Friday, August 24, 2012

Persons, Places, and Things: A Moral vs. Physical Dilemma, With Its Own Solution

“Poking holes in people is relatively easy. Poking holes in things, however, can be much more challenging.”

Physically, the above is true and fairly obvious. Morally, however, the reverse is true. Shooting a person takes a tremendous moral leap, while shooting mere inanimate objects is something most of us do regularly, just for fun, and with no moral compunction.

This inverse relationship needs to be explored. As we move forward into the Accelerating Unpleasantness, we need to give some thought to the tactics that this premise suggests, how best to exercise them, and what we need to do now to increase our efficiency should current trends continue.

The “People” Part

In tumultuous times, some Bad People will simply need to be shot.

No getting around it.

However, as both wartime and street-crime experiences show, not everyone is capable of carrying out this action. From my research, it is not always predictable what kind of individual will have the most difficulty taking life. Some are just not cut out for it. Some can tolerate it. Some relish in it – generally not a healthy condition.

Additionally, even for those who can cope with this dark path, doing so is nearly always a significant upping of the ante. In a modern discussion of Freedom versus Oppression, it may be called a “Fort Sumter” level event. It is the ultimate statement of force, with no close second place, and no turning back.

Finally, many times the goals of Freedom can be accomplished with just the warning of more serious action. The figurative and literal “shot across the bow” can alter the course of a ship without spilling blood.

For all of these reasons and more, a serious study of materiel destruction must be undertaken. Today, much that is written about dynamic 4GW focuses primarily on anti personnel action, and rightly so. However, the field of anti-materiel ballistic intervention is only lightly touched on.

Part of this omission is due to the fact that freedom-minded folks have more limited capabilities available for this role. However, a very large part of the gap is due simply to a lack of creative thinking.

Let’s work on the latter.

The “Places” Part

More @ WRSA

Obama: Stupid?

Via Traditions & Skills of Every Day Life

CPX November

Command Post Exercise November (CPX November)

Discussion of the Hypothetical Use of an OpFor False Flag Attack as a FreeFor Line of Departure
Action Date: 9:00 PM EST on Friday, 25 Aug 2012

Termination Date: October 31st 2012
Execution Date: (Hypothetical)


IT IS AN IMPORTANT FACET OF THIS CPX THAT DISCUSSION OF THIS CPX AND ITS OBJECTIVES REMAIN PRIVATE, AS DEFINED BELOW, UNTIL THE ACTION DATE NOTED ABOVE. IT IS ALSO IMPERATIVE THAT FREEFOR STUDY THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS AND ANY PREVIOUS CPX.

Overview

Given the current escalating tensions with Iran and within our own Nation, and the known history of enemies of liberty in escalating and prompting crises to the detriment of the American people, the possibility of a large-scale or widespread false-flag attack on Americans has become a subject of conversation in FreeFor. A growing theme among liberty oriented persons is as follows: Given that such a false-flag attack would represent a crime of unprecedented magnitude, perpetrated upon thousands of innocent people (perhaps millions if executed with a nuclear weapon of whatever scale), the various diverse and often opposing elements of FreeFor could agree that preventing such an event would be of the utmost importance. The conclusion, well-founded or not, of some informal discussions appears to be the use of such a false-flag event as a common trigger for further action.

The objective of this CPX, then, is to provide a context in which to discuss this approach to assist in disrupting any such false-flag attack which may already be in the planning stages, while simultaneously exercising the capability of the FreeFor to act in concert to execute a multi-phase distributed operation at varying levels of private and public visibility, and across boundaries of interest. In this CPX, the discussion of the merits of the use of such a false-flag attack as a hypothetical FreeFor line of departure for local action plans, without discussing those hypothetical action plans themselves, may accomplish these objectives in a nonviolent way which is non-actionable given the current legal environment.

Objectives

1. To explore the possibility, credibility and implications of a false-flag threat, including means by which an inadvertent self-sustaining chain reaction of hair-trigger events might be avoided in non-false-flag circumstances.

2. To act as a confidence-building exercise among all elements of FreeFor across areas of interest, including those remaining within the governmental establishment at all levels, by selecting objectives and implementation goals of the widest possible appeal and which pose the minimum element of risk to the FreeFor participants.

3. To assist the remaining elements of FreeFor within the governmental establishment at all levels to disrupt/expose a possible false-flag attack on Americans by causing the hostile (or rogue) planners to reorient to the implications of this CPX, thus causing increased internal chatter subject to traffic analysis or leakage, which, in turn, increases the risk of the false-flag operation to exposure and blowback if executed.

4. To preserve elements of FreeFor from prosecution by limiting discussion to non-actionable hypothetical discussions of the implications of this CPX.

5. To minimize the interpersonal conflict that often mars FreeFor exercises by using multiple veils of anonymity and a deliberate lack of central control or direction.

6. To demonstrate the capability of FreeFor for communications discipline by two communication phases, one prior to the action date, one after.

7. To preserve the anonymity of covert FreeFor participants by masking their activities and greater number within a larger volume of overt participation.

8. To thwart the desires and actions of OpFor hostiles to use the CPX for its own purposes.

9. To use the assets, desires and actions of OpFor hostiles to discover elements of their influence on and penetration of FreeFor.

