********************************AAR - 6th NC PATCON October 1st - 6th 2014********************
**************************************6th NC PATCON October 1st - 6th 2014**********************
**************************************2014 Spring NC PATCON Pictures****************************
**************************************2013 Fall NC PATCON Pictures*******************************
Monday, April 11, 2011
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
“The application of the term “rebel” to Confederates is a very grave error, destructive of the hope of establishing the South’s just claims to being the constitutional party, involving the right of secession, and in consequence acknowledging the right of coercion. It makes the sending of troops into the South a constitutional act, which Lincoln tried by sophistry to prove, but which has been disproved by all who earnestly seek reason and truth.
The common saying, “Washington was a rebel, and we are rebels too,” is a very grave error, and will be readily so recognized if we consider the distinctive differences between the Revolutionary War and the war of the States. I will remark, parenthetically, that my ancestors were not Tories, but fought, like Washington, to overthrow monarchical rule.
The Revolutionary war was a war between colonists and their mother country; the other war (the war between the States) was a war between citizens of coequal States. One was a rebellion of subjects against an established monarchy: the other was the resistance of free, sovereign and independent States to the encroachment of their common agent – the general government – the resistance of the creator to the creature.
The fact that the enemy applies to us the term “rebels” should be of itself sufficient to cause us to regard the term as intended by them one of opprobrium. They know full well that it is only by asserting that we were rebels that they can, in the least, be justified in an unholy war.
The fame of the Northern soldier is of physical force; the glory of the Southern soldier is of moral courage. The reputation of the Northern soldier rests upon numerical strength; the renown of the Southern soldier is based upon unexcelled skill and fortitude. One sought conquest; the other, justice. One drew the sword in vengeful hate; the other, without hatred or malice.
One climbed to the height of worldly success; the other, attained the summit of lofty virtue. One triumphed; the other lost, but with his face to the foe and his eye toward heaven. His was the defeat of the vanquished patriot – no broken faith, but a broken heart; his soul spotless, but his body scarred; his worldly inheritance seized, destroyed, but the priceless wealth of a clear conscience was still his own.
Ashes marked the spot of his once peaceful home, but on the dismal scene he an altar to his country raised. And around that altar we, the daughters of the Southland, in reverent devotion gather, feeding its dimly burning light with ardent love, and filling the memory-haunted scene with the triumphant refrain:
“The body may to the sword fall victim, but truth can never know of death, and yet it will rise and weave into the tapestry of the world’s most honored the words, “Men of the Confederacy.”
(Miss A. Dunovant, Historic Southern Monuments, Mrs. B.A.C. Emerson, editor, Neale Publishing, 1911, pp. 92-93)
North Carolina Unionists had staved off the secession of their State for months, and implored Lincoln to evacuate Forts Sumter and Pickens to create a cooling-off period and to facilitate a peaceful settlement of the crisis and possible return of the Southern States to the old Union. Despite the duplicity and arrogance of Lincoln’s administration in the face of a constitutional crisis and secession of Southern States, President Jefferson Davis made futile attempts to avoid bloodshed. War against the American South was begun when Lincoln’s warships sailed from port with the intention of subjugating Americans who desired independence from his government.
Bernhard Thuersam, Director
Cape Fear Historical Institute
Abe Lincoln’s Warships Fire the “First Shot”:
April 11, 1861:
Biographer Hudson Strode would continue:
“The next morning supported by the majority of his Cabinet, but with [Robert] Toombs not voting, the President asked [General] Beauregard to demand the evacuation of Fort Sumter, and if the ultimatum should be refused, to reduce it.”
On the afternoon of April 11, under a flag of truce, Beauregard’s aides, former Senator James Chesnut, of South Carolina, and Captain Stephen Lee, set out in a small boat and conveyed the ultimatum. Deeply perturbed, [Fort Sumter commander] Major [Robert] Anderson debated with himself. Because of the recent letter from his government, he decided that he could not in honor comply. As he handed his formal reply to Chesnut, he remarked sadly, with a resigned smile, “I will await the first shot.” Then he added, as if casually, “If you do not batter us to pieces we will be starved out in a few days.” Along with the result of the visit, Beauregard communicated to Montgomery Anderson’s significant remark.
