FINAL NOTICE (18 September) : 8th NC PATCON September 30 - October 5th 2015Pictures: 6th NC PATCON October 1st - 6th 2014
AAR - 6th NC PATCON October 1st - 6th 2014
6th NC PATCON October 1st - 6th 2014
NC Spring PATCON 2014 Pictures
2013 Fall NC PATCON Pictures
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Here’s the key bit: “Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Muslim world.”
When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to “grow the economy.” He does not swear to institute “fairness.” The only oath the President takes is this one:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (It’s just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that’s what’s happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.
He won’t resign, of course. First, the President has the appreciation of free speech that one would expect from a Chicago Machine politician, which is to say, none. Second, he’s not getting any pressure. Indeed, the very press that went crazy over Ari Fleischer’s misrepresented remarks seems far less interested in the actions of an administration that I repeat, literally sent brown-shirted enforcers to launch a midnight knock on a filmmaker’s door.
But Obama’s behavior — and that of his enablers in the press — has laid down a marker for those who are paying attention. By these actions he is, I repeat, unfit to hold office. I hope and expect that the voters will agree in November.Related thoughts from Ann Althouse:
That’s a scarf wrapped around his face, not a “towel.” Is the L.A. Times nudging us to think of this man as a “towelhead”? And look at this headline in the Daily Mail: “The man who set the Middle East ablaze hides his face in shame….” Shame? If I were imputing a motivation to this man, I’d say he has a fully justified fear of becoming a recognizable face.
But I think our government is delusional if it thinks the people who are rioting in Africa and killing our diplomats would — if they knew the facts — see individuals like Nakoula as the proper focus of their rage. They don’t believe the necessary premise: freedom as the superior value. As long as they favor a system in which blasphemy is outlawed and severely punished, they will continue to blame the American government for standing back and allowing blasphemy to flourish and flow everywhere. What good does it do to ask them to please understand our system? They hate this system.
Meanwhile, our government would scapegoat a
freecitizen. It’s not even effectual scapegoating.
Note Althouse’s strikethrough. You are not “free” when police can come to your door after midnight and demand that you “come downtown and answer a few questions” over a film you’ve made. Voluntarily, of course. . . .
It’s the deputies who should be covering their faces out of shame, but the real shame is on the man at the top of the hierarchy.
UPDATE: Reader J.M. Hanes writes: “I went berserk over the L.A.T. Nakoula photo too, but on top of the brownshirted Constitutional debacle, one incredibly consequential point has gotten lost in the shuffle: Could any visual more effectively reinforce the Arab street’s belief that the U.S. government can, in fact, punish blasphemers if it so chooses?”
Good point, and it ties in well to these comments by Eugene Volokh.
Behavior that gets rewarded, gets repeated. (Relatedly, “once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane.”) Say that the murders in Libya lead us to pass a law banning some kinds of speech that Muslims find offensive or blasphemous, or reinterpreting our First Amendment rules to make it possible to punish such speech under some existing law.
What then will extremist Muslims see? They killed several Americans (maybe itself a plus from their view). In exchange, they’ve gotten America to submit to their will. And on top of that, they’ve gotten back at blasphemers, and deter future blasphemy. A triple victory.
Would this (a) satisfy them that now America is trying to prevent blasphemy, so there’s no reason to kill over the next offensive incident, or (b) make them want more such victories? My money would be on (b).
And this is especially so since there’ll be plenty of other excuses for such killings in the future. It’s not like Muslim extremists have a clearly defined, unvarying, and limited range of speech they are willing to kill over (e.g., desecrating Korans and nothing but). Past history has already proved that; consider the bombings and murders triggered by the publication of the Satanic Verses.
What’s more, there are lots of people in the Muslim world who are happy to stoke hostility. . . . That’s why it seems to me to actually be safer — not just better for First Amendment principles, but actually safer for Americans — to hold the line now, and make clear that American speech is protected even if foreigners choose to respond to it with murder. That would send the message, “murder won’t get you what you want.” Not a perfectly effective message to be sure, but a better one than “murder will get you what you want.”