10. To develop a model of FreeFor exercises which communicate information in a self-disciplined and self-propagating way using various media.

Definitions

Action Date: The date and time that a planned action is to be implemented. In particular, the action date of this CPX signals the transition of communications about this CPX from private to public means. See also Execution Date.

Covert Participants: FreeFor persons or elements which, for reasons of their own, wish to maintain anonymity.

Execution Date: The date and time at which an important event is to be executed. For the purposes of this CPX, the execution date is purely hypothetical. Within that hypothetical context, the execution date would be the date at which OpFor implements a false-flag attack, or such a false-flag attack is identified as such within a reasonable certainty.

FreeFor: Freedom Forces, which includes any person or group of persons, within or without government, interested in establishing, maintaining, or restoring the rightful place of government as the servant of natural persons along principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights, or other works which promote individual responsibility, liberty and freedom from coercive government, even if not those specific wordings.

Go Code: A pre-arranged signal or event which initiates action.

Hotline: An emergency communication path, whether secured or not, which remains covert prior to use, but which, once used, is likely to be suspect afterward.

Line of Departure: A pre-arranged location or set of circumstances from which operations transition from the preparation phase to the execution phase. Starting execution of a plan is known as "crossing the line of departure".

OpFor: Opposition Forces, typically those hostile elements in domestic or foreign governmental positions opposed to the objectives of FreeFor.

Overt Participants: FreeFor persons or elements which are already well-known to the governmental establishment, and who are taking on little additional risk by participating in this CPX during both the private and public phases.

Private Communication: Any and all exchanges of this CPX and discussions about it which remain limited to peer-to-peer or peer-to-peers (blast) email, voice and personal conversations. Specifically excluded from private communication as defined here are postings on the Internet, blogs, social networking sites, etc.

Public Communication: Any and all exchanges of this CPX and discussions about it using an unrestricted variety of communication media and channels, including, but not limited to, blogs, posted articles, advertisements, flyers, posters, etc.

Specific Actions Requested of Participants

1. Participate in widely disseminating the text of this CPX using communication channels and networks normal and customary to a given participant during the private communication phase as defined below.

2. Participate in widely disseminating the text of this CPX using communication channels and networks normal and customary to a given participant during the public communication phase as defined below.

3. Monitor, to the extent of the individual participant's capability, the emergence of the following, which may indicate potentially disruptive attempts by OpFor elements:

a. Any premature public dissemination of the text of this CPX prior to the action date, as defined below.
b. Any attempt by participants to generate interpersonal hostility or to act as provocateurs to goad creation, revelation or implementation of line of departure plans.

  1. Any attempt by participants to transmit or encourage the transmission of the text of this CPX through hotline or other secure channels.

    IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS CPX INVOLVES THE DISCUSSION OF THE IMPLICATION OF A FREEFOR CROSSING OF THE LINE OF DEPARTURE IN REACTION TO A FALSE FLAG ATTACK UPON AMERICANS, AND NOT THE PROMOTION OF SUCH A LINE OF DEPARTURE CROSSING.

    Assumptions

    1. That hostile elements within the governmental establishment, through various means of data collection and analysis, already have complete knowledge of this CPX. Accordingly, this CPX is structured in such a way that existing hostile knowledge is not only not harmful, but beneficial to the objectives of the CPX.

    2. That these hostile elements desire to act in ways which will disrupt or discredit this CPX, including, but not limited to, provocateurs, misinformation, early triggering and initiation of interpersonal conflict.

    3. That these hostile elements will seek to apply traffic analysis to the execution phases of this CPX to both discover previously unknown FreeFor linkages, or discover previously unknown covert participants or confirm suspected covert participants.

    4. That FreeFor elements answer to no one, but instead apply their own judgment and discretion in taking or not taking any action. Accordingly, portions of this CPX written in the form of orders are merely suggested as recommendations for unified action.

    Operational Principles

    I. Phases

    1. This CPX is divided into three phases:

    a. A private communication phase prior to the action date and time.
    b. A public communication phase after the action date and time.
    c. A hypothetical execution phase which would commence after the implementation of a false-flag attack by OpFor upon Americans.

    2. Although this CPX is assumed to be completely known to hostile forces from inception, division of the CPX into two communication phases allows FreeFor to demonstrate an understanding of communication discipline principles. This two-phase approach also provides multiple opportunities for hostiles to expose themselves through the initiation of early triggering in the private phase, or other disruptive activities in either phase, and in ways which can be detected and noted by FreeFor participants, overt and covert, through passive means and without centralized coordination.

    3. The execution phase is purely hypothetical, and discussion of this phase by participants within the context of this CPX is restricted as detailed below for the protection of all FreeFor participants.

    II. Private Communication Actions Prior to the Action Date.

    1. During the private communication phase, overt participants are encouraged to communicate as widely as possible with other participants, overt or covert, about the content and implications of this CPX using only private communications. To deny hostiles additional information beyond that which they possess prior to this CPX, and for the protection of covert participants, these communications are to use only those linkages which are normal and customary for the participant. Hotline resources are to be specifically prohibited for this CPX in both phases.