When President Davis received the report, he understood the miserable quandary of his old friend Bob Anderson, as clearly as he saw through Lincoln’s maneuver to make the [Confederacy] shoot. Knowing that the fort must not be reinforced and that time was running out, he yet made one last effort to avoid [armed engagement]. He had Confederate Secretary of War Leroy Walker telegraph Beauregard:
“We do not desire needlessly to bombard Fort Sumter. If Major Anderson will state the time…at which he will evacuate, and agree that in the meantime he will not use his guns against us unless ours should be employed against Fort Sumter, we will abstain from opening fire. You are thus to avoid the effusion of blood. If this or its equivalent be refused, reduce the fort as your judgment decides to be the most practicable.”
Far to the north in Hartford, Connecticut, the editor of the Hartford Daily Courant wrote in his editorial for the following day’s edition, “Public opinion in the [northern States] seems to be gradually settling down in favor of recognition of the new Confederacy by the Federal Government.” But the Lincoln Administration was well along in executing plans to remake that “opinion.”
Hudson Strode would continue the story:
The missive was presented, Anderson held a midnight conference with his top officers. A dutiful soldier and a loyal [Federalist], Anderson was also a Kentuckian, and married to a Georgian; he loved the Southern…people. If he had not misguidedly moved from [Fort] Moultrie to Sumter on that fateful Christmas night, “to prevent an effusion of blood,” he would not be in his present miserable dilemma! If to avoid a war between the States he now agreed to evacuation before the garrison’s last slab of salt pork was gone, Anderson knew he would be branded as a traitor. After painful, almost unbearable, deliberation, at half-past two in the morning of April 12, Robert Anderson took up his pen to compose a formal reply:
“I will, if provided with the proper and necessary means of transportation, evacuate Fort Sumter by noon [April 15], and I will not in the meantime open my fire upon your forces unless compelled to do so by some hostile act against this fort or the flag of my Government by the forces under your command should I not receive prior to that time controlling instructions from my Government or additional supplies.”
Time had run out, for the Federal fleet was already overdue. Records show that the [gunboat] Harriet Lane had already arrived at the designated rendezvous point off Charleston Harbor, and within minutes her commander would communicate with [US Navy official] Gustavus Fox who was on the [USS] Baltic. The warships were gathering.”
(Abe Lincoln’s First Shot Strategy, excerpted from Bloodstains, an Epic History of the Politics that Produced the American Civil War,” Howard Ray White, 2011, pp. 31-33)
Lincoln's "First Shot" Strategy at Fort Sumter
"Just some personal thoughts about our planning when it comes to preparing retreat defenses. Some will work, others maybe not as much, but just some thinking and possibly some motivation for the remainder of the folks on here to start thinking about as well. This is mainly from a TEOTWAWKI standpoint and not your typical short term SHTF idea. But some of the thoughts can work in both.
#1: The location myth.
More often than not, our retreats are in a somewhat secluded location. Rural areas are typically the norm and the further away from built up urban areas the better. But in a TEOTWAWKI situation, the lines between the two will become blurred as people will escape from urban areas and seek out refuge in rural areas. Sometimes it will take a couple of days; others will take weeks and maybe even months. But as supplies start to dwindle in urban areas, you can guarantee people will start looking towards the countryside for additional supplies and places to live. And suddenly your secluded remote area becomes less likely to stay hidden and on the radar so to speak.
Unless one is staying on a deserted island where there is little chance of unwanted visitors, everyone’s retreat is at risk of being discovered. And in that discovery means interest will be placed. Some may be good, some may be bad, but rest assured, your location will become an area of interest before long no matter where it happens to be. Some less than others, but your secret will never be entirely safe.
So the myth is about the idea that a retreat is completely secluded and will not be found. Everything will be found in due time and explored. As stated before, some will take interest in the location, others will ignore it. OPSEC plays a key in this (and in #5) about how well your location might be hidden away, but it will never be entirely concealed. And in knowing this, you can plan around the limitations.
