Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Sunday, July 29, 2012
The GOP puts up another whore
ObamaRomney is the non-choice for the GOP to go against the Magic Black Jesus...
I guess the GOP got the marching orders from the oligarchy, the Banks want some plastic-man to have something for Black Jesus to win over, and they are willing to hedge their bets on that by supporting him just in case they cannot get the dimwit liberals to vote for the bland vanilla Black (Café au lait/Latte) Jesus...
Get ready, this political whore is like the cadaver McInsane, something for the Black Jesus to win over... You have been fooled again.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Thugs, guns, and racism
What is more deserving of skepticism than the propaganda of the established media conglomerates and the oligarchy controlled government itself. Many of course do not understand this letting apathy and even narcissism give them a security blanket from whence to lash out in irrational an illogical patterns far too common today. One of the issues is a particular tool, a very dangerous tool, a machine actually called the firearm for the uninformed that is commonly called a “gun.”
Before we get into the story that prompted the title we can review a short video clip.
I guess you can always pick the wrong coffee house... run thugs, run!
Crime and Self-Defense:
Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.
A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”
Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.
A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:
34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim” 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun” 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”
And of course one item worth noting for its misuse in established media propaganda.
"In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns.”
This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.
This study does have a few flaws:
Ownership is not a random decision, homicide victims may well possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized, live in an area considered dangerous or crime ridden, or have received direct threats.
Often cited that states with high firearm homicide numbers prove that the prevalence of guns is the deciding factor often fail to cite that many states with the highest gun ownership also have the lowest firearm homicide numbers. Poverty, education, and issues (including politically incorrect facts) show stronger correlation to violent crime numbers.
The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).)
What I find most interesting as of late is the irrational and illogical equating of deaths by accident (negligent discharge) and the deliberate use of a firearm to prevent a crime and somehow the restraint of the typical victim does not count because most criminals are not killed in the process of a victim defending themselves.
In the end no reason, no statistics, and no emotional projection can change the fact that the firearm is a dangerous tool, legal adult ownership of any firearm comes with great responsibility, freedom is not and never has been safe and firearms remain deadly tools.
On to our subject - thugs, guns, and racism, and yes I am using the word thug, where you see that the insertion is mine...
The victim: The Denver DA drags man into system drains his money and spits him out when nothing is found (standard for Denver except for the wild police that are out of control) The local media and ethnic communities join together and use racism and deliberate exposure to drive out a good individual that wanted none of the trouble.
The established media: The typically liberal media of Denver whines about a thug killed in a robbery attempt and promotes interviews with tearful relatives.
It starts with the title - Make My Day Shooter: ‘I Did The Right Thing’
The genuflection to the criminal and his family is sickening.
The robbery:
“I’m yelling ‘Who’s in my house? Who’s in my house?’ I was scared,” said Kutchin (homeowner victim).
Suddenly, the three teens came running down from the second floor. Marcus Duran (Thug) was carrying a loaded pistol. As he neared the front door, about five feet away from Kutchin, Duran brandished the loaded gun and aimed it at the homeowner. Duran (Thug) was still inside Kutchin’s home.
“And I just reacted in a defensive stance and took a shot,” said Kutchin. The round missed its target. Kutchin said he could see Duran’s pistol. “I saw a gun pointed at me and I shot,” said Kutchin.
The second round hit Duran in the head. The two other teens fled (now in jail for related robberies). Also be aware the rounds fired from the victim’s revolver are shot-shells and a single round will fire multiple projectiles (from 3 to 50 depending on size of the shot).
The toxicology report for Marcus Duran (Thug) shows the teen tested positive for alcohol, opiates and THC- the active ingredient in marijuana.
“My Godson did wrong, but he didn’t deserve to die,” said Phyllis Chavez, Duran’s godmother.
“I don’t think it was fair the way he(Kutchin) shot freely. Do it in the air. Why was he aiming at them if they are running away? That’s the part I don’t understand,” said Chavez.
You should see some of the comments both pro and con. Look Phyllis your godson entered two homes that night with intent on criminal activity. Duran was armed and he fell under a second round fired so in effect a “warning shot” was fired first as the victim missed with the first shot-shell fired. Duran raised his pistol (an illegal pistol BTW, and illegal for him, a minor, to posses - so much for gun control) and the homeowner/victim was forced to kill this criminal.
It is not the fault of the victim that your relative was a criminal, you would rather he be in prison or free after he killed this homeowner? (somehow I bet that is the case.)
Kutchin said beyond the anguish over what happened, he has spent $5,000 on attorneys fees, another $1,000 on his insurance deductible and countless hours dealing with police, prosecutors and court personnel.
The Denver District Attorney’s office cleared Kutchin of any criminal wrongdoing, ruling his actions were justified under Colorado law. But that is not the end of the story.
Channel 31/Channel 2 crew members visited the house in question. They found the 3150 Gaylord Street residence boarded up, and neighbors told them the owner had left after reportedly receiving threats. The racism: In the end the homeowner is driven out of his own home by racist hispanics more interested in lauding a teen criminal than facing the reality of the case. I can assure you that if anything had been wrong or if Denver had been able to plant evidence, or force a wrongful prosecution you better believe that the DA in this area would have sacrificed the homeowner for political gain, clearly he was not able to railroad this individual.
Some additions:
Armed self defense works
As I’ve noted before, criminals often work in groups, using superior numbers to overwhelm their victims. When that happens, even the strongest unarmed victims can be overpowered by the numerically superior criminals.
Whining morons bitch about a criminal lost, "Make My Day" case or unjustifiable homicide?
In the end this is simple - break into a home at 2 am in the morning and you have a gun with you you then threaten someone with, you have written your own death warrant, I have no sympathy for stupidity, excuses, or age, the world is better now that a criminal’s career was cut off permanently.
Before we get into the story that prompted the title we can review a short video clip.
I guess you can always pick the wrong coffee house... run thugs, run!
Crime and Self-Defense:
Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.
A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”
Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.
A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:
34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim” 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun” 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”
And of course one item worth noting for its misuse in established media propaganda.
"In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns.”
This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.
This study does have a few flaws:
Ownership is not a random decision, homicide victims may well possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized, live in an area considered dangerous or crime ridden, or have received direct threats.
Often cited that states with high firearm homicide numbers prove that the prevalence of guns is the deciding factor often fail to cite that many states with the highest gun ownership also have the lowest firearm homicide numbers. Poverty, education, and issues (including politically incorrect facts) show stronger correlation to violent crime numbers.
The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).)
What I find most interesting as of late is the irrational and illogical equating of deaths by accident (negligent discharge) and the deliberate use of a firearm to prevent a crime and somehow the restraint of the typical victim does not count because most criminals are not killed in the process of a victim defending themselves.
In the end no reason, no statistics, and no emotional projection can change the fact that the firearm is a dangerous tool, legal adult ownership of any firearm comes with great responsibility, freedom is not and never has been safe and firearms remain deadly tools.
On to our subject - thugs, guns, and racism, and yes I am using the word thug, where you see that the insertion is mine...
The victim: The Denver DA drags man into system drains his money and spits him out when nothing is found (standard for Denver except for the wild police that are out of control) The local media and ethnic communities join together and use racism and deliberate exposure to drive out a good individual that wanted none of the trouble.
The established media: The typically liberal media of Denver whines about a thug killed in a robbery attempt and promotes interviews with tearful relatives.
It starts with the title - Make My Day Shooter: ‘I Did The Right Thing’
The genuflection to the criminal and his family is sickening.
The robbery:
“I’m yelling ‘Who’s in my house? Who’s in my house?’ I was scared,” said Kutchin (homeowner victim).
Suddenly, the three teens came running down from the second floor. Marcus Duran (Thug) was carrying a loaded pistol. As he neared the front door, about five feet away from Kutchin, Duran brandished the loaded gun and aimed it at the homeowner. Duran (Thug) was still inside Kutchin’s home.
“And I just reacted in a defensive stance and took a shot,” said Kutchin. The round missed its target. Kutchin said he could see Duran’s pistol. “I saw a gun pointed at me and I shot,” said Kutchin.
The second round hit Duran in the head. The two other teens fled (now in jail for related robberies). Also be aware the rounds fired from the victim’s revolver are shot-shells and a single round will fire multiple projectiles (from 3 to 50 depending on size of the shot).
The toxicology report for Marcus Duran (Thug) shows the teen tested positive for alcohol, opiates and THC- the active ingredient in marijuana.
“My Godson did wrong, but he didn’t deserve to die,” said Phyllis Chavez, Duran’s godmother.
“I don’t think it was fair the way he(Kutchin) shot freely. Do it in the air. Why was he aiming at them if they are running away? That’s the part I don’t understand,” said Chavez.
You should see some of the comments both pro and con. Look Phyllis your godson entered two homes that night with intent on criminal activity. Duran was armed and he fell under a second round fired so in effect a “warning shot” was fired first as the victim missed with the first shot-shell fired. Duran raised his pistol (an illegal pistol BTW, and illegal for him, a minor, to posses - so much for gun control) and the homeowner/victim was forced to kill this criminal.
It is not the fault of the victim that your relative was a criminal, you would rather he be in prison or free after he killed this homeowner? (somehow I bet that is the case.)
Kutchin said beyond the anguish over what happened, he has spent $5,000 on attorneys fees, another $1,000 on his insurance deductible and countless hours dealing with police, prosecutors and court personnel.
The Denver District Attorney’s office cleared Kutchin of any criminal wrongdoing, ruling his actions were justified under Colorado law. But that is not the end of the story.
Channel 31/Channel 2 crew members visited the house in question. They found the 3150 Gaylord Street residence boarded up, and neighbors told them the owner had left after reportedly receiving threats. The racism: In the end the homeowner is driven out of his own home by racist hispanics more interested in lauding a teen criminal than facing the reality of the case. I can assure you that if anything had been wrong or if Denver had been able to plant evidence, or force a wrongful prosecution you better believe that the DA in this area would have sacrificed the homeowner for political gain, clearly he was not able to railroad this individual.