Read the whole thing. Especially if you work in the White House or the Justice Department.
ANOTHER UPDATE: More from Donald Sensing. “There is no possible justification for voting for this man in November. None, period.”
And reader Joel Mackey writes: “For the people that think that man had it coming due to prior run ins with the law, they should realize that they commit 3 felonies a day, the feds have all the reason they need to knock on your door at midnight, if you cause problems for them.” Yes, given that the laws are so complex that pretty much everyone is a felon, prosecutorial discretion rules. And that discretion needs to be bounded by political norms that you don’t abuse it just to go after people who express ideas you don’t want expressed. Those norms come from the First Amendment, but if there’s no cost to violating them, they won’t last.
I learned that coal mines ruin the landscape, but wind turbines do not.
I learned you can pull power out of wind and not reduce its available power to blow, so there will be no environmental effect.
I learned we have magic technology that lets us place wind turbines on the ocean, on land including mountaintops and in the upper atmosphere all at the same time, without affecting landscape or environment.
I learned that wind turbines, if taken to a maximum level, will "only" use 15% of the world's supply of neodymium, assuming we extract it all and don't use more of it for other high power magnet applications.
I learned that Big Wind has isn't biased and has no agenda, because it serves a liberal purpose.
Given all that, I say we should immediately start building more wind farms, and strike their tax credits, so they can contribute positively to society. It would be wrong to allow those wind fatcats to make windfall profits on this.
Blame the movie.
Blame the movie.
Blame the movie.
Even though "the movie" was on YouTube for months prior to the collective indignation of thousands of Middle Eastern Islamists all coming together on the eleventh anniversary of September 11th (through a wild coincidence, no doubt), we are being told by our government and our media overlords that we must blame the movie.
You see, if we blame the movie for the burning of our foreign outposts and the brutal murders of four Americans (including our Libyan ambassador who was reportedly raped), we won't blame the burners and the looters and the murderers and the rapists.
You see, if we blame the movie for the Middle East burning, we won't blame the Islamists who are doing the burning and looting and raping and murdering.
Which means we won't further connect the dots and blame Obama's failed Middle East policy; the Obama Doctrine of backing away from the region and allowing events to unfold as America stands idly by -- as the Islamists in the Muslim Brotherhood grab hold of power in Egypt, a country that was once our largest and closest ally.
Blame the filmmaker.
And all at the direction of a president of the United States who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, you know, the same Constitution that treasures the right of free expression and speech above all else.
More @ Breitbart
On Friday, authorities arrested a man in an attempted suicide attack on the U.S. Capitol. The attempt marks at least the 45th publicly known attempted terrorist attack against the United States since 9/11 and is the sixth such attack targeting Washington, D.C.
This latest attempted attack serves as yet another reminder of the importance of maintaining strong counterterrorism tools. Terrorists continue to seek to harm the U.S. The nation must not become complacent.
Attempted Suicide Attack
Amine El Khalifi, a 29-year-old Moroccan man present in the U.S. illegally, was arrested on Friday on his way to the U.S. Capitol. El Khalifi was carrying an automatic weapon and a suicide vest laced with what he believed to be explosives.
A statement by Capitol Police indicates the “arrest was the culmination of a lengthy and extensive operation during which the individual was closely and carefully monitored.” Sources indicate that El Khalifi has been under investigation for over a year.
Undercover FBI agents, whom El Khalifi believed to be al-Qaeda operatives, provided him with what he believed to be explosives and a gun to carry out his attack. The public, however, was never in danger as the FBI agents had rendered the weapons inoperable. El Khalifi allegedly discussed a number of targets—including military installations, U.S. Army generals, a restaurant, and synagogues—before settling on the U.S. Capitol.
