Friday, October 8, 2010
Our opponent (DeFazio), however, is spending - right now - hundreds of thousands of dollars on TV and Radio ads. At the rate he appears to be spending, it is likely that he will spend far more than $1,000,000 on these ads. DeFazio has a vast quantity of special interest money (over 60% of his resources are from special interests whom he favors in Washington - mostly out of state) and the ultra-Liberal Moveon.org has been working to raise even more for him. They are doing this by sending out letters filled with fraudulent statements about Art Robinson, signed by DeFazio, himself!
DeFazio is not running on his record or on what he plans to do - or has done - in Washington. He knows his socialized "Obamacare" medicine and tax-and-spend, policies are not popular with the voters. He is, instead, spending most of his money running a smear campaign against my dad, Art Robinson, that is based entirely on falsehoods. DeFazio apparently believes that his only hope of winning is to attack the personal reputation of my dad with vicious distortions and lies.
We need to counter this and effectively reach Oregon voters with the truth! Our campaign has enormous grass-roots support and thousands of volunteers who are working hard to ensure its success. Our greatest weakness, however, is in getting enough TV and Radio ads to match our opponent. And radio and TV ads are necessary in order to reach the less-informed voters who, when the final votes are counted, will decide this election.
That’s why I’m asking you on my dad’s behalf - and, in a very real sense, on behalf of all Americans: Please contribute all you can - today! And please forward this e-mail to anyone you know who might help and ask them to forward it on, too. With enough TV and Radio advertising spots added to the efforts of my dad, our campaign staff, and, most importantly, thousands of individual volunteers and donors , we will almost surely win!
You can contribute by going to: www.ArtRobinsonForCongress.com.
Thank you very much.
"THE Right Brain vs Left Brain test ... do you see the dancer turning clockwise or anti-clockwise?"
Most of us would see the dancer turning anti-clockwise though you can try to focus and change the direction; see if you can do it.
LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
words and language
present and past
math and science
knows object name
RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
"big picture" oriented
symbols and images
present and future
can "get it" (i.e. meaning)
knows object function
I would like to congratulate you on what I believe is one of the most righteous and informative survival blogs on the net. You are my main go-to information source before I make a decision on a prep, you and your bloggers have amassed a wealth of information. I have enjoyed your books as well and I am eagerly awaiting the sequels.
In response to Ron's article, I have been a cop for 30+ years now. I started in a rural Sheriffs Office, got bored and after a year went on to become a big city cop (BCC). After I retired I swore another oath as a Deputy Sheriff in larger more rural county. I believe Ron is correct in his synopsis , there will not be much LE if there is a TEOTWAWKI situation via a NBC attack, meteor strike, volcano et cetera.
Over the years I too have inquired my brother/sister leo's mindset on this topic. Amongst the BCC the largest percentage will go and take care/be with their families in their time of need. A few, mostly the young ones with no families yet said they would stay on as long as they felt they could make a difference. The senior cops know the futility of the law enforcement situation with the Golden Horde and would bug out/in with their families, BTW these are the ones that are most prepared and think like us.
Most BCC cops are not gun enthusiasts, they'll have a handgun or two, maybe a shotgun and minimal ammo supplies, no kit or MBR. Now keep in mind there are exceptions. Now that I have been in a rural peace officer setting I can tell you that there is a mindset difference between most rural cops and most BCC, naturally there are exceptions. Rural deputies have to be somewhat more self sufficient, some nights my backup is 45 minutes away at 120 m.p.h., versus 2-3 minutes when I was a BCC. Most of us carry at least a AR-15, I carry a SOCOM 16 as well with plenty of ammo for each. My trunk kit has everything I need to survive/manage most of the situations I would encounter.
I believe in a TEOTWAWKI situation the deputies in the more rural areas would continue to function longer because:
1.) more tend to have the "Country boy can survive mentality"
2) their families are more extended and they can pull their resources together better than some city families.
3) most country folk are armed, many armed better than you can imagine, "an armed society is a polite society"
4) will not have the hordes of people to deal with like in the cities.
5) A strong Sheriff, a sworn Constitutional officer, can be a great influence if he has the leadership ability. He can unite his deputies to best assist the populace that needs the most help.
You know I am more concerned about the law enforcement role in a non TEOTWAWKI event, such as government austerity enforcement role or say a monetary collapse. Always remember: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer " - Psalm 18:2
Aug 4, 2006 - Referred in Senate. This is the text of the bill after moving from the House to the Senate before being considered by Senate committees. This is the latest version of the bill currently available on GovTrack.
HR 5013 RFS
H. R. 5013
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
July 26, 2006
August 4 (legislative day, AUGUST 3), 2006
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to prohibit the confiscation of firearms during certain national emergencies.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution states that a `well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed', and Congress has repeatedly recognized this language as protecting an individual right.
(2) In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, State and local law enforcement and public safety service organizations were overwhelmed and could not fulfill the safety needs of the citizens of the State of Louisiana.
(3) In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the safety of these citizens, and of their homes and property, was threatened by instances of criminal activity.