Some additions:
Armed self defense works
As I’ve noted before, criminals often work in groups, using superior numbers to overwhelm their victims. When that happens, even the strongest unarmed victims can be overpowered by the numerically superior criminals.
Whining morons bitch about a criminal lost, "Make My Day" case or unjustifiable homicide?
In the end this is simple - break into a home at 2 am in the morning and you have a gun with you you then threaten someone with, you have written your own death warrant, I have no sympathy for stupidity, excuses, or age, the world is better now that a criminal’s career was cut off permanently.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
Who do they think they are fooling?
Who's a Republican? Exposing the statist center of the republican neocon takeover.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
U.S. vs. John Bad Elk USSC decision thrown out the window
The Supreme Court of Indiana just ruled that in Indiana, if a police officer decides to illegally come into your house, you're not allowed to do anything to stop him. According to "Justice" Steven David, resisting an admittedly "unlawful police entry into a home" is against "public policy." Got that? If you live in Indiana, and a cop decides to invade your home without a shred of legal justification, it is considered a crime for you to do anything to stop him.
Indiana: Full Frontal Fascism
Indiana High Court Says No Right to Resist Illegal Police Entry
The Indiana Supreme Court ruled Friday that state residents have no right to resist an illegal police entry, overturning a Common Law that dates back to the English Magna Carta of 1215.
Writing for the court's 3-2 majority, Justice Steven David said if a police officer wanted to enter a home for any reason - or for no reason - homeowners could do nothing to block the officer's entry.
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David wrote, according to the Northwest Indiana Times. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
He said persons arrested after an illegal police entry are still entitled to post bail and can seek remedies through the legal system.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” - Samuel Adams
Monday, May 9, 2011
Education as a Weapon Against Southerners (and others)
Public education is used by the Establishment to oppose Southern identity, values and culture. Education is increasingly centralised and parents and communities have less and less control. It's time that we recognised this problem and took action to ensure a better and brighter future for Southern children.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Comparison in the political false party system
The death of Osama Bin Laden is no excuse for defending George W. Bush and big government.
Anyone seriously think there is any real difference in the two parties?
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Ass backward political authoritarians
In the wake of the Koran burning controversy, Sen. Lindsey Graham was quick to call for limiting free speech but never the wars we fight allegedly to protect these same freedoms.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
How history kills propaganda, gun control
I have presented this before but I wanted to review the folly of using bumper sticker propaganda to promote or detract from one political agenda or the other.
All the dictators agree - gun control works... Sounds great, wonderful propaganda hot off the press to use in the promotion of an idea - sadly in one aspect we take the low ground with simplistic platitudes...
The NSDAP and gun control.
Read the real and unbiased history and be shocked if you have never seen this material.
The limited sense is that gun laws for both ethnic Germans and non-German ethnic people were greatly released as compared to the Weimar (leftist/socialist) under NSDAP. Later gun laws were to be greatly increased for non-German ethnic people (Jews, Gypsies, and some specific Church members considered "dangerous"). This makes it almost impossible to make a simple clear answer the the question - the typical American wants a simple answer, and in politics and political history a simple answer is difficult to "boil down to".
Weimar Germany's laws were the basis for the Gun Control Act of 1968 and strangely even they had to remove some restrictions from an earlier transition period.
Both the NSDAP and the Soviets depended on loyal local bureaucracies to extend power, and in many cases this translated to extreme inconsistencies in practice.
The difference is that generally the "right" is gun friendly for it's "approved groups" and the "left" is very gun restrictive, clearly Obamonation is leftist - as gun owners this will bode ILL for us.
For a critique of the JPFO argument and identification of their work as "cultural" and how you have strange bedfellows in the "pro-gun" movement... Worth the read, an accurate look at the strange bedfellows pro and con...
Critique of gun control propaganda, pro and con - PDF
Just not a simple or clear answer, unless you want to boil it down to - if you don't like or trust someone, make sure they don't have weapons... but that is almost too simple to be useful in anything but the bumper sticker level conversation.
All the dictators agree - gun control works... Sounds great, wonderful propaganda hot off the press to use in the promotion of an idea - sadly in one aspect we take the low ground with simplistic platitudes...
The NSDAP and gun control.
Read the real and unbiased history and be shocked if you have never seen this material.
The limited sense is that gun laws for both ethnic Germans and non-German ethnic people were greatly released as compared to the Weimar (leftist/socialist) under NSDAP. Later gun laws were to be greatly increased for non-German ethnic people (Jews, Gypsies, and some specific Church members considered "dangerous"). This makes it almost impossible to make a simple clear answer the the question - the typical American wants a simple answer, and in politics and political history a simple answer is difficult to "boil down to".
Weimar Germany's laws were the basis for the Gun Control Act of 1968 and strangely even they had to remove some restrictions from an earlier transition period.
Both the NSDAP and the Soviets depended on loyal local bureaucracies to extend power, and in many cases this translated to extreme inconsistencies in practice.
The difference is that generally the "right" is gun friendly for it's "approved groups" and the "left" is very gun restrictive, clearly Obamonation is leftist - as gun owners this will bode ILL for us.
For a critique of the JPFO argument and identification of their work as "cultural" and how you have strange bedfellows in the "pro-gun" movement... Worth the read, an accurate look at the strange bedfellows pro and con...
Critique of gun control propaganda, pro and con - PDF
"The 1928 law put into effect a strict licensing scheme that covered all
aspects of firearms—from the manufacture to the sale, including repair and
even reloading ammunition.68 It explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on
Weapons Ownership,69 which had banned all firearms possession, and thereby
liberalized firearms regulation. As Halbrook himself notes, based on review of
contemporaneous newspaper reports and official commentary, “the 1928 law
was seen as deregulatory to a point but enforceable, in contrast to a far more
restrictive albeit unenforceable [1919] order.”70 Halbrook continues: “Within
a decade, Germany had gone from a brutal firearms seizure policy which, in
times of unrest, entailed selective yet immediate execution for mere possession
of a firearm, to a modern, comprehensive gun control law.”71
Second, with regard to gun possession, the 1938 Nazi gun laws
represented a further liberalization of gun control regulations. In fact, most of
the changes in the law reflected a loosening of the regulations, not a tightening.
The Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, is patterned on the Law on Firearms
and Ammunition of April 12, 1928. The two laws have the same structure,
similar section headings, and broadly similar language."
"The Minister of the Interior, Frick, passed
Regulations Against Jew’s Possession of Weapons on November 11, 1938,
which effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other
weapons. It was a regulation prohibiting Jews from having any dangerous
weapon—not just guns. Under the regulations, Jews “are prohibited from
acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as
truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and
ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.”95
Moreover, prior to that, the German police and Nazis used the 1938 firearms
law as an excuse to disarm Jews. In Breslau, for instance, the city police chief
decreed the seizure of all firearms from Jews on the ground that “the Jewish
population ‘cannot be regarded as trustworthy’”—the language from the 1928
and 1938 firearms laws.96
It seems fair to conclude, then, that the 1938 Nazi gun law represented
a slight relaxation of gun control. Though the Nazis were intent on killing
Jews and used the gun laws to that effect, they aspired to relaxation of gun
laws for the “ordinary” or “law-abiding” German citizen, for those who were
not, in their twisted minds, “enemies of the National Socialist state."
Just not a simple or clear answer, unless you want to boil it down to - if you don't like or trust someone, make sure they don't have weapons... but that is almost too simple to be useful in anything but the bumper sticker level conversation.
Granola yuppies prove liberals and progressives have nothing
Stop with the left vs Right crap. When I ripped into Bush's policies I was accused of being a liberal. When I rip into Obama's policies which are the SAME policies I am accused of being a conservative no actually worse, a racist. Janean Garofalo Has exposed her tribalism stating that people opposing Obama only do so because he is black and they are racist. I was waiting for some liberal nut to say that. It was only a mtter of time before they tried to hide behind a race card after there is no where left to run or way to rationalized Obama's Neocons like behavior.- Rys2sense
Could America enter a process of balkanization
Could we break up after a collapse? Igor Panarin a professor in Russia wrote that we would.
I think his idea has some merit, but I think he has too little information about the US and our distinct regional cultures and did not take into account geological features. He writes he expects six regional areas - I say over 16!
I travel for business, in fact I am traveling over half the year with 2 to 3 round trips each month in just about every location in the United States, Mexico, Europe, the Near and Far East. Once you work in this way it is a hard lifestyle on your health but your services become "in demand" I from time to time take the kids or the wife so they can see the country or travel internationally. I am not a "sophisticated" traveler I travel on someone's dime not my own, and I travel almost exclusively for projects and work not recreation. I try to enjoy travel, meeting new people, and seeing new places (if you don't develop this mindset you will grow bitter) and I have survived this lifestyle now for over a decade!
My gut is telling me we are about to, and it is going to get nasty, our world is not prepared for a crash of the magnitude we are about to experience.
I made the above map based on several things, culture, ethnic composition, geographical features and limitations, the freedom scale, and political considerations.
This map is only a vague guess and based on my travels, and my impression of the local cultures, I am hyper-sensitive to subtle cultural differences and because I work and travel I see the "back room" versions of the cultures and people not what a recreational traveler would see.
My impressions;
Aztlan Emprie - Mexico and the ethnic communities within the US that are primarily of Mexican ethnic make up. In the last ten years there has been a massive change in the attitude of the conglomerated ethnic enclaves in the areas where the enclaves have become extremely resistant to cultural or lingual integration into the US. At this point I am not judging this situation but rather pointing out the possible conflict under the coming collapse and how that will possibly play out under regional conflict - better to face reality now, like it or not.
