive against the Taleban in Helmand province.

It was used again today along a dry river bed, landing with a thump and detonating a number of bombs, which created a huge cloud of smoke.

The rockets, which carry the hose, are fired off the back of a Trojan armoured engineer tank. The hose snakes through the air before landing with a bang.

Staff Sergeant Mark Eastley, from 30 Armoured Engineer Squadron, said: “It takes your breath away." The 35-year-old from Devon added: "You see the flash, hear the bang and then feel the shock wave.”

The Ministry of Defence said that all families in the area are contacted to ensure that no civilians come near the blast.

Taleban fighters have planted more roadside bombs than had been expected in Majrah, just south of Nad Ali, the focus of the latest Nato offensive.

More than 15,000 US, British and Afghan forces are taking part in Operation Moshtarak, the biggest military operation in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taleban in 2001.

Major General Nick Carter, the British commander of Nato forces in southern Afghanistan, said that the bigest danger for advancing troops was IEDs.“What has surprised us is the quantity. They have had a long time to prepare this and they have not been idle in terms of getting it right.”

Another lighter, easier to deploy tool for the modern trooper is the rifle-fired grapnel:



I own one of these handy little boogers (I picked it up at a gun show).

Here is the product description from the manufacturer.

Launched Grapnel Hook (LGH)

LGHThe LGH has been designed to meet the U.S. Army requirement for a small, light, and highly effective means to defeat tripwire mines and booby traps. This requirement, as well as a need for efficient humanitarian demining equipment, is applicable throughout the world. The LGH can be configured to operate with most standard infantry rifles, including the M-16, M-4, and NATO G-3, as well as with single-shot commercial rifles.

The range is approximately 100 meters with the M-16, and is reported to be close to 200 meters with the G-3. The LGH is reusable at least 20 times.

The compact standard package contains the grapnel, bullet trap. bridle, and retrieval line. The LGH is type classified by the U.S. Army (NSN 1095-01-412-4150) and is in full rate production in the U.S. by SAA International, Ltd, under a U.S. DoD approved Quality Assurance Plan.

The LGH has been demonstrated to meet all desired effectiveness and safety criteria.

Of course, if you think you'll never have to defeat mines, booby traps or enemy wire entanglements to get in to where you are not wanted, or to get somebody out of where they do not want to be, then ignore everything I've posted here and don't think about adaptations, permutations and improvisations.

"If ye do, yer daft, man. Did someone mention jail breaks?"

Thanks to my son Matt for the heads up.


Set down your coffee cup, swallow, and go here.

Just received this email regarding the "accidental" death of a parachute rigger at Fort Lee, Pvt. Anthony Milo. One thing is true, the Army is so shot-through with risk-aversion, it wouldn't surprise me if they have repealed sensible policies like issuing parachute trainees jump knives. If this boy did die of strangulation, some chickenshit risk-averse asshole with stars on his shoulders ought to have to personally apologize to this boy's parents for contributing to his death. Then, if he is an honorable man, he ought to go behind his nice general officer's quarters on base and blow his frigging brains out with an M-9 pistol.

Mike
III

Mike,

Regarding the young solder who died while parachuting at Ft. Lee a few days ago:

My son was on the same Blackhawk helicopter and jumped from it shortly before Private Milo jumped. My son had floated over the same power lines and after landing witnessed private Milo hanging from the lines. What hasn't been reported was the cause of death. No it wasn't electrocution. Neither was it impacting with power line poles. Nor can it be blamed on the wind. No. The cause of death was strangulation.

Why? Because the Army doesn't allow parachute trainees to carry knives to cut themselves out of entangled parachute cords. Knives are contraband. So Private Milo strangulated in the ten minutes it took to get help assembled.

When I was in Germany I traded one of the knives I owned for a German paratroopers knife. It slides opens with only one hand after pressing a lever. How is it that Europeans have figured out that knives could be useful when parachuting but we Americans ban our soldiers from carrying the one tool that could save their lives?

If you print anything about this, please don't use my name, as I wouldn't want my son to get into trouble for providing me this information.

Thanks,

REDACTED

http://www.gazette.com/articles/soldier-95237-colorado-springs.html

Soldier from Colorado Springs killed in parachute training at Fort Lee

March 06, 2010 6:11 PM

ANDREA BROWN
THE GAZETTE

A 24-year-old soldier from Colorado Springs died Thursday at Fort Lee during parachute training.