(4) Many of these citizens lawfully kept firearms for the safety of themselves, their loved ones, their businesses, and their property, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and used their firearms, individually or in concert with their neighbors, for protection against crime.
(5) In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, certain agencies confiscated the firearms of these citizens in contravention of the Second Amendment, depriving these citizens of the right to keep and bear arms and rendering them helpless against criminal activity.
(6) These confiscations were carried out at gunpoint by nonconsensual entries into private homes, by traffic checkpoints, by stoppage of boats, and otherwise by force.
(7) The citizens from whom firearms were confiscated were either in their own homes or attempting to flee the flooding and devastation by means of motor vehicle or boat, and were accosted, stopped, and arbitrarily deprived of their private property and means of protection.
(8) The means by which the confiscations were carried out, which included intrusion into the home, temporary detention of persons, and seizures of property, constituted unreasonable searches and seizures and deprived these citizens of liberty and property without due process of law in violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution.
(9) Many citizens who took temporary refuge in emergency housing were prohibited from storing firearms on the premises, and were thus treated as second-class citizens who had forfeited their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
(10) At least one highly-qualified search and rescue team was prevented from joining in relief efforts because the team included individuals with firearms, although these individuals had been deputized as Federal law enforcement officers.
(11) These confiscations and prohibitions, and the means by which they were carried out, deprived the citizens of Louisiana not only of their right to keep and bear arms, but also of their rights to personal security, personal liberty, and private property, all in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS DURING CERTAIN NATIONAL EMERGENCIES.
Title VII of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5201) is amended by adding at the end the following:
SEC. 706. FIREARMS POLICIES.
(a) Prohibition on Confiscation of Firearms- No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may--
(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Federal, State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation;
(2) require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by Federal, State, or local law;
(3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law; or
(4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or emergency.
(b) Limitation- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a major disaster or emergency.
(c) Private Rights of Action-
(1) IN GENERAL- Any individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may seek relief in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress against any person who subjects such individual, or causes such individual to be subjected, to the deprivation of any of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by this section.
(2) REMEDIES- In addition to any existing remedy in law or equity, under any law, an individual aggrieved by the seizure or confiscation of a firearm in violation of this section may bring an action for return of such firearm in the United States district court in the district in which that individual resides or in which such firearm may be found.
(3) ATTORNEY FEES- In any action or proceeding to enforce this section, the court shall award
the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.'.
Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 2006.
KAREN L. HAAS,
Below from Rebellion
Stewart Rhodes is the Founder of Oath Keepers. He served as a U.S. Army paratrooper until disabled in a rough terrain parachuting accident during a night jump. He is a former firearms instructor and former member of Rep. Ron Paul’s DC staff.
Stewart currently writes the monthly Enemy at the Gates column for S.W.A.T. Magazine
Stewart graduated from Yale Law School in 2004, where his paper “Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status” won Yale’s Miller prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights. He assisted teaching U.S. military history at Yale, was a Yale Research Scholar, and is writing a book on the dangers of applying the laws of war to the American people.
UPDATE : 10/07/2010 10.53PM PST — We have confirmed that the affidavit in support of the order to take the child from her parents states, along with a long list of other assertions against both parents, that “The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers.” Yes, there are other, very serious allegations. Out of respect for the privacy of the parents, we will not publish the affidavit. We will leave that to Mr. Irish. But please do remember that allegations do not equal facts — they are merely allegations (and in my experience as a criminal defense lawyer in small town Montana I saw many allegations that proved to be false).
But an even more fundamental point is that regardless of the other allegations, it is utterly unconstitutional for government agencies to list Mr. Irish’s association with Oath Keepers in an affidavit in support of a child abuse order to remove his daughter from his custody. Talk about chilling speech! If this is allowed to continue, it will chill the speech of not just Mr. Irish, but all Oath Keepers and it will serve as the camel under the tent for other associations being considered too risky for parents to dare. Thus, it serves to chill the speech of all of us, in any group we belong to that “officials” may not approve of. Don’t you dare associate with such and such group, or you could be on “the list” and then child protective services might come take your kids.
Note that there is no allegation that Oath Keepers is a criminal organization or that Mr. Irish, in the context of his association with Oath Keepers, is committing any crime. We are not advocating or planning imminent violence, which is the established line where free speech ends and criminal behavior begins (See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which, as Wikipedia notes, “held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In particular, it overruled Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.” We don’t even advocate that the current serving use violence of any kind, let alone imminent violence. We ask them to merely stand down.