Native Territory - Possibly an area of conflict where Native American ethnic groups resist the formation of Aztlan or decide to join with the Mexican ethnic split, I think there is a large chance they will resist. The geography makes this area relatively secure because of the large effort necessary to subdue the area and low return with regional resources.
New Republic of Texas - This area will come into continual conflict with the formation of Aztlan, and honestly, the native Texicans and Tejano populations are scrapping for a fight and would not look positively on the formation of Aztlan and the loss of land. I could see a loss of land from Aztlan and other surrounding areas to invasion from the new formed Republic of Texas. Many of you who do not understand Texas culture may scoff at this, but I am very familiar with this area and it would not take much to reform as a new regional country.
New South - Predominately areas with very high populations of African-Americans an area of high chances for ethnic conflict that will be long and violent and possibly responsible for very high losses in life due to formations of ethnic based conflicting groups. I think this area will be hardest to predict the final outcome - except bloody and horrific.
New Florida - Areas of high populations of non-Hispanic white populations may get squeezed in the middle of the very real possibility of heavy African-American and Hispanic ethnic conflicts in this area, boat/sailing based escapists will be the best off.
New Cuba - The Southern Florida area where large populations of Hispanics, White-Hispanics, and non-Hispanic White populations likely will form into a conglomeration of mutual support in resistance to conflict from the New South.
Ozark South - Areas of heavy white populations that are also heavily armed and willing to use them to basically defend themselves from the regional and ethnic conflicts. There is a very real possibility that they would join or work with a new formed Republic of Texas to regain large areas of Louisiana from the New South. Expect mutual conflict with Mid American Empire, Midwest Empire, and this area is likely to form mutual assistance agreements with the New Southern Republic.
The Eastern and Mid American Empire areas - Areas of the US that tend to heavy authoritarian social alignment, the areas may form assistance agreements, but the cultural differences from Midwest and Mid American areas with the Eastern and New England authoritarian cultures most likely will conflict. The two Eastern Empires will become the most troublesome to their neighbors in attempts to gain land and resources. The Eastern elitism deeply ingrained in their culture will be their downfall as they aggravate their more freedom loving regional neighbors. With heavy urban areas the internal conflicts and losses to population will be very high, the Eastern New England area will have the heaviest proportional population losses of all the areas except the southern California Metro Hell Hole.
Northern Free Territorial regions - Areas of the US and Canada that have a more rural populations with a tendency to open and free republics heavy "pioneer" attitude and resistance to authoritarian thinking. Large wild areas with resources but a harsh life with long winters will form the northern areas into lightly populated free and open areas. The first winters after a collapse will thin the population by over 60%.
The Mormon Republic - with high populations of armed and prepared religious communities the Mormon areas will be best able to capitalize on the collapse. The Mormon churches and members are not only prepared but have religious based predictions about a collapse and are ready and organized in preparation for this event. The "gentile" populations of non-mormons will be tolerated but a concentrated effort to convert them will start immediately, the overwhelming thrust may force many non-mormon members to move into other regional areas. (I am not LDS, if any of the church members have thoughts, or predictions feel free to add them - Note: I am not in any way resistant to Mormon religious freedom or anti-Mormon as I have a great respect for the church members and their proposed and promoted family morality) The heavy Mormon areas are most likely going to be the areas with the least conflict internally.
Costal Western region - Poor California, you know Northern California will LOVE to split away from it's Southern neighbors. After a long bloody struggle that could be almost totally internal. The most capable and scrappy of the armed population will rise from the ashes to join in relief with one another in a new republic. Once internal conflict is over, woe to the areas of North West Aztlan! This conflict will be almost as violent as what I expect in the South East as retribution for the expected ethnic cleansing the Aztlan Empire will levy on her new territory.
Using political Canaries as a method of information extraction
How do you know? How do you know if political information is correct?
Watch the canary in the coal mine...
How do we weed through the deliberate disinformation and outright poor conjecture and false conclusions based on bias?
There is a method of tracking small units of fighters hiding in a general population when they can not be found in their hideout.
Mark the contacts and skirmishes on a map of the area, soon a foolish small force will start to make a large ring of contacts around their base, of course a well led unit will take this into account and form artificial rings outside of their base.
Politics can be viewed the same way, for many years now a ruling elite has used deception and distraction to keep the masses uninformed of their slavery - but this elite has operated for so long that they have made several artificial rings around the true center.
So how do you find the "rings of contact" in politics...
This is where the canary analogy/allegory comes into play, as in the air testing canary in a coal mine, think of all the fringe political types as hypersensitive to intrusion a "skirmish" if you will. When you have several elements that oppose each other start to make the same connections or complain about the same government or power structure intrusions you have to "put a pin in the map" and start to look for the center of the extensive circles of contact.
I observe and read as many of the "politically incorrect" groups and individuals as possible, I find as many of the unpopular opinions and groups as possible to read, hoping to pick up on their hypersensitivity. The far left as well as the far right, along with the off-grid escapists, greens, ethnic nationalists, religious apologists, atheists, artists, scientists, and other political outsiders - they are the canary birds, hypersensitive to changes in politics.
I think I get a better idea of the general map when I do not concentrate on just one section.
Folks, the canary birds are dropping dead of the same air ALL over the place! When the radical greens agree with the Black Nationalists, along with the radical homosexual groups, AND the White Nationalists - YOU NEED TO PAY ATTENTION!!!
What can we gather, clearly there is an agenda of the elite, they have overstepped their bounds and caused possible financial ruin or have intended that outcome to further a nefarious plan - regardless things are about to happen and I do not feel like they will be able to control the outcome as well as they may have planned...
We will see if we make it out of the other side, or smile to one another and our firing squads for resisting
Watch the canary in the coal mine...
How do we weed through the deliberate disinformation and outright poor conjecture and false conclusions based on bias?
There is a method of tracking small units of fighters hiding in a general population when they can not be found in their hideout.
Mark the contacts and skirmishes on a map of the area, soon a foolish small force will start to make a large ring of contacts around their base, of course a well led unit will take this into account and form artificial rings outside of their base.
Politics can be viewed the same way, for many years now a ruling elite has used deception and distraction to keep the masses uninformed of their slavery - but this elite has operated for so long that they have made several artificial rings around the true center.
So how do you find the "rings of contact" in politics...
This is where the canary analogy/allegory comes into play, as in the air testing canary in a coal mine, think of all the fringe political types as hypersensitive to intrusion a "skirmish" if you will. When you have several elements that oppose each other start to make the same connections or complain about the same government or power structure intrusions you have to "put a pin in the map" and start to look for the center of the extensive circles of contact.
I observe and read as many of the "politically incorrect" groups and individuals as possible, I find as many of the unpopular opinions and groups as possible to read, hoping to pick up on their hypersensitivity. The far left as well as the far right, along with the off-grid escapists, greens, ethnic nationalists, religious apologists, atheists, artists, scientists, and other political outsiders - they are the canary birds, hypersensitive to changes in politics.
I think I get a better idea of the general map when I do not concentrate on just one section.
Folks, the canary birds are dropping dead of the same air ALL over the place! When the radical greens agree with the Black Nationalists, along with the radical homosexual groups, AND the White Nationalists - YOU NEED TO PAY ATTENTION!!!
What can we gather, clearly there is an agenda of the elite, they have overstepped their bounds and caused possible financial ruin or have intended that outcome to further a nefarious plan - regardless things are about to happen and I do not feel like they will be able to control the outcome as well as they may have planned...
We will see if we make it out of the other side, or smile to one another and our firing squads for resisting
"I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center.”- Kurt Vonnegut
Lew Rockwell, today’s political and dollar delusion
The Plague of Self-Delusion
"It has been proved, by indisputable evidence, that power is not the grand principle of union among the parts of a very extensive empire; and that when this principle is pushed beyond the degree necessary for rendering justice between man and man, it debases the character of individuals, and renders them less secure in their persons and property…"
~ James Winthrop, Antifederalist No. 11
Given the present political climate, with its common disregard for the lessons of history, I am sure those learned 19th-century Anti-Federalists are viewed as nothing less than arcane mystics espousing apocryphal concepts. So, the Antifederalist papers are discarded, having no place in any social discussion, undoubtedly on the grounds that they are offensive myths. The void is, of course, filled by the assertions of the mentally dull, noisome parasites belonging to the politically correct, progressive, liberal, (choose your own label) camp.
The historical fact that these progressive policies have failed miserably, wherever and whenever they have been tried, is summarily dismissed. So, we are treated to a rehashed assortment of the original tripe while being asked to believe that this time it will work because a new and improved noxious byproduct emanates from the southern orifice of the smartest, most enlightened in society.
Income
We generally think of those living in the early part of the 20th century as being poor by our standards today, but were they really poor?
At the present we are left with the realization that today’s dollar has a value of less than two pieces of penny candy from the 1920’s.
Not unlike the ancient Romans we have deluded ourselves; we have rejected the warnings that knowledgeable men of history have tried to give, to our own detriment: the continued degradation of our standard of living accompanying the reduction of our freedoms.
Many may be feeling comfortable and confident with their present status and that maybe as it should be.
However, generations of complacency and ignorance are about to come to an end. Reality is going to have its day and it is coming with the fury of a woman scorned. We will pay for our folly and it will be a penalty few will survive.
"It has been proved, by indisputable evidence, that power is not the grand principle of union among the parts of a very extensive empire; and that when this principle is pushed beyond the degree necessary for rendering justice between man and man, it debases the character of individuals, and renders them less secure in their persons and property…"
~ James Winthrop, Antifederalist No. 11
Given the present political climate, with its common disregard for the lessons of history, I am sure those learned 19th-century Anti-Federalists are viewed as nothing less than arcane mystics espousing apocryphal concepts. So, the Antifederalist papers are discarded, having no place in any social discussion, undoubtedly on the grounds that they are offensive myths. The void is, of course, filled by the assertions of the mentally dull, noisome parasites belonging to the politically correct, progressive, liberal, (choose your own label) camp.