    2. The private communication phase is to be limited to communication means which lack permanence beyond the control of the individual participants, hostile recording, interception and storage excluded. Email, texting, handwritten notes, phone and personal conversations are examples of private communications. Blogging, tweeting, discussion with media, or posting of the CPX on social media sites, which have a public and stored nature, are
    specifically excluded during the private communication phase.

    3. The sole exception to the use of public communications prior to the action date are teaser mentions of the CPX on public media, and then only by the single and complete phrase "CPX November", with no other detail about the CPX content or intentions provided. Those persons inquiring about these mentions of "CPX November" should be provided its content during the private communication phase if those persons are within the normal and customary sphere of influence for a given participant.

    An example of a public mention during the private communication phase is a blogger or commenter posting text similar to the following:

    "And be sure to participate in CPX November."
    "Remember, CPX November is coming up."
    "Are you ready for CPX November? I am."

    If a prospective participant then asks about details for the CPX, other participants should provide the prospect with the CPX using private communications if that prospect is within the normal and customary reach of the provider. If not, then an appropriate response would be:

    "Thanks for asking about that. Ask someone you know about CPX November. If they don't know, ask them to ask. When you get CPX November, you will know why it has to be this way."

    Examples of providing the text of this CPX to others within the normal or customary scope of FreeFor communications include:

    "A friend sent this to me. It is an interesting concept that probably should be discussed further." "I am concerned that this idea might have unintended negative consequences. Worth a read."

    4. The lack of public storage of the CPX November details during the private communication phase will assist in not only generating additional teaser interest in the CPX, but will also make it easier for specific covert FreeFor assets to identify potential hostile infiltrations during the private communication phase. If in doubt, don't post. Also, do not assist hostile traffic analysis by providing details of the CPX beyond those prospective participants with which you normally and customarily communicate.
    Avoid being ensnared by hostile fishing expeditions.

    5. Prospective participants are to be treated with respect and encouraged. An "us-versus-them", or "clique" mentality is to be avoided at all times by all FreeFor participants. FreeFor participants are also encouraged to apply their own traffic analyses to identify potential hostile provocateurs attempting to disrupt the CPX through the incitement of interpersonal discord or discouragement of prospects.

    6. During the private communication phase, the text of this CPX is to be distributed as text attachments (word-wrap off) where practical, or as inserted or printed text otherwise. Other file formats, such as PDFs or DOCs, contain tagging information which reveals personal information or transmits viruses should be avoided as a high priority.

    7. Within these restrictions, then, during this phase the CPX should be distributed as widely as possible, encouraging the recipients to in turn widely distribute, in chain letter fashion, to ensure as large a participation as possible on the action date.
    Each Tier Participant should recruit other Militia units, Prepper groups, 2nd Amendment Groups, Threeper Groups, Liberty Bloggers or Constitutional Supporters , who are vetted, trusted and LEVEL HEADED to participate in this CPX.

    III. Public Communication Actions On or After the Action Date

    1. All participants are encouraged to publicly post the CPX content simultaneously on the action date and time in as many media, blogs, etc. as possible. Original postings with the CPX content, or with the CPX text content attached where possible, are more desirable rather than chain-linking back to a single source blog.

    2. During the public communication phase, exposure of the CPX content is encouraged on all communication forms without restriction, other than the hotlines as discussed previously, which are not to be used for the purposes of this CPX at any time. An intention is to create as wide a historical Internet footprint as possible, as well as expose means and personnel by which hostiles attempt to minimize this footprint over time.

    3. During the public communication phase, this CPX can be distributed in any form or file format.

    IV. Principles During Either Communication Phase

    1. A critical component of this CPX is ongoing discussion by participants of the implications of this CPX during either communication phase. However, for the protection of the FreeFor participants, discussion of the execution phase is to be limited to hypothetical discussions of the political/other implications should FreeFor use an OpFor false-flag attack as a line of departure for other covert plans which may or may not be under development. Specifically prohibited as part of this CPX is the initiation, discussion or exploration of such plans. All participants should be alert for potential hostiles who may try to use this CPX to discover or incite specific planning for line of departure actions within the context of this CPX.

    Examples of acceptable discussions within the context of this CPX include:

    "Is OpFor planning a false-flag, and if so, would the possibility of that as a line of departure for FreeFor be likely to disrupt those plans?"
    "How might OpFor use crossing of the line of departure to its own ends, and how might that be mitigated?"
    "How might inadvertent triggering of the execution phase be avoided for legitimate emergencies?"
    "What effect does the existence of CPX November have on the police? On the military?"
    "How might FreeFor identify a false-flag so that it can be used as a valid go-code? Would the rapid availability of "perfect knowledge" be a tipoff?"
    "Does even the discussion of this CPX have a disruptive effect on OpFor?"
    "What other CPXs might we develop to continue to disrupt OpFor?"
    "What benefits does FreeFor derive from exercises like CPX November and how can we amplify that effect?"
    "Outside a false-flag attack by OpFor, what other signals might FreeFor pay attention to?"
    "How can FreeFor overt participants use OpFor infiltration and disruption policies and procedures to assist hostiles in exposing themselves to covert FreeFor participants?"
    "How can FreeFor use traffic analysis and other techniques to hamstring the actions of OpFor by making them depart from establish procedures and thus resort to error-prone improvised operations?"