Knowing the limitations of location can be a powerful factor in deciding to buy land for a retreat or actually building the structure itself. Things to look for:
How far away from the nearest City is this area?
Are there sufficient avenues of escape as well as avenues of approach?
Is the area likely to be developed in the next 5 years? 10 years? 20 years?
Do you have neighbors and how close are they?
How far off the main lines of “drift” is the location? (Drift is defined as the natural path one would take from point A to point B. Knowing this, will people inadvertently stumble onto your property because you sit in a valley between two mountains?)
And also, how often is your retreat checked before you bug out? Is it in an area where theft can and will occur for valuable (or invaluable as people will steal anything) items and long term food storage? Just because your retreat is away from most populated areas doesn’t mean it cannot be discovered and used without your knowledge. And also squatters might very well be occupying your retreat before you get there. How would you deal with that?
I’ve asked some questions, but the overall point is the fact no location (save our imaginary island in the middle of the ocean) is completely out of the way and can be discovered despite our best efforts. So the myth of a particular location being safer than others is not necessarily true.
#2: The manpower assumption
“I have XX amount of bodies in which to plan my defenses.” Okay, good idea in theory, but is that taking into account what you actually have right then and there? For example, you know for a fact you have five families coming to your retreat (let’s just say for argument’s sake it’s a really nice retreat that can sustain all those folks) in the event of TEOTWAWKI. Now are you certain all five families are going to make it? So let’s assume they do for a moment and you plan your defenses. Are you taking into account the sick, lame and injured? The “I have a migraine and cannot perform today” types? The injuries that can and will happen? Can your defensive plans handle the loss of one or two? Or maybe half in the event of a cold/flu outbreak that affects most of the group?
Now let’s assume only three out of the five families made it and add to your manpower. Are your plans in depth enough to account for the sudden loss of X amount of bodies? Let’s face it, things can and will happen during a TEOTWAWKI situation that prohibits groups from arriving as they should. And knowing this, one should take into account the decrease in manpower that will come. And in preparedness, proper planning is king.
How do you attack these problems? By basing your estimates on knowing who actually will show up. Start at one family and move up to your maximum number. Your defenses should take into account a ten percent rule (ten percent of the manpower will be unavailable for duty due to sick/lame/injured) and still be able to function. In this percentage, round up to the next ten for your real number. I.E. Sixteen people capable of performing defensive duties and five are out. That’s 31%, so round up to 40%. It’s not an exact science, but should work okay in your situation.
Plan on removing a selected number of people from the equation and plan your defenses that way instead of going on the assumption everyone will be available for duty as needed. Plus shift work as you will have to post sentries at night. Do your plans take this into account? Nighttime is the enemy and the friend. It is a friend since a lot of folks will not be using higher technology to plan attacks and gives you a time for rest. But it is an enemy as it does provide concealment for attackers and confusion on the part of the defenders. If you are looking at a somewhat well trained adversary (let’s assume they are military trained) and has access to night vision or thermal technology, you are already on the bad side of the equation.
So before you make plans for the maximum number of bodies available for duty, make plans to remove a selected portion of that number just in case. As life happens, so will accidents and bodies not show up like they are supposed to.
#3: The good neighbor myth
“I can depend on my neighbors for help. They are good people.”
One had to be careful when approaching neighbors in a post TEOTWAWKI situation as they may have become very wary in those times and may have a shoot first identify later mentality. Also, those planning on making contact with neighbors and forming a militia in the aftermath of a TEOTWAWKI situation can be in for a surprise as well. Some folks just won’t go along with the program no matter how well you sell it. They just don’t want to get involved no matter what. So in forming a defensive plan for your retreat and even the local area, several factors need to be taken into consideration.