The historical fact that these progressive policies have failed miserably, wherever and whenever they have been tried, is summarily dismissed. So, we are treated to a rehashed assortment of the original tripe while being asked to believe that this time it will work because a new and improved noxious byproduct emanates from the southern orifice of the smartest, most enlightened in society.
Income
We generally think of those living in the early part of the 20th century as being poor by our standards today, but were they really poor?
At the present we are left with the realization that today’s dollar has a value of less than two pieces of penny candy from the 1920’s.
Not unlike the ancient Romans we have deluded ourselves; we have rejected the warnings that knowledgeable men of history have tried to give, to our own detriment: the continued degradation of our standard of living accompanying the reduction of our freedoms.
Many may be feeling comfortable and confident with their present status and that maybe as it should be.
However, generations of complacency and ignorance are about to come to an end. Reality is going to have its day and it is coming with the fury of a woman scorned. We will pay for our folly and it will be a penalty few will survive.
FDR’s legacy of entitlements
If you want to here a bunch of endless whining and bitching just hang out with some "baby boomers" about to retire.
If you have never come across one of the "entitled" this could be a real treat. You would think that there were no more folks out there that are stupid enough to expect that there will be any of the socialist program Social Security, but there are and many of them will say that WE OWE THEM Socialist Insecurity because they fought in Vietnam or they paid so much into the program, or they paid for your grandparents or some other stupid self centered entitled spoiled brat reason. The of course are wrong, they did not "pay into" the system it was a ponzi scheme to begin with.
Every generation who has flirted with socialism from the "greatest generation" until even now who has not taken up arms to topple this disgusting government is guilty of dereliction and deserves NOTHING. This is not the lone responsibility of the younger generation the system was in place long before any of them were conceived.
FDR should have been hoisted onto a pike in front of the White House and then had his charred bones thrown into a public urinal so that when we visit DC we can urinate on his rotting corpse.
Roosevelt's failures: "Our government put into Stalin's hands the means of seizing a great slab of the continent of Europe, then stood aside while he took it and finally acquiesced in his conquests." ...Laying out in detail FDR's fatuousness in looking on Stalin - Stalin - as a friend and a fellow progressive, his main ally in constructing the New World Order.
These facts have, however, made little impression on the herds of historians. It seems that there is no degrading inanity, no catastrophic blunder that is not permitted a truly "great president."
John T. Flynn and the Myth of FDR
If you have never come across one of the "entitled" this could be a real treat. You would think that there were no more folks out there that are stupid enough to expect that there will be any of the socialist program Social Security, but there are and many of them will say that WE OWE THEM Socialist Insecurity because they fought in Vietnam or they paid so much into the program, or they paid for your grandparents or some other stupid self centered entitled spoiled brat reason. The of course are wrong, they did not "pay into" the system it was a ponzi scheme to begin with.
Every generation who has flirted with socialism from the "greatest generation" until even now who has not taken up arms to topple this disgusting government is guilty of dereliction and deserves NOTHING. This is not the lone responsibility of the younger generation the system was in place long before any of them were conceived.
FDR should have been hoisted onto a pike in front of the White House and then had his charred bones thrown into a public urinal so that when we visit DC we can urinate on his rotting corpse.
Roosevelt's failures: "Our government put into Stalin's hands the means of seizing a great slab of the continent of Europe, then stood aside while he took it and finally acquiesced in his conquests." ...Laying out in detail FDR's fatuousness in looking on Stalin - Stalin - as a friend and a fellow progressive, his main ally in constructing the New World Order.
These facts have, however, made little impression on the herds of historians. It seems that there is no degrading inanity, no catastrophic blunder that is not permitted a truly "great president."
John T. Flynn and the Myth of FDR
Afghanistan is a mess, Battle of Wanat
This will be a long post with lots of clips of information from the report... I found the report worth the read for the background information, 99% of this information the American public is ignorant of this background - our troops there are in for a long political trap and it is not their fault they are simply being used and abused.
If you are not intrested you may want to skip all the material in italics. (I do think it is worth the read and I would suggest going directly to the report.) I don't know how many times you will see "this was bad" but my impression of the report was that this was like they were in a bowl full of snakes.
Finishing the report I am even more convinced that Afghanistan is a mess, we should get out, it will only get worse, and the politicians have ulterior motives for our continued presence.
There were several times reading this I had the hair on my neck stand up.
Here is a link to the report - Battle of Wanat historical analysis
I don't think any of us thought the part about white hot barrel from the AP story was ever correct - it is an extension of using words to describe a stressful situation a hold over from the Vietnam style personal and journalistic embellishment - there have ben numerous studies about how humans do not make good eye-witness sources of information because of the tendency to fill-in information...
My reading of the report brings up some important items:
1. Focusing in on the fact that MSM whores (like AP) are not capable of getting a story 100% correct is not the real point (we know they do not, most of the time for propaganda).
2. This report is important, any concerned American willing to read and learn, should read this report (and others with additional information) to try to clearly understand the situation in the "Graveyard of Empires".
3. The situation the soldiers found themselves in was very bad. Things could have ended up much worse.
4. This group was not some bunch of FNG's this was a bunch of long-in-country hardened combat experienced soldiers. This was a group that would have maintained their rifles in the best condition possible and would have had lots of experience with "fire discipline" - they knew what they were doing and had done "it" under pressure for a long time.
5. While this report contains lot of important additional information about Afghanistan. I should tie it into the original subject of this thread. The current M4 rifle DOES have problems.
6. This particular situation has elements that would point out problems with any weapon system.
7. Because of the way the rifles were used generally, It does not look as if the reported "lack of power" in the 5.56 had much if any impact on this incidence.
8. There were far more examples of suppressive fire than direct lethal fire as this is the current tactic used by US forces, this clearly points to a need for a system capable of long term extended fire. One of the reasons sustained fire is often regulated to specially designed weapons.
9. Most of the air cooled belt-fed weapons have "quick-change" barrels that were designed to be changed every 200 to 300 rounds of fire. They could have used more than a few extra MGs each with a handful of extra barrels. Both the M-240 and the M-249 have a removable barrel, yet in the report it sounds as if they are not issued with spare barrels or they try not to use extra barrels - are they difficult to change or is that not the method of training? There was no mention of "hey soldier change that barrel" but rather "Hey soldier don't burn up that barrel" as if there is only one in use and available. Where were the extra barrels?
10. The situation the soldiers were placed in was almost medieval with attackers of high number moving in on a fixed position - again pointing to a need for a belt-fed with a quick change barrel in much higher numbers and in closer proximity to one another (a higher proportion distributed in the same groups).
11. Some of the malfunctions were due to explosions, shrapnel, and direct hits by aimed or inadvertent enemy small arms fire hitting the weapon and damaging operational parts or the frames, no weapon regardless of construction or design can withstand that damage.
I compare this situation to the the one the poor overrun soldiers in Mogadishu found themselves.
A rundown of Mogadishu here.
Of course none of this negates the fact that there are currently available modifications and weapons systems that would be better suited to the duty put to our servicemen in "the sand box" and that the price of replacement for the ENTIRE ARMY is LESS than what Halliburton ALONE has overcharged (read FRAUD) the military.
This is 1/10th to 1/20th of the money that has ended up "unaccounted or fraudulent" in Iraq ALONE and that was under a so-called "conservative" (read pathetic neo-con puppet)...
Now reviewing the report some things stick out - (report in italics) I have blanked more names than were blanked in the report, the report should stand on it's own.
Various authors and analysts have employed different terminology when referring to the insurgents in Afghanistan. The two most common terms are “Anti-Afghanistan Forces” (AAF) and “Anti-Coalition Militia” (ACM). ... the 10th Mountain Division more commonly utilized ACM. I have chosen to use “ACM” as I believe that it more properly describes the insurgents that are being encountered in Nuristan and Kunar Provinces. That is, the majority of the forces being encountered are more akin to militia, local fighters fighting within or near to their communities, rather than being what Western militaries might consider to be organized “forces.” Additionally, these insurgents perceive themselves as fighting for a better future for Afghanistan, one that is fundamentally Islamic, has local government, and is free of international or western influence. They are, more accurately, anti-coalition in that they are opposed to the Afghan central, western-influenced, elected government of President Karzai. Thus, the term “ACM” is more technically accurate than anti-Afghanistan (they simply have a radically different view of what they consider to be pro or anti-Afghanistan).
Can we draw any parallels? Say Vietnam?
These villages were set in locations which were inaccessible and surrounded by vast tracts of rugged lands not traversed by trails, paths or routes. These tracts could only be exploited by well-armed herders who could take their animals there under protection, and they served as effective buffer zones for their communities.
Armed locals who are expected to be armed and comfortable with the arms in a hostile rugged environment...
The most well known American incursion into Kunar Province was Operation Red Wing, when a U.S. Navy SEAL Team was inserted against Ahmad Shah, a Taliban HVT to the east of the Korengal Valley and south of the Pech River in June 2005. The SEAL Team was compromised by a chance encounter with Afghan goat herders, and following a heavy firefight was defeated by a large force of insurgents. A Special Operations helicopter, hurrying to the relief of the SEAL Team, was shot down by an RPG and sixteen soldiers were killed. Ahmad Shah would subsequently be slain by the 3rd BCT, 10th Mountain Division in 2006. Of the SEAL Team, only Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class (SEAL) [blank] survived.
What can I say? That is interesting, note the helicopter and RPG just as in Mogadishu.