Neither is Oath Keepers a militia, for that matter. However, EVEN IF WE WERE, that also would not be a valid reason to take someone’s child away. PRIVATE MILITIAS, JUST LIKE OTHER VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS, ARE NOT ILLEGAL, and it is not a crime to associate with them. To the contrary, we have an absolute right, won by the blood of patriots, and protected by our First Amendment, to freely associate with each other as we damn well please so long as we are not advocating or planning imminent violence or directly harming our children (and no, teaching them “thought crime” like “All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” or that those who swear an oath should keep it, does not count — at least not yet). A parent associating with a militia is not engaged in child endangerment and is not evidence of child endangerment (despite the shrill screeching of people such as Mark Potock of the SPLC, who desperately wants it to be so). Just recently a Time Magazine article described how the reporter visited the happy home of a militia member and his family — and those kids are still at home, where they belong, as is the case with many th0usands of children across this country who have parents who “associate” with private militias and all manner of other non-criminal groups. You had damn well better defend the rights of those parents to freely associate in their militias and keep their kids while doing so. You can bet that if you let such an association be listed as grounds for taking children from their parents that it won’t only be militia folks who have their rights violated. Homeschoolers, evangelical Christians, gun owners, etc. will also be on the hit list. Just wait. Remember Pastor Niemöller’s timeless warning:
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
A modern version might read like this:
They came first for the militia members,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a militia member.
Then they came for the three percenters,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a three percenter.
Then they came for the Oath Keepers,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t an Oath Keeper.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
So, defend the right of even the most hardcore militia members to freely associate without that right being chilled and suppressed by means of the threat of taking their kids.
But this particular listing of an association with Oath Keepers as one of the reasons for taking a child from her parents is all the more absurd, taking it to a whole other level of Alice in Wonderland “down is up” and up is down,” when you consider that a significant percentage of the members of Oath Keepers are current serving police, fire-fighters, and military personnel. Three of our state chapter presidents are current serving police officers. How can “associating” with such fine men and women who are daily trusted with tremendous power and responsibility constitute evidence of child endangerment? How can it be that a New Hampshire police department can consider someone associating with other current serving police officers as evidence of child abuse and endangerment? Only in the bizzaro world of the SPLC are public servants who commit to simply following the law, keeping their oaths by refusing to violate your rights ,considered “extreme” and “dangerous.”
This is the camel’s nose under the tent. We need to fight even this one instance of such a violation of the right to associate and to peaceably assemble, and we need to push back against the new world of thought crime that is being relentlessly pushed upon us. If this listing of mere association with Oath Keepers is allowed to be used in this case to justify, even in part, removing a newborn from the custody of her parents, with nothing else alleged about Oath Keepers except that the father “is associated” with this organization, that will have a sweeping chilling effect on the First Amendment protected rights of freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances for all of us — and it will only be the beginning.
OK, now it is TIME TO PUSH BACK — peaceably, of course, using our voices and pens.
Madcow, you shouldn't attempt to match wits with someone far above you.
Profiles of Valor: U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Robert Miller
On Oct. 6, United States Army Special Forces Staff Sgt. Robert J. Miller was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. It was the third Medal of Honor awarded for actions in the war in Afghanistan, which began nine years ago Thursday. Sgt. Miller's mother, father and seven siblings received the Medal on his behalf.
In January 2008, Miller was serving with Special Forces Operational Detachment Alpha 3312, which was conducting combined operations with Afghan troops from Forward Operating Base Naray in Kunar Province near the Pakistani border. When the team was ambushed by Taliban fighters, they called for close-air support. Miller engaged the enemy using his vehicle's turret-mounted 40mm MK-19 automatic grenade launcher.
After the team's captain was wounded, Miller remained at the front providing suppressive fire and saving the captain's life. Drawing the fire of some 100 enemy fighters, Miller fought on, giving his team time to take cover and return fire. He was shot in the side, but continued to fire and throw grenades at the enemy. Wounded a second time, Miller used his last ounce of life to fire his remaining ammunition and throw his last grenade. In the seven-hour battle, Miller is credited with having killed at least 10 jihadis and wounding dozens more, while saving the lives of seven Americans and 15 Afghans.
His citation concludes, "Staff Sergeant Miller's heroism and selflessness above and beyond the call of duty, and at the cost of his own life, are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself and the United States Army."
On this day in 1918, 7 U.S. soldiers in France are surrounded by German soldiers. Sgt. Alvin York, assuming command after his commanding officer is killed, shoots 28 Germans and captures 132 more. York became one of the most decorated soldiers of World War I.
Andrew Bacevich with a provocative presentation at MIT.
Don't miss this.
Via Global Guerrillas
As you read this, at present, you should know that there are only seemingly disconnected anecdotal dots that are starting to connect. However, if the dots do fully connect, we may not know until well after the November 2nd election if, in fact, America’s democratic election process will have become the victim of the biggest fraud in our nation’s history. What’s worse, with early voting beginning this week in many states, it may already be too late to do anything about it."
Via 2ncrca, A&M
Top five most insane ways the Obama Regime has spent stimulus money:
- Taxpayer money for a program to teach Africans how to wash their genitals.
- Taxpayer money for Sri Lankan outsourcing training centers (i.e. to train Sri Lankans how to replace Americans at American jobs).
-Taxpayer money to bus Mexicans into New Mexico for free education.
-Taxpayer money for clean-energy windmill program in China.
-Taxpayer money for minority construction projects (while deliberately excluding white construction workers).
If you know of any other egregious examples, post them in the comments below. In a few months, we’ll revise the list.