Don’t plan on outside help. You cannot make defensive arrangements based on the fact X number of families live in the local area and will go along with what you planned for. Sure some will come along, but others will pretty much ignore you and tell you where to get off. We live in a world of opinionated people and some just feel they will be safer on their own rather than in a group. Some neighbors cannot be trusted either. They could have a farm out in the country because they like horses and are your typical sheeple that come around with their hand out. There are several types one should be wary of and it’s best to get to know them beforehand.
Be careful who you bargain/trade with. Even bargaining only goes so far in a post TEOTWAWKI situation. So you are a good neighbor and recognize the fact Family X doesn’t have sufficient arms or ammunition to defend their property. And in knowing more numbers are better than less, you decide to help out. So you give family X a number of Mosin-Nagant rifles and X amount of ammunition in exchange for being your "sentries" on the outer perimeter. However, when someone comes along and offers them the same deal but with better weapons along with partitioning your land, assets and food storage, which one is harder to choose between? Loyalty among neighbors only goes as far as the next meal. Sure you provide neighbors with enough food for a week. They know it’s coming from somewhere and you have it. They want it and what you think are loyal friends suddenly become your adversaries because someone offered them a better deal.
Some will become friends for life, but human nature means some will be jealous of what you have. They envy you because you were prepared and they won't. They despise you because you have what they don't. They see you in a position of regent because you require certain actions in exchange for whatever your barter is. And suddenly it gets lonely at the top. Just because you are generous enough to give them items to survive doesn't mean they won't turn on you at the drop of a hat. Human nature cannot be changed or predicted.
Be wary of making retreat plans with neighbors in mind until it is absolutely certain they will be the best choice to depend on.
#4: The critical thinking in defense
“I don’t need to defend this or that area” or “I have to defend everything” train of thought. Based on manpower (or the lack thereof) one must consider what is critical and needs defending and what can be sacrificed before mounting a counterattack or successful defense. In looking over your defenses, think like the opposition. What areas are critical for my continued survival and have to be defended? What areas are not so critical and need to be defended as manpower dictates? What areas are not important enough and I should plan on covering them as a last resort without stretching my manpower out too thin?
The military calls it the CARVER Matrix. They use it to determine what areas are vulnerable and which ones can be lost without losing mission effectiveness. The acronym stands for Criticality, Accessibility, Recuperability, Vulnerability, Effect and Recognizability. It uses a numbering system that will aid in the highest level of survival to the lowest. So let’s look at a makeshift CARVER Matrix and apply is against a long term survival retreat. I’ll use a well as an example.
Criticality: Highly critical as survival is dependent on a consistent water source
Accessibility: The wellhead itself is somewhat easily accessed depending on type
Recuperability: The well cannot be replaced easily if it is destroyed
Vulnerability: Highly vulnerable as errant gunfire can damage components
Effect: High impact on mission accomplishment as one cannot go long without water
Recognizability: Not as recognizable as other structures
And in using the CARVER Matrix to determine defensive priorities, we can include the water well and nine other items. These are just ten randomly selected items I grabbed off the top of my head and are not an inclusive list.
And in sorting the data, we have highest defensive priority to the lowest.
Going highest to lowest in terms of survival, the highest number is defended first and the lowest is last. So our well would be first priority and the avenues of approach the last. Again, this is something I threw together and is by no means gospel. But one can see the idea behind the CARVER Matrix and how important it can be in planning defenses of a retreat. These numbers will change as location changes at your retreat as water is far more valuable in the Southwest than say the Southeast. Only you can determine what can be lived with or lived without, but at the same time, look at it from the opposition standpoint. Normally hungry people will ignore a well and go straight for the food. Or ignore the generator and go for your weapons. Is electrical power highly critical to your survival or are you off the grid enough to survive without it? And will that generator run without fuel? So what is more important? The generator or the fuel that runs it?
The spreadsheet I put together is assuming the water and ammo supplies will be inside your housing structure which would be defended. And this is why they are lower on the matrix than the crops in the fields. Fields are highly accessible which makes them a larger priority. Lots of folks plan on defending avenues of approach, but forget about the house behind them. Maintaining a watch on avenues of approach is one thing. Providing defensive forces to cover an avenue of approach is different.