The Associated Press reported Pvt. Anthony Milo had parachuted from a UH-360 Blackhawk helicopter during training at the Petersburg, Va., base when he was tangled with a power line near the base’s landing zone.

Fort Lee suspended parachute training while authorities investigate the accident and whether wind speed was a factor. In a Richmond Times-Dispatch story, Fort Lee spokeswoman Sarah Trier said jump training is supposed to be canceled when winds reach 10 knots, or 11.5 mph. The National Weather Service reported winds Thursday measured 15 mph, with gusts up to 25 mph, at an airport 14 miles from the base.

Milo, a parachute rigger, arrived at Fort Lee on Dec. 14 after completing basic training at Fort Jackson, S.C.

A MySpace page under his name, which had condolences from friends, listed that he attended Mesa Ridge High School from 2001-2004. It said he was a flooring and cabinet installer before joining the Army.

Exordium's mentor.

My thanks to hbbill for drawing my attention to THIS over at Daily Pundit. We are all, it seems, slated for elimination by the self-described "left."

Hbbill writes, in a reply to my post below, "Letter to the Editor: Is 'Health Care' worth civil war?":

Fellow that goes by the moniker of Exordium posted this over on Daily Pundit:

"I’d rather it not come to this, (civil war) but if the right is going to arm themselves to the teeth and dig in, I’d like to see the left do the same and finally eliminate all of you wanna-be monkeywrenchers. Cleanse this nation of all of the right-wing, corporate-hugging glibertarian pieces of shit."

Needless to say, he was the recipient of full broadsides from numerous posters.

This one said it all from Bill Quick:

"Basically, it boils down to: We have guns. You don’t. You’re a’skeert of them.

But hey, bring it. Might be good for a few laughs."

Point being......we're ALREADY armed and know how to use them. Most lefties will be caught in a learning curve they will never catch up with.

hbbill

I think this is what Exordium has in mind for us. NKVD executing "enemies of the state."

My reply posted on Daily Pundit:

Gentlemen and Ladies,

Exordium's mouth is obviously writing checks his ass can't cash, but if you talk to enough left-collectivists, they really expect that "the government" will in the end force their will upon the rest of us. They extrapolate from their own cowardice and assume that if "the government" issues an order, we will meekly submit, as they would. Remember they have no principles in the end that they are willing to die for themselves, although they are perfectly willing to see other people in government employ do so.

This is why Oath Keepers scares them so badly. The prospect of soldiers and police THINKING about the constitutionality of their orders introduces strategic uncertainty into the minds of the wannabe tyrants. "If I issue the order, will it be obeyed? Or will they turn their rifles on me?"

In the event, I rather suspect that the military will attempt to sit it out, letting the "civilians" sort things out. At least, they will if our side does not resort to Fort Sumters, OKC bombings or blindly striking out at the military itself.

No, I rather think that if a 4th generation warfare campaign, initiated only after deadly violence from the other side cedes us the moral high ground, and targeted Clinton-like at the war makers, the tyrants and their media and philosophical cheerleaders (see Serbia, 1999) and not the footsoldiers doing their bidding, the conflict would be over in record time for a civil war.

Indeed, we could probably avoid this conflict entirely if we could but persuade Exordium and his pals in government that such a course would lead to their immediate deaths. Unfortunately we have not even seen fit to use Sons of Liberty tactics against them -- breaking their windows, tar and feathering, etc. -- so they find our growling to be not credible.

It is our fault we have not shoved back over these past 75 years. Our backs are now to the wall. We recognize that, but the enemies of the Founders Republic do not. It is unfortunate that the only epiphany they will likely experience is when, God forbid the necessity, a 150 grain thirty caliber slug penetrates their tiny, tyrannical minds at considerable velocity and exits the other side.

May God have mercy on their heathen souls, but in any case, may God save the Republic.

Mike Vanderboegh
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com

LATER: I note that Exordium uses the same terminology for libertarian -- "glibertarian" as does that putrescent child-molesting netNazi Martin Lindstedt. Something collectivists have in common, eh?

Salvador Dali's "Premonition of Civil War."

Just blasted this LTE out to a hundred papers or so:

Item: In a recent CNN poll, 56 percent of the American people agreed that the federal government represented a clear and present danger to their liberties.