I like Wanat quite a bit. The people were always good to us. They always gave us tips when trouble was coming. I felt very confident moving about without my armor on, ...The key thing was the relationship that LT [blank] and his engineers had established there when they were building the bridge. [blank] was great with the people, and they took him in like a brother. This made the place pretty safe, comparatively speaking. - Battalion Commander
The interaction with some of the military and the locals is worth the read particularly the engineers.
There was considerable ACM presence in the Waigal Valley, including politically oriented formations such as various former Mujahideen entities
Remember that name? Mujahideen freedom fighters ring a bell?
The 10th Mountain Division in the campaign season before had initiated “Operation Mountain Lamb” specifically focused upon the distribution of humanitarian supplies to the population of northeast Afghanistan.xliv Neither TF Rock nor TF Bayonet ever established such a program.
To the people of the Waigal Valley whose homes were being leveled, and whose neighborhoods and farm fields were being turned into battlefields, they saw no commensurate improvement in their lives, and no real evidence of security being provided by the coalition. As demonstrated in Wanat in the fall of 2006, when security was provided, interaction between the soldiers and the population was permitted, and when the community derived economic benefits (such as being paid for labor, selling bread and food, and receiving two modern bridges) from the coalition’s presence, the community responded with strong pro-central Afghanistan government and American feelings, and reciprocated with support and intelligence. However, a lack of services by the Afghan government, coupled with lack of security being enabled by the American military presence, and alienation caused by the aggressive kinetic fight being carried to the insurgents by TF Rock, swiftly degraded the relationships between the population of the Waigal Valley and the coalition. The population, facing legitimate threats and dangers from the virulent insurgents, could not tolerate being perceived as being supportive of the coalition unless they were being adequately protected by the American paratroopers and ANA/ANP. Without security, or improvements to their quality of life that were worth risking their lives for, the residents of the Waigal Valley remained (at best) uncommitted. Numerous American soldiers have interpreted this as: “The population is also very xenophobic and are largely fence sitters.” Lieutenant Colonel [blank], assessed that: “Waygul history is replete with deception, dishonesty, two-faced tactics, actions counter to Afghan culture and Islam.” However, both of these assessments can be construed as being exclusively American in interpretation, rather than incorporating the Waigal Valley population’s situation and concerns.
...
Influencing this perception is the extremely deleterious effects of destroying even a single residence in the comparatively small villages of the Waigal Valley, which are very tight-knit and inter-related through the extended families that inhabit the region, and are also desperately poor. To the residents of these communities, they hold the Americans who dropped the bomb to be equally as culpable as the insurgents who attracted the bomb in the first place. One senior American analyst with exhaustive experience of Pakistan and Afghanistan has concluded: “…the indiscriminate use of airpower in inhabited areas has been extremely damaging to counterinsurgency efforts among a revenge-oriented people with a zero tolerance for insult and collateral damage.” The highly kinetic approach favored by TF Rock, in contravention of the earlier population centric approach taken by TF Chosen, rapidly and inevitably degraded the relationships between the U.S. Army and the Waigal Valley population.
The stick and carrot in action.
Then an event happened - the details on the linked page, that could be called the straw on the camel.
This attack, whether justified or not by U.S. forces, aggravated public opinion throughout the Waigal Valley against the Americans, and caused much of the population to (for at least the time being) actively support the ACM. Sami Nurstani, a Waigal Valley resident, analyzed the incident:
I think July 4 was a disaster both for the people of Waygal valley and the Coalition forces. The aftermath of the Bella incident led to the Wantt attack, the link is very obvious mostly caused by the anger over the death of innocent civilian in Bella. I have known two of the deceased in that incident. Most people believe that the locals were so angered by the Bella incident that they even cooperated (or simply did not report to the Americans) with those who attacked the Wantt outpost. The attack certainly changed people’s support for the US army given the fact that they killed the very people who had helped them or were very cooperative to them.
The result...
Chosen Company and TF Rock had spent over fourteen months in intensive, unremitting combat in the Waigal. By this time, the soldiers of Chosen Company and TF Rock were more than familiar with the ACM that they contested against. They knew how the insurgents fought, they understood their tactics and how they preferred to employ their weapons, and they respected the ACM as tough, determined, committed and skilled fighters. However, as noted, actual interactions between the population and the paratroopers had been extremely limited, and as a result the population and Chosen soldiers were virtual strangers. Generally, Chosen Company’s time in the Waigal Valley had proven to be frustrating, and although considerable efforts had been expended, little real progress was visible. As LTC Ostlund believed, and most of his Chosen Few soldiers would have concurred with him, “Waygul history is replete with deception, dishonesty, two-faced tactics, actions counter to Afghan culture and Islam. [The] Population provides no information to GoA [Government of Afghanistan] and provides support to AAF [Anti-Afghan Forces].” One young, but highly experienced, Chosen Company soldier echoed LTC [blank] impressions:
Those people, they disgust me. We built them a school and gave them money for roads. A lot of times, I gave the workers clothes for their kids and shoes for their kids. I gave them blankets. We’d give them food and they complained that we didn’t do enough for them. Those people live a different life than the rest of the Afghanis. They have no morals whatsoever. They would kill their own son if you gave them a goat. Everything about those people up there is disgusting. They’re worthless.
Against this background of mutual distrust and nearly fifteen months of acrimonious interaction, the withdrawal from COP Bella and the occupation of COP Kahler in Wanat moved forward.
See above about personal viewpoints, much of this sounds eerily like Vietnam in more than a few ways.
With a large insurgent force actively operating in the Waigal Valley and available for immediate employment, and the local populace ill disposed to the coalition as a fall-out from the earlier helicopter attack, it was unlikely that the ACM would let this fleeting opportunity slip away without taking action.
Under close observation with possible willing or coerced insiders.
The great amount of firepower employed for two hours suggests that there was considerable local fighter support, simply to transport and supply the staggering quantities of ordnance expended, and evacuate the considerable number of casualties successfully from the battlefield. This was a large, and extremely skilled and dedicated, fighting force.
This was bad, very bad, not just a handful of people but a large coordinated attack.
First, beginning the night of July 11th-12th, the ITAS and LRAS sensors at Wanat began to acquire small groups of individuals moving across the mountain slopes around COP Kahler, and then vanishing into the many precipitous draws and ravines of the countryside. With one exception, they could not be positively identified (PID) as insurgents. However, the sudden appearance of numerous small groups of individuals should have been a matter of concern.
The dark clouds and ill wind before the storm...
Most of these reports were apparently not judged to be of significant import... He was demanding the support we weren’t getting, but we weren’t the priority anymore because it wasn’t flashy... “We had no support from brigade, division or theater level assets at the time.”...previous experience in the year before was that once an outpost was established it was rapidly attacked.
Review the construction and limitations with the HESCO Barriers, they had even ran out of fuel for the earth mover because they could not pump it out of storage!
There were repeated and recurring failures of small arms firing at “cyclic” rates of fire (high volume of fire for extended duration) during this engagement. Weapon systems that experienced failures include M-4 rifles, SAW automatic weapons, and MK19 grenade launchers. The failure of weapons at OP Topside degraded the defense of that post at a critical moment in the engagement, and contributed to the penetration of that position by the ACM. Some GWOT and U.S. Army veterans queried by the author have suggested that this could have been caused by improper weapon cleaning. However, numerous Chosen Few NCOs interviewed for this study have been vehemently adamant in stating that weapons were meticulously and regularly cleaned, and rigorously and routinely inspected by the chain of command. Other GWOT veterans consulted have noted that the high rates of fire sustained during the two hour intense engagement phase at Wanat could possibly have contributed to these failures. However, numerous weapons failed relatively early in the engagement (particularly a number of M-4 rifles and at one SAW at the mortar pit), and in any event the maintenance of cyclic rates of fire was critical to restore fire superiority, and to prevent positions (particularly at OP Topside) from being overrun by determined, numerous, and hard pressed insurgent assaults. The U.S. Army Project Manager-Soldier Weapons needs to investigate the reason(s) behind the repeated failures of multiple weapons at sustained cyclic rates of fire, and initiate appropriate measures to address such failures.
I think this supports the theory that the systems need upgrading.
The platoon sized element that occupied Wanat possessed barely sufficient firepower to defend itself (as the events of July 13th decisively validated); and lacked adequate firepower to extend their sphere of influence even from the COP into the adjoining community.
Speaks for itself.
“Woe to the government, which, relying on half-hearted politics and a shackled military policy, meets a foe who, like the untamed elements, knows no law other than his own power! Any defect of action and effort will turn to the advantage of the enemy, and it will not be easy to change from a fencer’s position to that of a wrestler. A slight blow may then often be enough to cause a total collapse.” - General Carl Von Clausewitz
Congressman McFadden's Speech on the Federal Reserve
Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over.
This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for thepurpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.
More here.
Congressman McFadden's Speech
The corruption in standard military procurement, the M4 carbine
Failure of the AR15/M16 (in the M4 configuration) the biased testing, coverups, and kickbacks taint the entire process and the participants.
The soldiers said their weapons were meticulously cared for and routinely inspected by commanders. But still the weapons had breakdowns...
Battlefield surveys show that nearly 90 percent of soldiers are satisfied with their M4s, according to Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, head of the Army office that buys soldier gear.
Fuller said he's received no official reports of flawed weapons performance at Wanat. "Until it showed up in the news, I was surprised to hear about all this," he said.
A lie like that should be embarrassing!
This is not a new problem!
When even highly trained infantrymen like Self have problems with their M4 it is a sign there might be a problem with the weapon, not the soldier.
“We got up and started firing and moving to some boulders 15 meters away,” he said.
Once behind cover, Self tried to fire again, but his weapon jammed.
Instinctively, he tried to fix it with “immediate action,” a drill he’d practiced countless times.
“I pulled my charging handle back, and there was a round stuck in the chamber,” he recalled.