I would say use the CARVER Matrix as a guide when determining your defenses. It’s generic enough for anyone to use, but specific enough for individual needs. But you have to determine what you can and cannot live without before applying it to a retreat setting.
#5: The hiding in plain sight myth
Which more or less goes with the location myth but in reality is its own portion. However, some plan on being low key enough to avoid detection. But this is a myth as signs of civilization are always apparent to those who look close enough. Take your bug out cabin in the mountains for example. You have your cabin and enough land to grow enough crops to live comfortably, water from a well, game animals in the local area that can be harvested, etc. Nice location, but you want to keep is a secret. So you go to great extents to conceal the fact it’s being “lived in.” But there are always telltales of occupation. Take this for example…
You move into your cabin and the first thing you do is clean the cobwebs from the windows so you can see better. Maybe sweep the porch, grab that plastic bag that blew in from Lord only knows where and put it in your garbage or bury it, update your woodpile and replace the old tarp on top. Now what signs have you left?
Clean windows are a sign of occupation as is a swept porch. Minor debris and whatnot in a yard is to be expected in an unoccupied location. The hole you dug up will leave signs for a couple of weeks until the soil settles back down and the minor remains are washed away. Your newly cut woodpile will leave sawdust and the wood is a different color as it hasn’t been weathered. Plus there is a distinctive smell of freshly cut wood that lingers. The tarp is new and not frayed as an unoccupied location might be. You are also creating a path in the grass and nearby forest pointing to signs of recent activity.
The point is, no matter what we do to try and hide in plain sight, there is nothing we ever do that cannot hide the fact our retreat is occupied. You can limit the amount of activity, but there is nothing that can be done to “hide in plain sight.”
“I have this doodad that is the best on the market and will always work!” or “My gun is better than your gun because it’s superior!”
Glock lovers unite as this will be the only weapon still firing at D+15 post TEOTWAWKI! Or so the myth goes and the owners will claim. “Yeah, my pistol will last forever because it’s a Glock!” or insert firearm of choice here. Whether it’s a 1911, Glock, Springfield M1A, AKM, tacticool M-4, Remington 870 doesn’t matter. Far too often the reasoning is given for buying said firearm(s) because of the longevity of the design and the parts not breaking. Now I will give Gaston Glock his due when he created a seriously durable pistol, but it is not the “end all be all” of the pistol world as some will claim. Same goes for 1911s, Berettas, Sig-Sauers, CZ, Hi-Points or any other pistols that have been or are manufactured today. Some will last longer than others, but let’s face it; nobody has ever made an unbreakable firearm. How does this translate into a retreat environment? Simple, technology and high speed doodads are not going to keep you alive. They will enhance your efforts to survive, but alone they cannot keep you from getting killed by the ranging hordes.
And in turn, it doesn’t matter about the superiority of your pistol/rifle/shotgun design if you fail to defend your retreat properly and/or do not place the emphasis in the right areas. You can have 100,000 rounds of Black Hills match ammo for your Springfield M25 White Feather and it does you little good when your retreat is overrun. The armament superiority myth comes in full force when the discussion of AK vs. AR15 vs. M1A vs. FAL vs. SKS vs. HK91 vs. Mini-14 comes out. “My gun is better than your gun, my gun’s better than yours!” (And I bet none of you can read that without having the Ken-L-Ration Song stuck in your head for at least 10 minutes)
But anyway, people have a comfortable feeling because they have placed their faith in the ability of their firearms. The death dealing, super rifle concept still has limitations and we often get wrapped up in the debate of how great it is to ignore the limitations of the system itself. And ignoring those simple rules of the limitations of the system itself can be disastrous when we need it the most. In all, firearms are a mechanical device which falls under the following principles:
It can break
It will break
Fixing it will not be easy
These things will happen when Murphy decides it’s best and this is typically when you need it the most
Not to say firearms are not a vital tool in the defense of a retreat, but the lesson to be learned is “don’t get complacent with your system and ignore the limitations of same.”