    Examples of unacceptable discussions within the context of this CPX include:

    "What are you planning to do when crossing the line of departure?"
    "What should I do when crossing the line of departure?"
    "I know a guy/place where you can get X, Y, or Z illegal things to help implement this plan."
    "Who do you know who might cross the line of departure?"

    There is a certain amount of subjectivity as to the dividing line between acceptable discussions within the context of this CPX, and discussions which are specifically outside the context of this CPX. It is expected that
    OpFor will use provocateurs to attempt to goad participants into unacceptable discussions. CPX participants who stray beyond this imaginary line should be gently and respectfully encouraged to review the CPX. FreeFor participants who have been so admonished should exercise diligence in withdrawing to a suitable degree to illustrate their intentions, again, with due respect to all participants. In this way, we create an environment in which hostile provocateurs have ample opportunity to expose themselves, by violating either side of respectful admonishment.

    Remember at all times, the discussion of the implications and practicality of a line of departure crossing in response to a false-flag is the topic of this CPX, not those line of departure plans themselves.

    2. Participants are encouraged to remember that the rules of interpersonal conduct are merely for the purposes of this CPX, and that normal interpersonal squabbles are to continue unabated outside of this CPX.

    3. Within the CPX itself, all participants should be alert to potential hostiles who insist on remaining outside its rules. Detection of potential hostiles who have infiltrated FreeFor is a key objective of this CPX as it uses OpFor's existing policies and personnel limitations to the benefit of FreeFor.

    V. Ongoing Actions

    1. Participants in CPX November are encouraged to continue to promulgate this CPX and its discussions on an ongoing basis. Termination date is October 31st 2012.

    2. Participants in CPX November are encouraged to use the term "CPX November" as a signal at any time in the future to crack through interpersonal squabbles when discussing the premise of this CPX, which is the hypothetical crossing of the FreeFor line of departure in response to a false-flag attack upon Americans by OpFor.

    3. Participants in CPX November are encouraged to use this template to generate their own CPXs in the future. An objective of this CPX is to improve upon the techniques employed here to inculcate and evolve, over time, a credible counterforce to unrestricted hostile action upon FreeFor.

    4. Participants are REQUESTED to take only one specific action *post Activation Date. Each Participant Group or Individual MUST proceed WITHIN 24 hours with an ACTVATION DRILL or ALERT DRILL. The specifics are left up to the participants. This can be as simple as a Call Tree test, a family bug-out drill or a FULL unit Muster and FTX based upon the theoretical premise of this CPX.

    Hypothetical Frequently Asked Questions About CPX November

    Q1. Why should this CPX be transmitted in text form?
    A1. Simple text form is immune to transmission of viruses and other detrimental side-effects. In addition, simple text lacks any potential identifying information.

    Q2. Why should this CPX not be transmitted using secure or hotline channels?
    A2. Two reasons. First, to deny OpFor knowledge of the existence, nature or scope of such channels. Second, a common means to break encryption is to encourage the transmission of a known plaintext through a given secure channel, followed by comparison to the resulting ciphertext.

    Q3. Why is the CPX divided into private and public communication phases?
    A3. Several reasons. First, as a confidence builder and to generate a sense of esprit de corps among the participants. Second, to force OpFor to remain dormant during the private communication phase, or else risk exposing some of their covert assets. This alone requires that OpFor react to FreeFor initiative, causing elements of OpFor to recognize their lack of omnipotence which plants the seeds in their minds of the potential consequences of failure of false-flag missions. Finally, to assist in generating interest in this CPX by teaser mentions of "CPX November" during the private communication phase without the text being publicly available until later in the private communication phase.

    Q4. Why is it acceptable, or even desirable, to publicly mention "CPX November" during the private communication phase?
    A4. As mentioned above, to generate interest by teaser mentions.

    Q5. Why is interpersonal conflict to be carefully monitored in the context of this CPX?
    A5. A common OpFor disruptive tactic is to generate interpersonal conflict. However, to avoid exposing their assets, all participants, including OpFor elements, must maintain decorum, which once again forces OpFor to play by FreeFor rules.

    Q6. Why was the false flag selected as the topic of this CPX?
    A6. This topic was selected because of the timely current interest in potential false flag operations given the growing tensions with Iran.

    Q7. Won't I be exposing my network of contacts by sending this CPX?
    A7. OpFor has likely already mapped the normal network of contacts by each potential CPX participant. This CPX specifically requests participants to only send this CPX to those already in that participant's normal and customary FreeFor discussion paths, thus denying OpFor information about potential "emergency" communication paths.

    Q8. Could this CPX be labeled as an anti-government conspiracy?
    A8. Given the lack of attention to law, justice and ethics by elements of the government today, anything could be considered illegal. However, as long as the First Amendment is presumed to have any relevance, this CPX merely encourages participants to discuss the implications of a FreeFor crossing of the line of departure in response to a false flag, rather than encouraging participants to actually perform such actions. In fact, participants are specifically requested to forego the latter discussions in the context of this CPX as a means of detecting potential OpFor provocateurs.