Item: When asked if the House "Health Care Reform" bill was constitutional, Nancy Pelosi, exclaimed, "Are you serious?"

I can answer that. Yes, Nancy, we are serious.

Distilled to its essence, this is the message of the proposed law that the Democrats are about to ram down our throats:

We, the Imperial Federal Government, have determined what is best for you and you will get it regardless of whether you want it or not. You will be FORCED to play or pay in our wonderful new system of good intentions.

If you refuse, you will be fined.

If you refuse to pay the fine, you will be jailed.

If you refuse to be arrested, you will be killed.

The Founders would have called this "The Intolerable Act."

What Pelosi and these other tyrannical weasels are saying is that we will do what they say or they will kill us -- all in our best interests, of course.

The eternal question is, which is to be the servant and who the master? The federal government, or the people?

What must be said now to such would-be despots is this: "Is your alleged concern for our 'health care' worth YOUR death?" For after they delegate federal police to kill the first few of us who resist -- and we WILL resist -- the rest of the citizenry who wish to remain free and retain control over their bodies will be absolved of any responsibility to obey such a regime. We will then be released to wage a defensive civil war upon what has become an obviously tyrannical system.

It won't be a revolution. It will be a war of restoration against collectivist revolutionaries who have been chipping away at the Constitution of the Founders' Republic for the past century. They are the usurpers, not us.

The Founders would have done so. Indeed, the Founders did so for considerably less provocation. Why should the Democrats expect any different response from us than the Founders gave King George III?

Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com

PS: "If this be treason, then make the most of it."

"Now I don't want to kill you, and you don't want to be dead." -- Danny Glover as Mal, to the crooked sheriff's deputies in Silverado.

This is what the "Health Care Bill" is to us: Leviathan threatening our deaths if we refuse their tyrannical system.

This is what the ultimate effect of the "Health Care Bill" is to Democrats: Us shooting back at them in righteous self-defense.

The Intolerable Act: How the GOP is today of no more use to us than the English Whigs were to the colonists in 1775.

The modernization of American Politics and government during and after the Revolution took the form of a sudden, radical realization of the program that had first been fully set forth by the opposition intelligentsia…in the reign of George the First. Where the English opposition, forcing its way against a complacent social and political order, had only striven and dreamed, Americans driven by the same aspirations but living in a society in many ways modern, and now released politically, could suddenly act. Where the English opposition had vainly agitated for partial reforms…American leaders moved swiftly and with little social disruption to implement systematically the outermost possibilities of the whole range of radically liberation ideas.

In the process they…infused into American political culture…the major themes of eighteenth-century radical liberalism brought to realization here. The first is the belief that power is evil, a necessity perhaps but an evil necessity; that it is infinitely corrupting; and that it must be controlled, limited, restricted in every way compatible with a minimum of civil order. Written constitutions; the separation of powers; bills of rights; limitations on executives, on legislatures, and courts; restrictions on the right to coerce and wage war—all express the profound distrust of power that lies at the ideological heart of the American Revolution and that has remained with us as a permanent legacy ever after. -- Bernard Bailyn, "The Central Themes of the American Revolution: An Interpretation," in S. Kurtz and J. Hutson, eds., Essays on the American Revolution, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1973, pp. 26–27.

Were he writing today, Bernard Bailyn might want to revise that "permanent legacy" business. Yet his observation about the difference between British and American Whigs is dead on the money. The British TALKED about liberty, the Americans ACHIEVED it.

During the Revolution, English Whigs did little better than say nice things about the American revolutionaries, who were insisting upon their rights as Englishmen codified by the English Constitution. An explanation may be found in these opening paragraphs in an article in the Journal of Modern History, March 1934 by G.H. Guttridge, entitled "The Whig Opposition in England During the American Revolution:

We are frequently given a choice . . . of believing either that the English whigs felt a deep sympathy for the American revolutionary cause or that they were merely greedy of office. A third possibility is probably nearer the truth, namely, that the whigs were genuinely fighting for their principles; but that they interpreted the American problem in their own English terms -- terms that were far removed from those of the colonists on the other side of the Atlantic.

Parliament at this time consisted almost entirely of a small governing class, monopolizing the seats in both houses. Closely connected by birth, by education, and by interest, the vast majority of members reflected in their outlook the complacency natural to an aristocracy.