The same can be said of any technology we use, no matter how primitive it might be. Now I’m not one of those that thinks we should be back to basics on everything, but we often rely on technology to make our retreats run. And in that reliance, we have no backups to the critical systems. Or we lack the knowledge to repair the systems and/or they are too complex to be repaired easily. We end up placing too much faith in technology and not enough in our brainpower and understanding of the systems needed to survive. Sure enough, we may know how to fix things, but can we do without them and go back to basics at our retreat? Do we have the capability to get water when our well breaks? Is our retreat packed away with the spare parts needed to repair our technology if and when it breaks? Do we have secondary and alternate systems in place if and when our items break? Do I need to preposition critical repair items and risk their theft or do I bring them in when I bug out?
In a retreat setting and in a defensive situation, be wary to not be too reliant on technology to survive. When planning defenses and security, take technology out of the equation and see how your plans may change. Technology should enhance your defenses, not replace them.
Just a few rambling thoughts I’ve had on my mind."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Kunio Shiga must have felt like the last man on earth.
The feeble 75-year-old was discovered stranded alone in his small farmhouse on Friday, surrounded by fallen trees, dead pigs and garbage strewn by the deadly March 11 tsunami in Japan.
He doesn't know where his wife is, and his neighbors have all fled his city of Minami Soma because it's within the 12-mile zone of a radiation-leaking plant. Authorities had ordered evacuations but Shiga, who has trouble walking, and was unable to leave.
"You are the first people I have spoken to."
|Saiga 12Ga AK style Semi Auto Shotgun imported by Legion USA, New. |
"Conspiracy theorists are in full force with a Democratic congresswoman even asking the United States Attorney General to investigate the Waukesha County election returns that gave the Supreme Court race to David Prosser, but they might want to call up Arianna Huffington first. That’s because Patch, a new media site in Brookfield that Huffington oversees, reported the Brookfield election returns to the public… on election night.
And they were the same returns the city is reporting now that Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus has finally added Brookfield into the countywide returns. That means there’s no big conspiracy – Nickolaus just didn’t pass the returns on to the state and Associated Press on election night as she should have done. No returns or votes “materialized” – they were reported on election night by a site overseen by one of the most prominent liberals in the country."
1.Obama's strong approval at low of 19%
Shockers from the braindead sheeple below. Just unbelievable, also only 51% prefer getting rid of Obamacare.
2. 65% said funding to Planned Parenthood should continue.
3. 71% favor continued funding to the EPA to enforce its greenhouse gas regulations.
ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Tuan Pham says he was just looking for a peaceful place to put his catholic-based prayer garden. He had a 7 foot Jesus statue custom made in his native Vietnam. He put it in his backyard, overlooking the Mississippi River and the St. Paul skyline.
Pham says he woke up Sunday morning to a wall of flames around his statue. "Right now I'm thinking and praying very hard," he said a few hours later. Family members say someone took wood from Pham's pile and placed it at the base of the statue before lighting it on fire. "You can see evidence on the ground, there's an aerosol can," Pham's son-in-law Dao Phan said.
It may have burned for awhile; Pham's daughter took pictures of her father trying to knock down the flames. Fire investigators were going over the garden a few hours later. If they find evidence of arson, they are expected pass the case on to police.
"It pains me, it's very upsetting. This means a lot to him. This is where he finds joy and where he spends a lot of his time," Phan said about his retired father-in-law.The statue took months to ship. It is a replica of a massive one Pham helped build more than 40 years ago in his hometown of Vung Tau, Vietnam.
Via Weasel Zippers
Large Statue Of Jesus, Vung Tau, South Vietnam
Claude Frédéric Bastiat was born in Bayonne, France on June 29th, 1801. He was orphaned at age nine and raised by relatives. He worked in his uncle's accounting firm and then became a farmer when he inherited his grandfather's farm. After the middle-class Revolution of 1830, Bastiat became politically active and was elected justice of the peace in 1831 and to the Council General (county-level assembly) in 1832. He was elected to the national legislative assembly after the French Revolution of 1848. Bastiat was inspired by and routinely corresponded with Richard Cobden and the English Anti-Corn Law League and worked with free-trade associations in France.