    Q9. Isn't this CPX equivalent to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? Could it not trigger crazies in response to any perceived false flag?
    A9. This CPX doesn't introduce the concept of crossing the line of departure in response to a false flag, it merely encourages the discussion of this concept, which already exists in the public space. One of the objectives of this CPX is to discuss potential unintended consequences of such a policy, and this is beneficial to reducing the possibility of such undesirable triggers. Stated differently, discussing the implications of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not the same thing as actually yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, nor is it encouraging anyone to do so.

    Q10. During the private communication phase, is it acceptable to store this text on my website, and then link to that text in private emails?
    A10. No. Storing this text on a web server makes it subject to being swept up by a search engine spider, and then appearing in search results. This would violate the intention of the private communication phase, which is to prevent search engines from reporting the full text of the CPX during this phase. Once the public communication phase begins, then this form of storage is an acceptable option.

    Q11. If OpFor already has knowledge of this CPX and potential participants, what is to be gained by the private communication phase?
    A11. As mentioned previously, to demonstrate, both to FreeFor and to OpFor, the capability to perform a decentralized operation as well as to provide an opportunity for interested covert elements of FreeFor to participate in uncovering OpFor moles.

    Q12. If OpFor already has knowledge of the authors of this CPX, why keep their identities concealed?
    A12. To minimize the negative effect of personality conflicts within FreeFor which might interfere with the success of this CPX.

    Q13. Isn't the use of "OpFor" creating deliberate conflict with the government?
    A13. This CPX is not anti-government. This CPX is, however, intended to disrupt the actions of intra-governmental or extra-governemental actors who exceed, or who might conspire to exceed, their lawful authority, while supporting those remaining elements of FreeFor within government who perform their duties within lawful bounds.

    Q14. What if this CPX itself is a probing attempt by OpFor?
    A14. As mentioned previously, it is presumed that OpFor already has knowledge of FreeFor participants, particularly those who are active on the Internet. However, no prospective participant should feel, or be made to feel, any obligation to participate. Instead, such passive, or covert, participants also serve a role by assisting in watching the progress and actions of other particpants and forming their own conclusions.

    Q15. This CPX has some errors and portions could be written better. Should I improve it?
    A15. No. One of the roles of some covert FreeFor participants is to detect at which nodes the CPX has been altered. If a participant chooses to pass the CPX text along, it should be
    done with no modifications. If it must be pasted into email, please paste from the first character through to the last, with no intervening comments inserted.

GEESE MIGRATE SOUTH///STOP///BLACK ICE///STOP///OCCAM'S RAZOR///STOP///THE GRANITE WOMB///STOP///THE BOOK IS CLOSED///STOP///IN FORT REPOSE///END

General G.C. Marshall awards medal to 1st Lt. Ian Moore in 1944

1944_Ian_Moore_N_Gen_<span class=

Enlarged

A Greenbrier Military School graduate and son of Colonel Moore of the school's administration. He was a fighter pilot and killed afterwards. Evidently no time to change into a non-sweat/dirt stained uniform. I assume his unit's patch was blanked out due to security. This must have been before December 16 as Marshall was made a 5 star then and for some strange reason, I cannot bring up this award date as I have done previously. Also, as I remember, this was a Silver Star, but no record also and I can't for the life of me believe that a 4 star would present anything less than a Silver Star. Whatever, Moore saw his duty and did it until the end.

My military school rifle team

1959_Rifle_Team_Cosby.jpg
1959 Greenbrier Military School Rifle Team
The school won quite a few William Randolph Hearst Trophies.

Strange. Don't know why everyone didn't have their rifles in the picture. All other years did. I remember once when I shot a hole in the roof as I was adjusting from kneeling to prone.:)
Enlarged

RNC Continues to Play Dishonestly with Paul Delegates

0520-ron-paul-minnesota.jpg_full_600

Freedom Outpost
VERBATIM POST

Well ladies and gentlemen, we are down to the wire and it seems the the Republican National Committee and the Romney campaign will do anything to keep from having any opposing voice to presumptive nominee Mitt Romney. While I understand that there are those who disagree with Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, it is disturbing that they are not raising their voices against the presumptive nominee in the heavy handed way that he and the RNC have tried to silence opposition, specifically that of the Ron Paul delegates.

Politico reports,

Using a mix of charm and procedural hardball, Mitt Romney’s campaign and his allies who control the Republican National Committee have ensured that the Texas congressman will neither speak nor be formally nominated at next week’s convention. It’s a significant victory for Romney, who could have been faced with a raucous rebellion from the Paul crowd if he hadn’t extended an early, and diplomatic, olive branch to what’s become a key constituency.

The libertarian septuagenarian controls the state delegations from Nevada, Iowa and Minnesota. But a candidate needs five states to be officially recognized on the floor. Paul supporters have made claims to Louisiana, Massachusetts, Oregon, Oklahoma and Maine. But Romney’s coterie of lawyers skillfully used the rules and interpersonal negotiations to peel each away.

The 168-member Republican National Committee approved a report Thursday by the Romney-friendly “committee on contests” that invalidated Paul delegates elected in Maine based on irregularities at the state convention. The RNC voted to split the at-large delegation in half, effectively depriving Paul of control.

