AAR - 6th NC PATCON October 1st - 6th 2014
6th NC PATCON October 1st - 6th 2014
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
-- Rudyard Kipling
I’ve been in law enforcement for the past 18 years. I have attended a variety of training over those years. During the 1990s, most training I attended was community-oriented, sponsored by local agencies or private companies specializing in police training. Themes common to training of the past included topics such as Constitutional rights, community partnerships, youth-oriented programs and problem-oriented policing.
During the past several years, I have witnessed a dramatic shift in the focus of law enforcement training. Law enforcement courses have moved away from a local community focus to a federally dominated model of complete social control. Most training I have attended over the past two years have been sponsored by Department of Homeland Security (DHS), namely the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
No matter what topic the training session concerns, every DHS sponsored course I have attended over the past few years never fails to branch off into warnings about potential domestic terrorists in the community. While this may sound like a valid officer and community safety issue, you may be disturbed to learn how our Federal government describes a typical domestic terrorist.
These federal trainers describe the dangers of “extremists” and “militia groups” roaming the community and hiding in plain sight, ready to attack. Officers are instructed how to recognize these domestic terrorists by their behavior, views and common characteristics. State data bases are kept to track suspected domestic terrorists and officers are instructed on reporting procedures to state and federal agencies. The state I work in, like many others, have what is known as a “fusion center” that compiles a watch list of suspicious people.
So how does a person qualify as a potential domestic terrorist? Based on the training I have attended, here are characteristics that qualify:
-- John Adams
"Confederate Secretary of State, Judah P. Benjamin, fled after the War to England where be became a barrister & Queen's Counsel. I have read, but cannot now footnote, that Benjamin's advice on the Act helped guide it toward federalism, such as the United States union was until converted by the genocide revolutionary Lincoln into a monolithic unitary state.
The Independent Institute
Allied airstrikes alone might not bring down Moammar Gadhafi. High-level Libyan officials seem prepared to dig in their heels--rather than turn on their leader--perhaps comforted by a well-founded belief that their military could take shelter in the nation's urban areas, where large civilian casualties by coalition bombs would conflict with the rationale behind the United Nations resolution authorizing a no-fly zone. An unsuccessful no-fly zone, coupled with ineffective economic sanctions and unaided by boots on the ground, could mean that Gadhafi would stay in power for years to come--just as Saddam Hussein survived similar challenges for more than a decade after the first Gulf War. That prospect could add to pressure for a coalition ground invasion of Libya staffed partly by U.S. troops. This is one reason why President Obama would have been wise to resist calls from U.S. foreign-policy elites, and their backers, to intervene in Libya, according to Ivan Eland, director of the Independent Institute's Center on Peace & Liberty.
"Obama, analytical and seemingly a reluctant warrior by nature, has utterly capitulated to such interests," Eland writes in his latest op-ed. "This outcome gives little hope that future presidents will be able to reverse the tide, run a more restrained and sensible foreign policy, and lead the world by example instead of extreme measures."
In a separate op-ed, Independent Institute Senior Fellow Charles V. Pena also argues against U.S. intervention in Libya. Although Gadhafi is bad for Libyans, "he doesn't pose a threat to the United States--which should be the one and only criterion for using U.S. military force," Pena writes. "America would be wise to remember the so-called Pottery Barn rule that former Secretary of State (and before that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) Colin Powell warned about prior to invading Iraq: 'You break it, you own it.'"
"Buy Two Wars, Get Another for Half Price," by Ivan Eland (3/23/11)
"The Libya Folly," by Charles V. Pena (3/28/11)
Federal Terrorism "facilitator" Shahed Hussain, aka "Maqsood."
In signaling her willingness to hear the Newburgh 4's appeal, Federal District Judge McMahon candidly described the supposed terrorist conspiracy as a pure Federal fabrication: "The plot was created before our very eyes in this courtroom," she stated.
"The law allows that to happen," lied Assistant U.S. Attorney David Raskin in reply.
This is actually quite a stunning admission, coming as it does from someone of exalted rank within the "Justice" Department: He acknowledged that the Feds consider it to be legal and proper to manufacture terrorist plots in order to justify what can only be described as show trials.
Seldom do I waste time with rebutting articles, and especially not from publications like Rolling Stone. Today, numerous people sent links to the latest Rolling Stone tripe. The story is titled “THE KILL TEAM, THE FULL STORY.” It should be titled: “BULLSHIT, from Rolling Stone.”
The story—not really an “article”—covers Soldiers from 5/2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) in Afghanistan. A handful of Soldiers were accused of murder. It does in fact appear that a tiny group of rogues committed premeditated murder. I was embedded with the 5/2 SBCT and was afforded incredible access to the brigade by the Commander, Colonel Harry Tunnell, and the brigade Command Sergeant Major, Robb Prosser. I know Robb from Iraq. Colonel Tunnell had been shot in Iraq.
The brigade gave me open access. I could go anywhere, anytime, so long as I could find a ride, which never was a problem beyond normal combat problems. If they had something to hide, it was limited and I didn’t find it. I was not with the Soldiers accused of murder and had no knowledge of this. It is important to note that the murder allegations were not discovered by media vigilance, but by, for instance, at least one Soldier in that tiny unit who was appalled by the behavior. A brigade is a big place with thousands of Soldiers, and in Afghanistan they were spread thinly across several provinces because we decided to wage war with too few troops. Those Soldiers accused of being involved in (or who should have been knowledgeable of) the murders could fit into a minivan. You would need ten 747s for the rest of the Brigade who did their duty. I was with many other Soldiers from 5/2 SBCT. My overall impression was very positive. After scratching my memory for negative impressions from 5/2 Soldiers, I can’t think of any, actually, other than the tiny Kill Team who, to my knowledge, I never set eyes upon.
The online edition of the Rolling Stone story contains a section with a video called “Motorcycle Kill,” which includes our Soldiers gunning down Taliban who were speeding on a motorcycle toward our guys. These Soldiers were also with 5/2 SBCT, far away from the “Kill Team” later accused of the murders. Rolling Stone commits a literary “crime” by deceptively entwining this normal combat video with the Kill Team story. The Taliban on the motorcycle were killed during an intense operation in the Arghandab near Kandahar City. People who have been to the Arghandab realize the extreme danger there. The Soviets got beaten horribly in the Arghandab, despite throwing everything including the Soviet kitchen sink into the battle that lasted over a month. Others fared little better. To my knowledge, 5/2 and supporting units were the first ever to take Arghandab, and these two dead Taliban were part of that process.
I’d like to start by saying that this product is going to shock you like nothing you have ever seen. I don’t know what the future of it will be, and I don’t think that anyone does at this point. At present it comes with an ATF letter saying that it is a legal AR-15 accessory, and several thousand have been sold. The use of “simulated automatic fire” here are my words, not those of the manufacturer. There isn’t going to be any way to get around what this thing does and I think it is best to call it what it is.
The Slide Fire is a $369 replacement stock for your AR-15 that when used properly, simulates automatic fire. Since the invention of the semi-automatic rifle people have been learning to do what is called “bump firing” the gun. You hold the gun in a loose way and allow it to rock back and forth against the trigger finger, which simulates automatic fire. It is fun, but it burns a lot of ammo without any real ability to aim at anything.
The inventor of the Slide Fire, Jeremiah Cottle, a US Air Force veteran of three conflicts, took the bump fire concept and eliminated all of the variables that makes bump firing impractical. The result is a product that bump fires perfectly, is completely controllable, every time, with no special training. There are no permanent modifications to the gun and installation of the Slide Fire does not impair function of the rifle at all.