Our governing class is much larger today than England's was then, but the parties share an identity of interest as much or more than they represent difference of philosophy. That identity of interest is incumbency. More than any other thing they wish to hang onto their personal power, and usually have to be dragged kicking and screaming from it.

There is abroad in the land the idea that if we can merely politically remove the Democrat majority in the next two federal election cycles, that this will represent some sort of victory for individual liberty. It will not.

In evidence of this, I draw your attention to this article.

I will have more comment afterward.

March 5, 2010

Mark Steyn: Obamacare worth the price to Democrats

By MARK STEYN
Syndicated columnist

So there was President Obama, giving his bazillionth speech on health care, droning yet again that "now is the hour when we must seize the moment," the same moment he's been seizing every day of the week for the past year, only this time his genius photo-op guys thought it would look good to have him surrounded by men in white coats.

Why is he doing this? Why let "health" "care" "reform" stagger on like the rotting husk in a low-grade creature feature who refuses to stay dead no matter how many stakes you pound through his chest?

Because it's worth it. Big time. I've been saying in this space for two years that the governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible. In most of the rest of the Western world, there are still nominally "conservative" parties, and they even win elections occasionally, but not to any great effect (Let's not forget that Jacques Chirac was, in French terms, a "conservative").

The result is a kind of two-party one-party state: Right-of-center parties will once in a while be in office, but never in power, merely presiding over vast left-wing bureaucracies that cruise on regardless.

Republicans seem to have difficulty grasping this basic dynamic. Less than three months ago, they were stunned at the way the Democrats managed to get 60 senators to vote for the health bill. Then Scott Brown took them back down to 59, and Republicans were again stunned to find the Dems talking about ramming this thing into law through the parliamentary device of "reconciliation." And, when polls showed an ever larger number of Americans ever more opposed to Obamacare (by margins approaching three-to-one), Republicans were further stunned to discover that, in order to advance "reconciliation," Democrat reconsiglieres had apparently been offering (illegally) various cosy Big Government sinecures to swing-state congressmen in order to induce them to climb into the cockpit for the kamikaze raid to push the bill through. The Democrats understand that politics is not just about Tuesday evenings every other November, but about everything else, too.

A year or two back, when the Canadian Islamic Congress attempted to criminalize my writing north of the border by taking me to the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission, a number of outraged American readers wrote to me, saying, "You need to start kicking up a fuss about this, Steyn, and then maybe Canadians will get mad and elect a conservative government that will end this nonsense."

Makes perfect sense. Except that Canada already has a Conservative government under a Conservative prime minister, and the very head of the "human rights" commission investigating me was herself the Conservative appointee of a Conservative minister of justice. Makes no difference.

Once the state swells to a certain size, the people available to fill the ever-expanding number of government jobs will be statists – sometimes hard-core Marxist statists, sometimes social-engineering multiculti statists, sometimes fluffily "compassionate" statists, but always statists. The short history of the post-war welfare state is that you don't need a president-for-life if you've got a bureaucracy-for-life: The people can elect "conservatives," as the Germans have done and the British are about to do, and the Left is mostly relaxed about it because, in all but exceptional cases (Thatcher), they fulfill the same function in the system as the first-year boys at wintry English boarding schools who, for tuppence-ha'penny or some such, would agree to go and warm the seat in the unheated lavatories until the prefects strolled in and took their rightful place.

Republicans are good at keeping the seat warm. A bigtime GOP consultant was on TV, crowing that Republicans wanted the Dems to pass Obamacare because it's so unpopular it will guarantee a GOP sweep in November.

OK, then what? You'll roll it back – like you've rolled back all those other unsustainable entitlements premised on cobwebbed actuarial tables from 80 years ago? Like you've undone the federal Department of Education and of Energy and all the other nickel'n'dime novelties of even a universally reviled one-term loser like Jimmy Carter? Andrew McCarthy concluded a shrewd analysis of the political realities thus:

"Health care is a loser for the Left only if the Right has the steel to undo it. The Left is banking on an absence of steel. Why is that a bad bet?"

Indeed. Look at it from the Dems' point of view. You pass Obamacare. You lose the 2010 election, which gives the GOP co-ownership of an awkward couple of years. And you come back in 2012 to find your health care apparatus is still in place, a fetid behemoth of toxic pustules oozing all over the basement, and, simply through the natural processes of government, already bigger and more expensive and more bureaucratic than it was when you passed it two years earlier. That's a huge prize, and well worth a midterm timeout.