The problem in the report and with the RNC’s framing of what actually took place is an outright lie. Paul has a plurality of states and has had them for some time. Cable news outlets, as well as, other media outlets and blogs acknowledged that months ago. But the article went on to say,

To dissuade Paul supporters from disrupting this week’s pomp and circumstance, the Romney campaign and its surrogates have bent over backward to show respect to the Paul forces. There have been months of previously unreported, behind-the-scenes phone calls and meetings between Romney and Paul acolytes to try to build bridges and reach compromise agreements. The establishment made significant concessions on the platform to the Paul folks even before the group convened, and then they allowed up-or-down votes on proposals from Paul supporters during pre-convention meetings at the Marriott hotel here.

Here’s the problem with that statement. There should not be a “bending over backwards” to show respect. In fact, both the Romney campaign and the RNC have done everything they can to strip Paul of the delegates won by following the delegation process. They demonstrated that this week, when, after stripping Paul of delegates in Massachusetts and Louisiana, they then allowed some of them back in, as if being gracious. But, they were not gracious, because then they turned right around and stripped all of the Paul delegates from Maine. The governor of Maine has threatened to boycott the convention if the Paul delegates aren’t seated.

While some may not like Ron Paul, for the most part, many who would not vote for him based on foreign policy acknowledge that much of his domestic policy they agree with. Then the question becomes, why would they not want that domestic policy in their party’s platform? Why would they not want to be heard? what is there to fear in having voices within your party that have good ideas and those ideas being brought to the floor of the convention. After all the convention is not a coronation ceremony, though that is what is being attempted here. The convention is to establish a platform and determine the best man to stand on that platform.

Sadly, the manipulations of the RNC breaking it’s own rules over and over have been well documented in video and report and yet they just keep right on doing it.

I’m beginning to wonder if next week we might just see some real fireworks from the liberty caucus over the manipulation of delegates to the convention and hear an outcry of injustice. After all we’ve been told that Romney has this all wrapped up. If that was the case, then why strip delegates from someone that the RNC claims will not be allowed to speak or even be cast into nomination at the convention, though, according to their rules he has a right to. However, even this week the RNC tried to change that rule. They tried to change the rule of being on the ballot from a plurality of delegates from five states to ten. That was struck down by one vote and was called for what it was, which was an attempt to keep Paul off the ballot.

The word now is that the RNC wants to push the nomination up to Monday partly because of concerns from Ron Paul supporters and of course the possibility of a Hurricane in their area.

I’ll leave you with this, which is a clear and concise four minutes of how things have shaped up in the past week from Ben Swann’s Reality Check:


Alaric, St. Bartholomew and the British

The Moneychanger

On 24 August 410 Alaric & his Visigoths sacked Rome, not as in "dismissed from employment" but as in burn, rob, pillage, & rape. Then they settled down in Italy to become Italians, except for the ones who became Spaniards or Frenchmen. Basically all of Europe was re-peopled by Germans of one brand or the other, except for a few Celts clinging to the Celtic fringe, and the Basques. That's what makes European rivalries so amusing. It's as if they're saying, "Our Germans are better than your Germans!"

On 24 August 1574 began the St. Bartholomew's day massacre in Paris, then spread to other cities for over a month. From 3,000 to 79,000 Protestant Huguenots were murdered.

On 24 August 1814 British forces captured Washington, DC and set fire to the White House & the Capitol. I wonder how much it would cost to get 'em to come do that again?

Southern Statesmen of the Old Regime



BF Moore

"Father Of The NC Bar"

My great, great grandfather.

Enlarged

========================

With the exception of Washington, early American statesmen of the South were primarily drawn from the middle class and rose to prominence at the bar. De Tocqueville noted in his “Democracy in America”: “In America there are no nobles or literary men, and the people is apt to mistrust the wealthy, lawyers consequently form the highest political class and the most cultivated circle of society.”

Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"

Southern Statesmen of the Old Regime:

"A fact of greatest importance is that the profession [of law] corrected certain inevitable tendencies toward aristocracy in the South. The bar was attainable by every aspiring young man, and success waited upon intelligence, probity and industry. The young man of the humblest origin came to the bar and succeeded if he had the capacity...There are no better illustrations of this than Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay.

It was thus very largely to the influence of the bar, that while the South indisputably presented certain features of aristocracy, it was essentially democratic. It is not true, as soon often asserted, that there were two classes of whites in the South---the aristocracy and the "trash." The aristocrats, so named, the old families of large, landed estates, were comparatively few in number, and the "poor white trash" less numerous than is generally believed. The great body of Southern whites did not belong to either class, but were plain average, middle-class people, intelligent, of sound morals, independent and patriotic. There was, probably, no part of the South where this good element of the population was not in the majority. It furnished many of the more prominent lawyers, and by its numerical strength, enforced a regard for itself which sometimes degenerated into demagogy.

Nothing could be more absurd than the conception of the South as the home of a domineering, haughty, slave-holding aristocracy, without any other white population than the "crackers" and the mountaineers, to whom recent fiction has assigned so many and such varieties of uncouth speech. That the rich slaveholders had an influence disproportionate to their numbers, such as wealth always gives, is true, of course, but the middle class of respectable and intelligent whites, often slaveholders to a limited extent but in no degree aristocratic, in fact or in pretense, was everywhere in the majority, and it was from this class that the bar was most largely recruited.