Bastiat wrote sporadically starting in the 1830s, but in 1844 he launched his amazing publishing career when an article on the effects of protectionism on the French and English people was published in the Journal des Economistes and was held to critical acclaim. The bulk of his remarkable writing career, which so inspired the early generation of English translators — and so many more — is contained in this collection.If we were to take the greatest economists from all ages and judge them on the basis of their theoretical rigor, their influence on economic education, and their impact in support of the free-market economy, then Frédéric Bastiat would be at the top of the list. As Murray N. Rothbard noted:
.........we are being treated to the spectacle of the Fool in the White House insulting the public -- again -- and then taking off for another lavish little vacation at taxpayer expense. Interestingly, he sanctimoniously called on congress to grow up and act like adults. In response, Smarmy Harry Reid and Mad Nancy Pelosi and their lackeys immediately began to do just the opposite. Like ten year-olds, they began to out-do each other, seeing who could make the most egregious and totally unbelievable charges about what the Republican's proposed budget cuts would result in.
"I say, if the Republicans are allowed to make their extreme 0.3 percent cuts, 70,000 children will die!" "Well, I say, if the Republicans are allowed to make their extreme 0.3 percent cuts, 500,000 old people will eat dog food and be homeless!" "And I say, if the Republicans are allowed to make their extreme 0.3 percent cuts, it's because they want to stop all medical research and have everyone get cancer!" Wow! Sure sound like grown-ups to me...
"Some told us we should just give up. Others told us we should simply accept the federal judge’s decision and resign ourselves to the fact that the First Amendment is now dead on our college campuses. But the Alliance Defense Fund took my case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in January. And, last week, they issued a landmark defense of First Amendment rights for faculty at public colleges and universities. For the first time in years, I’m getting love mail from liberals.
In my original complaint filed against the University of North Carolina at Wilmington in 2007, my attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund alleged that my application for promotion had been denied in part due to the conservative political viewpoints expressed through my work as a columnist. In a ruling issued in March of 2010, the federal district court rejected our claims. With respect to my First Amendment retaliation charge, the district court found that because I had included the conservative columns in my application for promotion, the content of the columns became speech "made pursuant to (my) official duties"—and thus not protected by the First Amendment."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Spencer Roane, 1821
Dominant Social Theme: The world's economy is a disaster. The IMF is the logical choice to lead the way to a brighter banking future in a consolidated, centralized, world economy. It says so itself.
Free-Market Analysis: Can you hear the whispers coming out of the shadows? Over the past months, we have covered the IMF's increasing efforts to position itself as the world's future central bank and one-world currency issuer. We can see from the above article in Reuters – a chief mouthpiece of the power elite along with the Economist magazine – that the campaign is in no sense winding down. Now the IMF casually, oh-so-casually, floats the idea that it might tap global markets for funding.
Various speculations immediately come to mind. The first is that IMF executives are expecting something big, probably the default of Spain. The idea would be that the EU, which has been struggling with gnats such as Portugal, Greece and Ireland, simply could not handle a default the size of Spain. The IMF has been faithfully at the side of the EU, madly indemnifying Southern PIGS as they fall; but even the IMF could not handle such a bankruptcy, or so we speculate.
Of course, Spanish officials have recently issued a series of statements indicating that Spain is solvent and will remain so, which in our view means a default is almost certainly on the way. Over the weekend, EU officials claimed, as well, that the EU had turned the proverbial corner and that recessionary trends were giving away to recovery. Again, from our point of view, this almost certainly means that the EU is slumping into dire straits, maybe a depression.
Conclusion: One is struck by how fast events are moving. The power elite is hardly bothering to pretend anymore. One paper suggests decades; another paper indicates that instruments might have to be collated tomorrow. Yesterdays' blueprint is applied today; but we can see the articulation beneath the surface and the connections to the Man Behind the Curtain. The great and invisible Oz is neither of these things anymore, but merely visible and obvious. What we tend to see is desperate men running as fast as they can before time runs out.