Like the rest of his men, Self always carried a cleaning rod zip-tied to the side of his weapon in case it failed to extract a round from the chamber.
A rod zip tied to the side of the rifle is not a sign of a well preforming rifle - they are EXPECTING a problem!!!
“There was only one good way to get it out and that’s to ram it out with a cleaning rod,” he said. “I started to knock the round out by pushing the rod down the barrel, and it broke off. There was nothing I could do with it after that.”
To Col. Robert Radcliffe, the man responsible for overseeing the Army’s needs for small arms, the M16 family is “pretty damn good.” It’s simply too expensive, he said, to replace it with anything less than a “significant leap in technology.”
Just wait until this turns into a political storm...
From the very beginning the weaknesses of the Stoner designed M16/AR15 derivative of the AR10 came to the forefront and were documented.
Because there is so much "patriotic romanticism" mixed in with lots of service training mental conditioning that has spilled out into the public this has become a problem AGAIN and AGAIN we see more similarities to Vietnam. They call Afghanistan the "Graveyard of Empires" they called the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan "The Soviet's Vietnam" is this all that hard to understand?
Too much cheerleading crap like: "We are the best and have the best stuff because we are the best" is and was simply marketing. Reality is reality, perception can be flawed.
Failure to maintain the weapon meticulously can lead to jams, especially in sandy or dusty environments. Kalashnikovs may not have a reputation for accuracy, or lightness – but they do have a well-earned reputation for being able to take amazing amounts of abuse, without maintenance, and still fire reliably. The Israeli “Galil” applied these lessons in 5.56mm caliber, and earned a similar reputation. Colt’s M16 and M4 have never done so.
The M4 finishes dead last, with more than 3.5x more jams than the 3rd place finisher. But the US Army publicly says that it doesn’t care. Meanwhile, single-source contracts to Colt continue…
- Defense Industry Daily
There are mountains of information about the problems and design flaws in the current exceptionally overpriced M4 and some realistic solutions, like the FN SCAR project and the HK 416 upper modification.
But as I have stated before our current political leadership is more concerned in making sure favored contractors get highest dollar rather than give the soldier the tools he should have...
And all of you fanboy war-hawk types that say "well if they just keep it clean it is the best, they are obviously are just sloppy and incompetent" should be ashamed of yourselves, you always talk about supporting the troops and you say crap like this! Go pound sand you pathetic little shits.
To be honest the fact that more than $13 billion in Iraq aid has been classified as wasted or stolen. Another $7.8 billion cannot be accounted for $1.4 billion in overcharges from Halliburton, and that is JUST Iraq - imagine, (and the numbers are fluid from month to month as there are changes) there are (from what I can find on the internet) 130,000 soldiers in Iraq and 29,950 in Afghanistan...
So that translates to $5750 or more for each soldier for new rifles that would work like they should - if we just did not let contractors screw the taxpayers...
Iraq fraud
“The truth is, to change out a fleet takes a tremendous amount of money,” Radcliffe said, referring to the task of outfitting a million soldiers with new weapons.
Experts say it would cost approximately $1 billion to replace the Army’s M16s and M4s with an off-the-shelf weapon like the 416.
Hey Radcliffe, why don't we just get Halliburton to return their fucking overcharges by stocking up the ENTIRE ARMY with new rifles!
No, because the politicians are letting them tie us to a barrel and have at us (the country) without lubrication, and our people are paying with their lives over an amount of money that they say is simply an "accounting error”.
The soldiers said their weapons were meticulously cared for and routinely inspected by commanders. But still the weapons had breakdowns...
Battlefield surveys show that nearly 90 percent of soldiers are satisfied with their M4s, according to Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, head of the Army office that buys soldier gear.
Fuller said he's received no official reports of flawed weapons performance at Wanat. "Until it showed up in the news, I was surprised to hear about all this," he said.
A lie like that should be embarrassing!
This is not a new problem!
When even highly trained infantrymen like Self have problems with their M4 it is a sign there might be a problem with the weapon, not the soldier.
“We got up and started firing and moving to some boulders 15 meters away,” he said.
Once behind cover, Self tried to fire again, but his weapon jammed.
Instinctively, he tried to fix it with “immediate action,” a drill he’d practiced countless times.
“I pulled my charging handle back, and there was a round stuck in the chamber,” he recalled.
Like the rest of his men, Self always carried a cleaning rod zip-tied to the side of his weapon in case it failed to extract a round from the chamber.
A rod zip tied to the side of the rifle is not a sign of a well preforming rifle - they are EXPECTING a problem!!!
“There was only one good way to get it out and that’s to ram it out with a cleaning rod,” he said. “I started to knock the round out by pushing the rod down the barrel, and it broke off. There was nothing I could do with it after that.”
To Col. Robert Radcliffe, the man responsible for overseeing the Army’s needs for small arms, the M16 family is “pretty damn good.” It’s simply too expensive, he said, to replace it with anything less than a “significant leap in technology.”
Just wait until this turns into a political storm...
From the very beginning the weaknesses of the Stoner designed M16/AR15 derivative of the AR10 came to the forefront and were documented.
Because there is so much "patriotic romanticism" mixed in with lots of service training mental conditioning that has spilled out into the public this has become a problem AGAIN and AGAIN we see more similarities to Vietnam. They call Afghanistan the "Graveyard of Empires" they called the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan "The Soviet's Vietnam" is this all that hard to understand?
Too much cheerleading crap like: "We are the best and have the best stuff because we are the best" is and was simply marketing. Reality is reality, perception can be flawed.
Failure to maintain the weapon meticulously can lead to jams, especially in sandy or dusty environments. Kalashnikovs may not have a reputation for accuracy, or lightness – but they do have a well-earned reputation for being able to take amazing amounts of abuse, without maintenance, and still fire reliably. The Israeli “Galil” applied these lessons in 5.56mm caliber, and earned a similar reputation. Colt’s M16 and M4 have never done so.
The M4 finishes dead last, with more than 3.5x more jams than the 3rd place finisher. But the US Army publicly says that it doesn’t care. Meanwhile, single-source contracts to Colt continue…
- Defense Industry Daily
There are mountains of information about the problems and design flaws in the current exceptionally overpriced M4 and some realistic solutions, like the FN SCAR project and the HK 416 upper modification.
But as I have stated before our current political leadership is more concerned in making sure favored contractors get highest dollar rather than give the soldier the tools he should have...
And all of you fanboy war-hawk types that say "well if they just keep it clean it is the best, they are obviously are just sloppy and incompetent" should be ashamed of yourselves, you always talk about supporting the troops and you say crap like this! Go pound sand you pathetic little shits.
To be honest the fact that more than $13 billion in Iraq aid has been classified as wasted or stolen. Another $7.8 billion cannot be accounted for $1.4 billion in overcharges from Halliburton, and that is JUST Iraq - imagine, (and the numbers are fluid from month to month as there are changes) there are (from what I can find on the internet) 130,000 soldiers in Iraq and 29,950 in Afghanistan...
So that translates to $5750 or more for each soldier for new rifles that would work like they should - if we just did not let contractors screw the taxpayers...
Iraq fraud
“The truth is, to change out a fleet takes a tremendous amount of money,” Radcliffe said, referring to the task of outfitting a million soldiers with new weapons.
Experts say it would cost approximately $1 billion to replace the Army’s M16s and M4s with an off-the-shelf weapon like the 416.
Hey Radcliffe, why don't we just get Halliburton to return their fucking overcharges by stocking up the ENTIRE ARMY with new rifles!
No, because the politicians are letting them tie us to a barrel and have at us (the country) without lubrication, and our people are paying with their lives over an amount of money that they say is simply an "accounting error”.
Selected Mencken's quotes
It is patriotic to think! Men think, sheep follow!
I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.
- H.L. Mencken
I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.
- H.L. Mencken
I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty...
- H.L. Mencken
I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect.
- H.L. Mencken
I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech...
- H.L. Mencken
I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run.
- H.L. Mencken
I believe in the reality of progress.
- H.L. Mencken
I - But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.
- H.L. Mencken
All the extravagance and incompetence of our present Government is due, in the main, to lawyers, and, in part at least, to good ones. They are responsible for nine-tenths of the useless and vicious laws that now clutter the statute-books, and for all the evils that go with the vain attempt to enforce them. Every Federal judge is a lawyer. So are most Congressmen. Every invasion of the plain rights of the citizens has a lawyer behind it. If all lawyers were hanged tomorrow, and their bones sold to a mah jong factory, we’d be freer and safer, and our taxes would be reduced by almost a half.
- H.L. Mencken
Every normal man must, at times, be tempted to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
- H.L. Mencken
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
- H.L. Mencken
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.
- H.L. Mencken
It is impossible to imagine Goethe or Beethoven being good at billiards or golf.
- H.L. Mencken
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
- H.L. Mencken
The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.
- H.L. Mencken
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
- H.L. Mencken
To die for an idea; it is unquestionably noble. But how much nobler it would be if men died for ideas that were true!
- H.L. Mencken
I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.
- H.L. Mencken
I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.
- H.L. Mencken
I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty...
- H.L. Mencken
I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect.
- H.L. Mencken
I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech...
- H.L. Mencken
I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run.
- H.L. Mencken
I believe in the reality of progress.
- H.L. Mencken
I - But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.
- H.L. Mencken
All the extravagance and incompetence of our present Government is due, in the main, to lawyers, and, in part at least, to good ones. They are responsible for nine-tenths of the useless and vicious laws that now clutter the statute-books, and for all the evils that go with the vain attempt to enforce them. Every Federal judge is a lawyer. So are most Congressmen. Every invasion of the plain rights of the citizens has a lawyer behind it. If all lawyers were hanged tomorrow, and their bones sold to a mah jong factory, we’d be freer and safer, and our taxes would be reduced by almost a half.