Let us examine the antecedents of a few of the great Southern lawyers and political leaders. If we leave out Washington, the most conspicuous names in the Old South are Jefferson, Clay, Jackson and Calhoun. Not one of these was of Cavalier blood or, strictly speaking, of the aristocratic class. Another fact worthy of mention is the record of Southern statesmen of the old regime. It is enough to say that without exception...the great statesmen of the South before the war were men of unquestioned integrity and of sincere patriotism. By force of intellect and of character they long exerted a controlling influence in affairs and almost, without exception, deserved and received public respect and confidence...they were strong, fearless, capable, honorable men, strenuously and genuinely patriotic, and their long ascendancy in affairs of state was marked by efficiency, honesty, economy, and fidelity to duty."

(History of the Literary and Intellectual Life of the Southern States (Vol. VII), Joshua W. Caldwell, Southern Publication Society, 1909, pp. 347-351)


Southern Statesmen of the Old Regime

Mystery Surrounding 1.2 Billion Rounds Of Ammo Solved

Via Michael Downing



............And here’s why the U.S. has procured 1.2 billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition, according to Wiles. Moreover, according to him, the Russians appear to be correct in their assessment: the American people are so distracted by lives of entertainment, of consumption and of derelictions of civic duty, that the Russian plan to destroy America from within is quite achievable.

“Let’s not forget that the real person running [Department of] Homeland Security is not Janet Napolitano, it is Valarie Jarrett, the communist,” Wiles explains. “And her father-in-law was Vernon Jarrett, who was a close confidant of Frank Marshal Davis, Barrack Obama’s communist mentor.

“And so, I’m going to continue to say on this radio program that, I believe Valarie Jarrett and David Axelrod, and these other commies are the real architects of this sinister plan to stockpile 1.2 billion rounds of ammo throughout the country.

“That it is not for law enforcement; it is to be turned over to a communist revolutionary army in this country.”

Wiles goes on to say that most Americans don’t realize that President Barrack Obama is a communist. “They don’t know it,” and “they don’t care,” says Wiles.

But, when the communist takeover is unleashed, presumably by a false-flag event or dollar devaluation, the American people will be in shock, he adds, just as Russians were shocked by the Bolshevik revolution and the rise of Joseph Stalin, the man who’s credited with the extermination of approximately 80 million Russians during his reign.

“An old fashion communist revolution is on the way,” says Wiles, suggesting, too, that that fact will become apparent soon enough, executed very quickly, and will shock, yet, another nation along history’s many roads to Communism.

More @ Market Daily News

John Randolph of Roanoke

Via Ryan

John Randolph of Roanoke By David Johnson

$31.99

John Randolph of Roanoke—he added the “of Roanoke” to his name in his mid-30s while serving in Congress—was born into one of Virginia’s first families. As such he was a wealthy plantation owner with hundreds of slaves (whom he freed upon his death). He was also a leading “Quid” (from the Latin Tertium Quid—the third something), believing the “old Republican party is already ruined, past redemption.” The Quids were southern (typically Virginian) ex-Jeffersonians who had broken with Jefferson and the Republicans because they found the Jeffersonians too willing to make use of the federal government. The Quids wanted the federal government to shrink to close to nothing, believing only this could guarantee the survival of liberty. David Johnson’s John Randolph of Roanoke is the first biography of Randolph since an earlier one by another conservative, Russell Kirk.

Randolph was elected to the House of Representatives at the age of twenty-six and spent most of his active career in its chamber, being too effective a debater (with invective that makes moderns like Newt Gingrich look like amateurs), and for six years chair of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. He also briefly served as a Senator and minister to Russia.

Randolph’s break with Jefferson was initiated by Yazoo—the huge fraudulent land transaction by a bribed Georgia legislature in the mid-1790s (supposedly annulled by a subsequent legislature). With settlers entering Alabama and Mississippi, it became imperative to straighten out land titles, and the way to do so was with federal money to extinguish Georgia’s claims. Jefferson appointed James Madison, Albert Gallatin, and Levi Lincoln (the three leading cabinet members) to study the issue, and they recommended federal purchase. Randolph was outraged, believing the issue was entirely one of state sovereignty, and he split with the party, and managed to block the transaction for a decade (until he was defeated for Congress by a son-in-law of Jefferson). After Yazoo, Randolph seemingly opposed everything: Jefferson’s embargo, the declaration of war in 1812 (leading to his election defeat), rechartering the Bank of the United States, the Missouri Compromise.

If Randolph turned on Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, he nevertheless maintained a thirty-year friendship with John Marshall who he considered “the first man of Virginia, if not in the Union.” While everyone (save Jefferson) liked the easy going Marshall, the Chief Justice was Randolph’s political polar opposite—the most successful nationalist of the Jeffersonian era. Marshall-Randolph were truly a political odd couple.