More @ The Heritage Foundation
"I'm not a pacifist, but I do think it's unacceptable not to hate war. I'm dismissive of those who champion war as sport, and show no reluctance to engage in war. Any leader who shows eagerness for war should not be leading any nation. Truly great leaders are reluctant to go to war and try mightily not to go to war. Though I detest violence, I could kill someone who injured or threatened my family. Though I hate war, I could commit a nation to war. But I could only do so reluctantly, and constitutionally, and after great deliberation. I believe that, although some find this a contradiction of terms, there is such a thing as a Christian or a just theory of war. A just war is a war of self-defense. At the same time, I am conflicted because I don't believe Jesus would have killed anyone or condoned killing even in self-defense. I'm conflicted. The coarsening of our culture toward violent death has more consequences than even violent war. Tragically, this same culture has led to the death of 50 million unborn children in the last 40 years. I don't think a civilization cannot endure that does have respect for all human life, born and unborn.
We have many problems in this country to solve, but I believe there will come a time when we are all judged on whether or not we took a stand to defend all life, from the moment of conception until our last natural breath.... I will always take a stand for life. Though I believe in limited powers for the federal government, primary among these powers is the protection of life. The government cannot protect liberty if it does not first protect life.... The First Amendment is here to keep government out of religion, not to keep religious people out of government.... There's a crisis in our country and it's not just a fiscal crisis. I think it's a moral crisis. I think it's a spiritual crisis. I don't think the answer is in any politician. I don't think the answer is in any particular law. I think the answer is that we need to somehow find our way back to God, and I think we find that way by taking the time to reflect on what the important things in life really are. I hope we will find that, I hope we will reflect, and I hope we will find spiritual renewal as a country."
--Senator Rand Paul
The left hand has long been associated with deviance. The word “sinister” originally meant “to the left” in Latin. The word “left” comes from the Old English word lyft, which literally meant “weak, foolish.”
One of the sloop's boats is shown alongside the British vessel debarking a boarding party. Armed Federals may also be seen on the St Pierre’s deck. A second boat is seen pulling away containing an armed party with possibly the ship's captain for questioning. This painting was descended through the family of the Emily St. Pierre’s steward who; in an interesting historical note; assisted the ship's master; Captain Wilson and two crew members in recapturing the vessel from the American prize crew.
The Emily St. Pierre was another blockade-runner, owned by the Trenholm Company. Her captain was William Wilson, a Scotsman. On 18th March 1862 after sailing from Calcutta, the ship was nearing the bar at Charleston, when the captain of one of the blockading ships, the USS James Adger, having this vessel on his list of suspected ships, stopped the Emily St. Pierre on the grounds that her British registration was illegal and, it was noted that the cargo of saltpetre was also listed as contraband. The Federal captain also pointed out the name ‘Charleston’ was found on many of the items and the ship's name had been scraped from her stern, plus the fact Wilson himself had been seen throwing a package over the side, adding to the overall suspicions.
Following its capture, the Confederate seamen were removed from the ship with the exception of the cook, Louis Schelvin and a steward, Matthew Montgomery, plus Captain Wilson who was ordered to take his ship to Philadelphia. This determined Scotsman however, hatched a plan to recapture his ship and he drew the cook and the steward into his plan. Whilst Lieutenant Josiah Stone, the acting master, was on watch duty, they bound and gagged the mate while he was asleep. In another room the engineer was treated in a similar manner.
Captain Wilson then requested that Lieutenant Stone should come to his cabin on the pretext of checking a chart, as he was not sure they were correct. On the way Stone was threatened with an iron bar, at which point the steward who was following them, gagged him so he could not raise the alarm. Captain Wilson, now having taken the Lieutenant’s gun, ushered three men into a hatch, saying it was on the orders of the Lieutenant, and locked them in. The helmsman was also put in the hatch at gunpoint. As the watch from below stumbled out onto the deck they were tied up in pairs. One reckless crewman drew a knife and was immediately shot for his foolhardiness. This quickly induced the others to surrender. In total there were fourteen in the prize party, including the mate and Lieutenant Stone.
Captain Wilson had now regained control of his vessel but remained some 3,000 miles from Liverpool with only the cook, and a steward, who could neither reef, nor steer. Eventually the Emily's new prisoners agreed to assist as best they could although there was only one of them who could steer a little. The Captain had to lie aloft and perform the duties normally done by the seamen on board as he could tell a storm was brewing. Later, after the storm passed, he worked for twelve hours, rigging up a jury rudder as the tiller had been damaged.