- H.L. Mencken
Every normal man must, at times, be tempted to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
- H.L. Mencken
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
- H.L. Mencken
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.
- H.L. Mencken
It is impossible to imagine Goethe or Beethoven being good at billiards or golf.
- H.L. Mencken
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
- H.L. Mencken
The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.
- H.L. Mencken
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
- H.L. Mencken
To die for an idea; it is unquestionably noble. But how much nobler it would be if men died for ideas that were true!
- H.L. Mencken
The influence of Deist secularism in American freedoms
I wanted to present an exchange of some information I was involved in because I think that facts need to play precedent over wishful thinking or misplaced propaganda. If you love our American brand of freedom it is clear we need to understand it better labeling yourself a conservative does not make you a patriot any more than questioning the government makes you a terrorist (Former presidential opinion not counted).
Original questions or statements (some edited for length and from various participants) in red, my answers in black...
I hope you would not promote the idea that a non-Christian cannot be a patriot to this country, or that a non-Christian is in some way lacking in morality because they do not follow the Christian teachings..
I hope that you would not deny that a Deist or an Atheist can be a patriot, several of the founding fathers were Deists or Atheist by profession in their own writings.
While Thomas Jefferson did not write the Constitution he was instrumental in having the bill of rights passed in connection to attempt to control some of the Federalist abuses he could see from the implementation of the Constitution. Many documents such as the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration have strong direct influences from Thomas Paine an Atheist.
The very pillar of freedom OF religion is also the freedom FROM religion, many modern socialists and communists as evidenced in modern life seek to supplant religion with the "religion" of political correctness and the worship of the state, but the far right (of witch I am often identified with but I am more rightly a "l" libertarian Agrarianist) also can be tempted to wander into dangerous totalitarian territory using religion as a political tool.
I leave with quotes from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison...
An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against... Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance... religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government.
- James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822
Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to
such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new
& successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together;
- James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom.... We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Gov.
- James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which prevades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.
- James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratifying the Constitution, June 1778
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.
- James Madison, Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821]
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
I agree with your insistance that the Left (socialist/communists/neo-cons) are dangerous I would say that they want to replace God with worship of the state.
Would it not be more accurate to say that the US was founded on deistic principals or a more universal idea of the Masonic theme of "brotherhood of free men", freedom of religious choice and the prevention of oppression by the combination of the dangerous powerful forces of theocracy and governmental despotism?
The preponderance of Masonic adherents in the founding fathers cannot be ignore. Some of the founding fathers who espoused Deism as confirmed by their own writings were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James
Monroe.
Thomas Jefferson of course was fiercely anti-cleric. he was so suspicious of the traditional belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God, that he rewrote the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament and compiled his own gospel version known as The Jefferson Bible eliminating the Old Testament.
In fact Jefferson at the time was opposed by a large portion of the organized religious community. William Linn, (Dutch Reformed) went so far as to publish attacks on Jefferson's character. All of his attacks were on religious issues. Linn published the "Serious Considerations on the Election of a President" where he accused Jefferson of the "crimes" of not recognizing divine revelation and a plan to destroy religion forcing an era of "immorality'". He called Jefferson as an "infidel" and postulated that God would hate an infidel like Jefferson and God would never want him elected. "Serious considerations" has the last line- Christians to defeat the infidel from Virginia.
"The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks [Muslims], Pagans and Christians. Test oaths and established creeds should be avoided as the worst of evils."
-Baptist preacher John Leland, among those pressing the hardest with anti-federalists for a First Amendment and for complete separation of church and state.
Clearly, the founders of our nation intended government to maintain a neutral posture in matters of religion. Anyone who would still insist that the intention of the founding fathers was to establish a Christian nation should review a document written during the administration of George Washington. Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli declared in part that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...”
(Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States, ed. Hunter Miller, Vol. 2, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1931, p. 365).
This treaty was negotiated by the American diplomat Joel Barlow during the administration of George Washington. Washington read it and approved it, although it was not ratified by the senate until John Adams had become president. When Adams signed it, he added this statement to his signature "Now, be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty, do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof." This document and the approval that it received from our nation's first and second presidents and the U. S. Senate as constituted in 1797 do very little to support the popular notion that the founding fathers established our country as a Christian nation.
-Farrell Till
Lynn R. Buzzard, (director, Christian Legal Society) wrote.-
"Not only were a good many of the revolutionary leaders more deist than Christian, but the actual number of church members was rather small. Perhaps as few as five percent of the populace were church members in 1776"
- Schools They Haven't Got a Prayer, Elgin, Illinois David C. Cook Publishing, 1982, p. 81
"perhaps as many as ninety percent of the Americans were unchurched in 1790" (Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, New York Alfred A. Knopf, 1974, p. 82) and goes on to say that "mid-eighteenth century America had a smaller proportion of church members than any other nation in Christendom," noting that "in 1800 [only] about one of every fifteen
Americans was a church member" (p. 89).
- Historian Richard Hofstadter
At the constitutional convention, Luther Martin a representative of Maryland pushed for the recognition of Christianity constitutionally -"it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." by vote the recognition was rejected leaving the constitution a secular document.
At the constitutional convention the only mentioned of religion in the final version was Article VI, Section 3, - no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.- If the delegates had intended to establish a Christian nation, odd it contains this and nowhere else refers to religion?
I'm afraid that far too many recognize the very real threat by the encroachment of the statist left and fail to see the threat of the theocratic right.
The left is clearly attempting to supplant "religion" with the worship of the state - a dangerous proposition in light of the rise of the communist supplanting of religion in Russia and the more recent example of Pol Pot.
Then we should also think about the dangers of allowing to heavy a power to the Fundamentalist right while we all have freedom of religion too much power to ANY religion is dangerous - we all hear and see the abuses by Fundamentalist Islamic sects, the same danger is apparent in the Christian Fundamentalist movement.
I grew up in the south I know that denominational hatred and conflict is possible, I have seen several city wide conflicts cumulating into physical fighting over even fractional denominational differences.
I do not trust that any religious leader with the convictions of God and congregation will not turn to despotism. I certainly would not want a combination of state power and religion in the hands of many Fundamentalists. While they may vehemently deny it, they are capable of using religion to justify burning "witches" and putting Catholics to the rack.
I watched in horror and shame when the guest of Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala was the first Hindu ever to give the House invocation - and was shouted down.
Prayer in congress?
After several statements like this one... "Our founders expected that Christianity - and no other religion - would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples' consciences and their right to worship,"
- Family Research Council
That is not only showing a massive ignorance of the founding of this country but frightening if they are promoting that ignorant and obviously wrong political and religious view.
In fact in my last post I noted the view from John Leland a preacher who pushed for the first amendment and separation of religion and state because of the fresh oppression that the anti-baptists had received, a bit of self interest because of the resistance from several royal european governments to the anti-baptist Protestant denomination
"The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks [Muslims], Pagans and Christians. Test oaths and established creeds should be avoided as the worst of evils."
-Baptist preacher John Leland
Have you ever heard of the inquisition? The Catholics put the protestants on the rack for several centuries... Did you ever hear of Torquemada, the inquisitor of Bardelona?
And... what if that religion is of an extremeist nature such as the muslim religion? Do we, as a people who tout freedom of religion, ignore the actions of these fanatics? Being politically correct is a luxury that we can no longer afford. With it being against the law to discriminate against religion, how does this fit our mould? If we can no longer 'profile' based on religion or ethinicity, it seems that we are destroying ourselves from the inside out.
In my reckoning, trying to be politically correct is how the far left is weakening our nation at an accelerated rate. Not to worry though, 'change' is coming!
Of course this adds to our problems, just what is an "extremist religion" certainly Christianity has and most likely will continue to have its own extremist members and sects.
The very real issue of Tomás de Torquemada, a Spanish Dominican "political climber" who is known for his fifteenth century abuse in the office of Grand Inquisitor of Spain. He strongly supported and made use of torture, yet strangely was regarded by even politically enemies as incorruptible, in other words he was able to justify his actions because of his religious convictions - in his mind he was forwarding the work of God on earth.
Of course witch burning torture was not only a Catholic past shame, Protestant abuses were also fresh on the minds of the Founding Fathers, they were very aware of the possible abuse when government joined with religion.
Far from politically correct I just like to point out that freedom is a two edged sword to gain freedom of religion we have to dispense it freely. Just as we know that the simple existence of the freedom of arms means that form time to time there will be abuse - but that is the price, yes some will be harmed and or killed but to be disarmed brings the despotism that kills thousands. I feel the same way with religion, I am willing to live amongst even the most repellent religious zealots as long as we can keep the zealots from forming a powerful alliance with government or the worship of the state become the requirement.
True, and it has become very politically correct to refrain from criticism of religion, of BOTH spectrums. This will bode ill for us in the end with the neo-cons using the Fundamentalist as a shield to attack and devolve freedoms at home and the encroachment of eastern theocracy.
Did we not arm the Mujahideen? Did we not contribute in the overthrow of Mossadegh? Did not the CIA organized coup successfully assassinate Qasim to bring CIA asset Hussein to power?
I would ask how have we avoided more trouble than we have had with angry religious fanatics?
It is Scylla and Charybdis and I am afraid that one or the other will cause the end of the Republic. I am not willing to concede freedom of others or myself for a small amount of temporary safety. Too many perceived threats have become excuses for empire, the results prove that the threats were only used as tools. An empire in its death-throws will make any perceived threats look inconsequential in comparison. I am not happy to be forced to "have my papers" just to "make us safer".
Scylla and Charybdis.
Original questions or statements (some edited for length and from various participants) in red, my answers in black...