I've been bandying comparisons with Britain and France, but that hardly begins to convey the scale of it. Obamacare represents the government annexation of "one-sixth of the U.S. economy" – i.e., the equivalent of the entire British or French economy, or the entire Indian economy twice over. Nobody has ever attempted this level of centralized planning for an advanced society of 300 million people. Even the control-freaks of the European Union have never tried to impose a unitary "comprehensive" health care system from Galway to Greece. The Soviet Union did, of course, and we know how that worked out.

This "reform" is not about health care, and certainly not about "controlling costs." As with Medicare, it "controls" costs by declining to acknowledge them, or pay them. Dr. William Schreiber of North Syracuse, N.Y., told CNN that he sees 120 patients per week – about 30 percent on Medicare, 65 private on private insurance plans whose payments take into account the Medicare reimbursement rates, and about 5 percent who do it the old-fashioned way and write a check. He calculates that, under Obamacare, for every $5 he now makes, he'll get $2 in the future. Which suggests now would be a good time to retrain as a realtor or accountant, or the night clerk at the convenience store. Yet Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., justifies her support for Obamacare this way:

"I even had one constituent – you will not believe this, and I know you won't, but it's true – her sister died. This poor woman had no dentures. She wore her dead sister's teeth."

Is the problem of second-hand teeth a particular problem in this corner of New York? I haven't noticed an epidemic of ill-fitting dentures on recent visits to the Empire State. George Washington had wooden teeth, but, presumably, these days the Sierra Club would object to the clear-cutting. Yet, even granting Congresswoman Slaughter the benefit of the doubt, is annexing the equivalent of a G7 economy the solution to what would seem to be the statistically unrepresentative problem of her constituent's ill-fitting choppers? Is it worth reducing the next generation of Americans to indentured servitude to pay for this poor New Yorker's dentured servitude?

Yes. Because government health care is not about health care, it's about government. Once you look at it that way, what the Dems are doing makes perfect sense. For them.

The GOP (I have long refused to call them "Republicans," for they are an insult to that name) has not yet spent enough time in the political wilderness to internalize the Tea Party message. I wonder if they are capable of it in any case. They still think that politics operates as it always has, in a way that they are comfortable with.

Bullshit. Unlike the GOP, the Obamanoid socialist Democrats understand what they are about -- seizing power in a way that cannot later be overturned except by violence (although they think that is impossible also). The old political verities do not apply to this power grab. Yet the GOP plays by the old rules and we lose, every flipping time.

Distilled down, what is the message of the "Health Insurance Reform Bill"? It is this:

We, the Imperial Federal Bureaucracy, have determined what is best for you and you will get it regardless of whether you want it or not. You will be FORCED to play or pay in our wonderful new system of good intentions.

If you refuse, you will be fined.

If you refuse to pay the fine, you will be jailed.

If you refuse to be arrested, you will be killed.

THIS is why I have called this, "The Intolerable Act."

What these tyrannical weasels are saying is that you will do what they say or they will kill you -- all in your best interests, of course.

What we must say in return, is: "Is your alleged concern for our 'health care' worth YOUR death?" For after they kill a few of us who resist, the rest will be absolved of their responsibility to the regime. We will be released to wage defensive war upon an obviously tyrannical system.

The GOP, trapped as they are in their English Whig personas, will be of no help. Having arranged the civil war by their prolonged stupidity and culpability, they will cluck their tongues in impotent speeches while the decisive match to answer the question, "Who is the master and who is the servant? The people or the federal government?" is fought out in the streets and, not to put too fine a point on it, in the homes and offices of the tyrants who started the shooting.

Free Americans, in 1775, or in the second decade of the 21st Century, were and remain a practical people. If politics fails us once again, we will make other arrangements.

Remember now, before it is too late, you tyrannical bastards, if I may paraphrase Danny Glover in Silverado:

"We don't want to kill you, and you don't want to be dead."

And the GOP is immaterial to that calculation, just as the English Whigs were in 1775.

Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters.
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com

PS: And we always thought that it would come to shooting over firearms confiscation. Instead, it appears to be going to happen over so-called "health care." Ironic, ain't it?

My thanks to Stan for forwarding this bit of good news. The only thing is, why hasn't Alabama passed a similar Firearms Freedom Bill. Promises were made by certain politicians last year when the legislature was not in session. Now it is. Where's the bill?