On the 3rd May 1861 Captain wilson received a presentation of a gold Chronometer and china Tea Service paid for by 170 local merchants. Additionally, the Mercantile Marine Service Association presented him with a gold Medal and a sum of £2,000 was paid by the owners. Both Louis Schelvin, and Matthew Montgomery were each presented with a purse of twenty guineas and a silver Medal. The owners also gave them £300 each.
The Sidney, Neb.-based retailer and other companies in the guns-and-ammo business say if Mr. Obama wins a second term they are preparing for a surge in sales-the same as they saw after he was elected in 2008-from buyers fearful the president would back policies to make buying a gun more difficult. If Republican challenger Mitt Romney wins, though, the chain plans to stock more items such as waterproof boots and camouflage hunting gear.
More @ WSJ
.308 175 grain hollow point boat tail
Surprise! The DHS Immigration and Customs Enforcement have requested more ammunition.
However, it is the type of ammunition and not necessarily the quantity that is troubling.
First on the agenda is the .223 rifle ammunition. Just a measly 40 million rounds in the first year, and another 160 million rounds in the following four years. 200,00 million rounds in total. You know, just enough to make you cringe thinking that some government office that is not military has more ammunition than you do.
The .223 caliber round is a decent hunting round, but that is not the rounds to be concerned about.
The .308 rounds should have you a bit concerned. Quite a bit concerned.
The blank ammunition will be spread to five different locations in the American south east and in Puerto Rico. The regular ammunition will be spread all over the US in a variety of places.
Blank ammunition? Why blank ammunition?
Well, as it turns out blank ammunition is fantastic for putting on a show. Blank ammunition is used in theatrics (hmmm?) but also is used to help teach new shooters to develop trigger and breathing control.
Nevertheless, have no fear; DHS only needs 25,000 rounds to develop good sniper skills.
Because, they have also ordered 176,000 rounds of the .308 caliber hollow point boat tail (HPBT) rounds.
Boat tail ammunition is incredibly accurate ammunition. From the legal opinion from the US Navy JAG in support of using hollow point ammunition:
More @ Prepper Podcast
Red State Virginia
I served 22 years in the United States Army through some of the most dangerous times in our lifetime.
I not only went everywhere they told me to go, I volunteered to go where others did not want to go for fear of injury or death.
I did this for love of my country and the defense of freedom for my countrymen.
In my entire career I never feared death because I was a U.S. Soldier and a member of the best trained and equipped military force in the world.
There was one thing I did fear however, and that is that my life would be wasted by a politician.
That I might be sent to some remote piece of ground to die for a political talking point, or worse yet that I might be hamstrung by orders that would not even allow me to defend myself in the face of an attack.
The fear that my children would be fatherless and my wife a widow for a political maneuver. It comes with the turf when you serve your country, but it is always in the back of your mind.
That has happened in Libya and two brave SEALS, a U.S. Ambassador, and another whose name and identity I have not yet heard have not only died, but were murdered in a most disgraceful manner.
And for what?
The failed “Foreign Policy” of Barack Hussein Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
It has been disclosed that the brave individuals that died were not even afforded the luxury of ammo with which to defend themselves and our country’s sovereign ground. Perhaps the State Department feared that some of the murderers might be injured unnecessarily?
The events that are unfolding in far-flung reaches of the Islamic world were absolutely foreseeable, and measures have not been taken to defend our sovereignty and protect our personnel that trusted our government to have their back.
Instead, our “Leaders” apologized to the killers.
And our President?
He continues to campaign for re-election as the world burns down around us.
I am appalled, disgusted, and deeply saddened.
Google rejected a request by the White House on Friday to reconsider its decision to keep online a controversial YouTube movie clip that has ignited anti-American protests in the Middle East.