This nation was founded upon Christian principles. The Left want to ban God, but nowhere in the Constitution is there the statement "Separation of Church and State". The First Amndment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The last paragraph of Article IV of the US Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
This article is want many of the Left use to promote "Separation of Church and State", but Article IV means that one does not have to be a certain religion or any religion at all to hold office or be in the public trust, and as the First Amendment says that there will not be a state religion. Nowhere does it say that the state and religion will be separate.
I hope you would not promote the idea that a non-Christian cannot be a patriot to this country, or that a non-Christian is in some way lacking in morality because they do not follow the Christian teachings..
I hope that you would not deny that a Deist or an Atheist can be a patriot, several of the founding fathers were Deists or Atheist by profession in their own writings.
While Thomas Jefferson did not write the Constitution he was instrumental in having the bill of rights passed in connection to attempt to control some of the Federalist abuses he could see from the implementation of the Constitution. Many documents such as the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration have strong direct influences from Thomas Paine an Atheist.
The very pillar of freedom OF religion is also the freedom FROM religion, many modern socialists and communists as evidenced in modern life seek to supplant religion with the "religion" of political correctness and the worship of the state, but the far right (of witch I am often identified with but I am more rightly a "l" libertarian Agrarianist) also can be tempted to wander into dangerous totalitarian territory using religion as a political tool.
I leave with quotes from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison...
An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against... Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance... religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government.
- James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822
Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to
such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new
& successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together;
- James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom.... We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Gov.
- James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which prevades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.
- James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratifying the Constitution, June 1778
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.
- James Madison, Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821]
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
I would never believe that a non-Christian could not be a patriot, or that they lack morality. The same feeling holds true of an Deist or atheist being a patriot. Christianity doesn't make a person moral. I think that any true Christian would believe that a non-Christian or atheist can be a patriot or be a moral person.
With this being said, it still doesn't change the fact of this nation being founded on Christian principles. Most of the Americans at that time had a strong faith and belief in God. Our Founding Fathers made sure though to protect the basic rights of the minority point of view in more than just religious matters....
What I see here in today's society and what I was posting on was the Left's wish to totally take God out of society.
I agree with your insistance that the Left (socialist/communists/neo-cons) are dangerous I would say that they want to replace God with worship of the state.
Would it not be more accurate to say that the US was founded on deistic principals or a more universal idea of the Masonic theme of "brotherhood of free men", freedom of religious choice and the prevention of oppression by the combination of the dangerous powerful forces of theocracy and governmental despotism?
The preponderance of Masonic adherents in the founding fathers cannot be ignore. Some of the founding fathers who espoused Deism as confirmed by their own writings were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James
Monroe.
Thomas Jefferson of course was fiercely anti-cleric. he was so suspicious of the traditional belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God, that he rewrote the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament and compiled his own gospel version known as The Jefferson Bible eliminating the Old Testament.
In fact Jefferson at the time was opposed by a large portion of the organized religious community. William Linn, (Dutch Reformed) went so far as to publish attacks on Jefferson's character. All of his attacks were on religious issues. Linn published the "Serious Considerations on the Election of a President" where he accused Jefferson of the "crimes" of not recognizing divine revelation and a plan to destroy religion forcing an era of "immorality'". He called Jefferson as an "infidel" and postulated that God would hate an infidel like Jefferson and God would never want him elected. "Serious considerations" has the last line- Christians to defeat the infidel from Virginia.
"The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks [Muslims], Pagans and Christians. Test oaths and established creeds should be avoided as the worst of evils."
-Baptist preacher John Leland, among those pressing the hardest with anti-federalists for a First Amendment and for complete separation of church and state.
Clearly, the founders of our nation intended government to maintain a neutral posture in matters of religion. Anyone who would still insist that the intention of the founding fathers was to establish a Christian nation should review a document written during the administration of George Washington. Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli declared in part that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...”
(Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States, ed. Hunter Miller, Vol. 2, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1931, p. 365).
This treaty was negotiated by the American diplomat Joel Barlow during the administration of George Washington. Washington read it and approved it, although it was not ratified by the senate until John Adams had become president. When Adams signed it, he added this statement to his signature "Now, be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty, do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof." This document and the approval that it received from our nation's first and second presidents and the U. S. Senate as constituted in 1797 do very little to support the popular notion that the founding fathers established our country as a Christian nation.
-Farrell Till
Lynn R. Buzzard, (director, Christian Legal Society) wrote.-
"Not only were a good many of the revolutionary leaders more deist than Christian, but the actual number of church members was rather small. Perhaps as few as five percent of the populace were church members in 1776"
- Schools They Haven't Got a Prayer, Elgin, Illinois David C. Cook Publishing, 1982, p. 81
"perhaps as many as ninety percent of the Americans were unchurched in 1790" (Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, New York Alfred A. Knopf, 1974, p. 82) and goes on to say that "mid-eighteenth century America had a smaller proportion of church members than any other nation in Christendom," noting that "in 1800 [only] about one of every fifteen
Americans was a church member" (p. 89).
- Historian Richard Hofstadter
At the constitutional convention, Luther Martin a representative of Maryland pushed for the recognition of Christianity constitutionally -"it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." by vote the recognition was rejected leaving the constitution a secular document.
At the constitutional convention the only mentioned of religion in the final version was Article VI, Section 3, - no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.- If the delegates had intended to establish a Christian nation, odd it contains this and nowhere else refers to religion?
I am just stating that I live in an area that is primarily ______church and we all have guns.
I am not against non-christians, and anyone in my book can be a patriot. No matter what you may call God or your beliefs, this is the land of the Free, because of the Brave
I'm afraid that far too many recognize the very real threat by the encroachment of the statist left and fail to see the threat of the theocratic right.
The left is clearly attempting to supplant "religion" with the worship of the state - a dangerous proposition in light of the rise of the communist supplanting of religion in Russia and the more recent example of Pol Pot.
Then we should also think about the dangers of allowing to heavy a power to the Fundamentalist right while we all have freedom of religion too much power to ANY religion is dangerous - we all hear and see the abuses by Fundamentalist Islamic sects, the same danger is apparent in the Christian Fundamentalist movement.
I grew up in the south I know that denominational hatred and conflict is possible, I have seen several city wide conflicts cumulating into physical fighting over even fractional denominational differences.
I do not trust that any religious leader with the convictions of God and congregation will not turn to despotism. I certainly would not want a combination of state power and religion in the hands of many Fundamentalists. While they may vehemently deny it, they are capable of using religion to justify burning "witches" and putting Catholics to the rack.
I watched in horror and shame when the guest of Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala was the first Hindu ever to give the House invocation - and was shouted down.
Prayer in congress?
After several statements like this one... "Our founders expected that Christianity - and no other religion - would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples' consciences and their right to worship,"
- Family Research Council
That is not only showing a massive ignorance of the founding of this country but frightening if they are promoting that ignorant and obviously wrong political and religious view.
In fact in my last post I noted the view from John Leland a preacher who pushed for the first amendment and separation of religion and state because of the fresh oppression that the anti-baptists had received, a bit of self interest because of the resistance from several royal european governments to the anti-baptist Protestant denomination
"The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks [Muslims], Pagans and Christians. Test oaths and established creeds should be avoided as the worst of evils."
-Baptist preacher John Leland
Have you ever heard of the inquisition? The Catholics put the protestants on the rack for several centuries... Did you ever hear of Torquemada, the inquisitor of Bardelona?
And... what if that religion is of an extremeist nature such as the muslim religion? Do we, as a people who tout freedom of religion, ignore the actions of these fanatics? Being politically correct is a luxury that we can no longer afford. With it being against the law to discriminate against religion, how does this fit our mould? If we can no longer 'profile' based on religion or ethinicity, it seems that we are destroying ourselves from the inside out.
In my reckoning, trying to be politically correct is how the far left is weakening our nation at an accelerated rate. Not to worry though, 'change' is coming!
Of course this adds to our problems, just what is an "extremist religion" certainly Christianity has and most likely will continue to have its own extremist members and sects.
The very real issue of Tomás de Torquemada, a Spanish Dominican "political climber" who is known for his fifteenth century abuse in the office of Grand Inquisitor of Spain. He strongly supported and made use of torture, yet strangely was regarded by even politically enemies as incorruptible, in other words he was able to justify his actions because of his religious convictions - in his mind he was forwarding the work of God on earth.
Of course witch burning torture was not only a Catholic past shame, Protestant abuses were also fresh on the minds of the Founding Fathers, they were very aware of the possible abuse when government joined with religion.
Far from politically correct I just like to point out that freedom is a two edged sword to gain freedom of religion we have to dispense it freely. Just as we know that the simple existence of the freedom of arms means that form time to time there will be abuse - but that is the price, yes some will be harmed and or killed but to be disarmed brings the despotism that kills thousands. I feel the same way with religion, I am willing to live amongst even the most repellent religious zealots as long as we can keep the zealots from forming a powerful alliance with government or the worship of the state become the requirement.
Being politically correct is a luxury that we can no longer afford.
True, and it has become very politically correct to refrain from criticism of religion, of BOTH spectrums. This will bode ill for us in the end with the neo-cons using the Fundamentalist as a shield to attack and devolve freedoms at home and the encroachment of eastern theocracy.
Do we, as a people who tout freedom of religion, ignore the actions of these fanatics?
Did we not arm the Mujahideen? Did we not contribute in the overthrow of Mossadegh? Did not the CIA organized coup successfully assassinate Qasim to bring CIA asset Hussein to power?
I would ask how have we avoided more trouble than we have had with angry religious fanatics?
It is Scylla and Charybdis and I am afraid that one or the other will cause the end of the Republic. I am not willing to concede freedom of others or myself for a small amount of temporary safety. Too many perceived threats have become excuses for empire, the results prove that the threats were only used as tools. An empire in its death-throws will make any perceived threats look inconsequential in comparison. I am not happy to be forced to "have my papers" just to "make us safer".
Scylla and Charybdis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)