David Johnson amply backs up the summation of John Quincy Adams on Randolph: “Egotism, Virginia aristocracy, slave-scourging, liberty, religion, literature, science, wit, fancy, generous feeling, and malignant passions constitute a chaos in his mind, from which nothing orderly can flow.” This is what makes John Randolph of Roanoke a book worth reading; he was one of the most interesting figures of the Jeffersonian era who has been largely lost for years.

Honor in the Valley of Tears

Re-post.
He refused radiation when he was given his cancer diagnosis to go to the reunion and died in 2010

Honor in the Valley of Tears

================

Honor in the Valley of Tears

The story of A-Company 1/8 4th Infantry Division, US Army during the Vietnam War from 1965 to 1967. In the men's own words, through the stories they narrate, the film gives us insight into the time these men spent together and the bond they formed that remains unbroken to this day. The 4th Infantry Division is one of the only divisions that trained and retained its troops during the Vietnam War. The men of A-Company trained together for eleven months and served together for one year.

Their story begins with basic training at Ft. Lewis Washington in 1965 and continues 40 years later at their last reunion in September 2007. Filming began September 27, 2007 in Houston, Texas during a reunion to honor First Sergeant David H. McNerney, who is the only living member of the 4th Infantry Division to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor. He was celebrated by the men he trained and served with and who's lives he saved on March 22, 1967. Conceived by executive producer John A. Ponsoll, whose father served with A-Company and had documented his tour of duty with a Kodak slide camera, the film honors the memory of A-Company 1/8 and documents their incredible courage and dedication to one another.

============

1SG McNerney was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Johnson for his actions at Polei Doc, Republic of Vietnam on March 22, 1967. 1SG McNerney took command of his company during an attack in which all of the officers were killed or wounded by a numerically superior North Vietnamese force. Of the 108 men from Co A, 1st Bn, 8th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division - 22 were killed and 43 wounded on that day.

Footnote: The next day they found over 400 NVA graves or bodies around the perimeter. This company went on to fight more intense engagements during the war. Remarkable outfit. The full movie is a killer.

Obama Campaign Stop Protest

Via Cousin Bill



President Obama held a campaign event in Clifton, Virginia on July 14th, prompting about 250 local residents to welcome him. Here's a short video of that event. Produced by NOVA Digital Films

Pushback begins: Opposition to downstate 2nd Amendment rebellion from surprising locations…

Via Don




(Guns Save Life.com) – Yesterday, the McLean County State’s Attorney Ron Dozier released a statement to the media (republished below) saying that he would not prosecute FOID-card holders who are arrested for merely exercising Heller and McDonald affirmed 2nd Amendment rights.

As we mentioned in our original news release ahead of the announcement, all sorts of higher ups in Illinois are highly consternated over Dozier and his peer in Edwards County, Mike Valentine’s, refusal to prosecute Illinois laws they see as unconstitutional.

Today, the pushback begins.

The McLean County Sheriff Mike Emery, who has long claimed to be a supporter of right to carry, says his office will continue business as usual when it comes to arresting FOID card holders who are carrying guns in violation of Illinois law.

The incoming State’s Attorney Jason Chambers harshly denounced Dozier’s policy change as “reckless” in an article in the Bloomington Pantagraph. Chambers has previously claimed to also be supportive of right-to-carry laws.

“Doing things in this manner is reckless. The job of the state’s attorney is to enforce the laws of the State of Illinois,” said Dozier’s presumed successor who is running unopposed in the November election.

We at Guns Save Life believe Jason should read a copy of the Constitution and the Heller and McDonald decisions and rethink that statement. Jason’s job is to uphold the Constitution, not “just do your job” and enforce the law if it is unconstitutional. “Just following orders” was the Nuremberg Defense.

More @ GSL



Grass beer:)

Via dashing


The Schmidt Hydra Coupe

Via szhaman



Bar sign

Via dashing
This pub does not serve women

10 POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUN RULES


Shooting outside Empire State Building; Gunman dead

In no-gun heaven, no less..........


A gunman opened fire outside the Empire State Building Friday morning injuring 10 people, according to police.

The gunman was also shot and killed, said police. It is not clear if the shooter was shot by police.

Fox 5 News has learned that the gunman had been fired from his job in the last two years. One of the victims had a grievance with the gunman, multiple sources confirmed to FOX 5 News.

Sources tell the Associated Press that the shootings stemmed from a "work place dispute."

More @ Fox


Florida Town Buys 9-Ton Emergency TK-4 Tactical Vehicle to “Provide Residents Extra Protection During Hurricanes”

Via David DeGerolamo


Should really keep those hurricanes at bay............

The TK-4 has 11 ASI machined exterior gun ports: 8 standard gun ports and 3 sniper gun ports with a 7” opening for sniper rifles.

  • The TK-4 roof hatch has armor piercing shield protection, and ASI’s exterior sniper gun port gives the team a clear view to any impending threat. A rotating turret has a 360° turning radius. The interior sniper step allows easy access to the roof.
  • The TK-4 is standard with ASI’s “outrigger” extended running boards that allow the tactical team additional solid footing while riding on the exterior of the vehicle.
  • All TK-4 front doors have the capability to lock open at a 90° angle as well as a 45° angle allowing the team shield coverage. ASI’s gap shield with armor piercing protection gives complete door coverage at all angles.

More @ 4closureFraud