The Internet company said it was censoring the video in India and Indonesia after blocking it on Wednesday in Egypt and Libya, where U.S. embassies have been stormed by protestors enraged over depiction of the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud and philanderer.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in a fiery siege on the embassy in Benghazi.
Google said was further restricting the clip to comply with local law rather than as a response to political pressure.
"We've restricted access to it in countries where it is illegal such as India and Indonesia, as well as in Libya and Egypt, given the very sensitive situations in these two countries," the company said. "This approach is entirely consistent with principles we first laid out in 2007."
White House officials had asked Google earlier on Friday to reconsider whether the video had violated YouTube's terms of service.
Google said on Wednesday that the video was within its guidelines.
More @ Newsmax
A Wisconsin judge on Friday struck down nearly all of the state law championed by Gov. Scott Walker that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for most public workers.
Walker's administration immediately vowed to appeal, while unions, which have vigorously fought the law, declared victory. But what the ruling meant for existing public contracts was murky: Unions claimed the ruling meant they could negotiate again, but Walker could seek to keep the law in effect while the legal drama plays out.
The law, a crowning achievement for Walker that made him a national conservative star, took away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most workers and has been in effect for more than a year.
Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled that the law violates both the state and U.S. Constitution and is null and void.
In his 27-page ruling, the judge said sections of the law "single out and encumber the rights of those employees who choose union membership and representation solely because of that association and therefore infringe upon the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by both the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions."
Colas also said the law violates the equal protection clause by creating separate classes of workers who are treated differently and unequally.
The ruling applies to all local public workers affected by the law, including teachers and city and county government employees, but not those who work for the state. They were not a party to the lawsuit, which was brought by a Madison teachers union and a Milwaukee public workers union.
Walker issued a statement accusing the judge of being a "liberal activist" who "wants to go backwards and take away the lawmaking responsibilities of the legislature and the governor. We are confident that the state will ultimately prevail in the appeals process."
Wisconsin Department of Justice spokeswoman Dana Brueck said DOJ believes the law is constitutional.
The ruling throws into question changes that have been made in pay, benefits and other work rules in place across the state for city, county and school district workers.
Walker's law, passed in March 2011, only allowed for collective bargaining on wage increases no greater than the rate of inflation. All other issues, including workplace safety, vacation, health benefits, could no longer be bargained for.
The ruling means that local government and schools now must once again bargain over those issues, said Lester Pines, an attorney for Madison Teachers Inc. that brought the case.
"We're back to where we were before the law was enacted," he said.
Pines predicted the case would ultimately be resolved by the state Supreme Court.
Nathan Bedford Forrest & The Jubilee of Pole Bearers
Fort Pillow, The Grand Fabrication And The KKK
|The Union League And The KKK|
100's Of Blacks Attended The Funeral Of General Forrest
Selma, Alabama has been the scene of yet another attempt at cultural genocide in the South recently. The situation is still ongoing and the cultural Marxists are having a field day, thanks to a compliant “news” media.
There was a monument, with a bust of General Nathan Bedford Forrest on it in Selma. Last March the bust was stolen off the monument. However, efforts are now underway to restore and improve the monument. And here is an important point, according to http://www.exploresouthernhistory.com “The site on which the monument stands is owned by the United Daughters of the Confederacy and is private property, but open to the public.” So the bust was stolen off private property, not property that belonged to the city.
The same article noted: “The monument featuring an impressive bust of the general quickly proved controversial. It suffered three attacks by vandals, including one attempt to completely topple it. Many citizens of Selma also objected to the placement of the monument, considering it an affront to the city’s role in the Civil Rights movement.” The Sons of Confederate Veterans quickly pointed out that Bedford Forrest had also commanded Confederate troops in the Battle of Selma, and that “all the proper channels had been followed in the placement of the monument.” In other words, it was all done legally and above board. The monument not only commemorates Forrest, but also the Battle of Selma. Or do the “civil rights” folks think that no history is important before they came on the scene? Do they want no version of history imparted to people other than their own? You better believe it! That’s part of what cultural genocide is all about—your version of history gets its throat cut while my version dances on your grave.
More @ Revised History