Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Partisan Tactical Communications Options: The Technological Approach for Unconventional Warfare


(the following is a guest article, courtesy of MSG “Daniel Morgan,” USASF (retired). MSG Morgan spent a career in Special Forces as an 18E, Special Forces Communications NCO. He kinda knows what he’s talking about. As always, italicized parenthetical notes are mine.–J.M.)

Due to the inherent small size of the partisan element and the initial lack of firepower,
when operating in a UW environment, the partisan must master the techniques of stealthy
movement (“Stealth is survival!”). He must also maximize the utilization of available terrain features to provide (OAKOC) cover and concealment from the enemy. And finally, he will insure that his patrol’s intended actions or location is not compromised due to lax communication procedures.

Partisan communication requirements in UW cannot be approached in a one-size-fits-all
manner. The overriding question that must first be answered is, “what is the ability of an
opposing force to exploit my communication techniques?” This question can only be
properly answered with accurate and timely intelligence (filling in the blanks of METT-TC).
Once the question is answered, the partisan has several avenues he can take, keeping in
mind that the environment will constantly evolve, and his survival and that of his
organization is based on his ability to be aware of and adapt to those changes. This again
requires the proper use of accurate and timely intelligence. Are you beginning to notice a

On Slavery And Reparations

Via Ninety Miles From Tyranny

Cutting In Line

Via Ninety Miles From Tyranny

Finding My Way Home To Galt’s Gulch Chile


by Wendy McElroy

Jews who were dispersed across the globe because of government oppression traditionally ended the Passover seder with the phrase, “Next Year in Jerusalem.” It was and is part of commemorating the exodus from Egypt that was led by Moses.

Anyone who loves freedom should raise his glass and make the toast, “This year in Galt's Gulch Chile.”

Government oppression has arrived like a jackboot and it will become worse before it becomes better. The “worse” is likely to last many years because nations like the United States have a great deal of ruination in them before they collapse; the Soviet Union lasted almost 7 decades. It is now time for a libertarian exodus that will not take you away from your true home, but toward it. Do not wait for years when borders may have closed tightly around your family and all you possess. That is the way of all totalitarian states; they slam borders shut.

My husband and I just signed an option on property in Galt's Gulch Chile where we intend to build the home in which we will live for the rest of our lives. We have made the emotional commitment to move all we are and the property we treasure to a community in which we believe without reservation.The prospect frightens both of us even though we know our decision is absolutely correct, and even though the fear is balanced with excitement. We will be leaving everything with which we are comfortable, including a farm we love, in order to plunge into an entirely new life. We will be leaving people for whom we care, not knowing for sure if we will ever see them again. I feel a shadow of how difficult it must have been for my forefathers to depart from Ireland in order to pursue the dream of freedom and the chance to live with dignity. But if my Irish ancestors had not been courageous enough to do so, my brother and I would not exist let alone have the opportunity to live most of our lives in relative liberty.

The emotional difficulty of leaving is one of the main reasons people choose to stay even though they see the tyranny of today and possibility of it becoming very personal tomorrow. Everyone must make the choice to stay or not for himself or herself because everyone's circumstances differ, including the amount of change they can tolerate. I want to give some background on our decision in order to encourage people to carefully mull over the question. This is unadulterated selfishness on my part because I want you and yours to live in Galt's Gulch Chile where we can become neighbors and friends.

My husband and I are not rich people, but the land being sold right now is reasonably priced, especially in light of the incredible work being poured into the community by the founders who also intend to live there. It will be a sustainable small town with bee boxes and fiber optics, a lemon grove and an independent source of power, plentiful water and solar energy for those who so choose. The house can be built for a reasonable price as well – certainly for no more than it costs to build one in most parts of North America. Galt's Gulch Chile welcomes people of varying wealth and ability, asking only for a belief in freedom.

Four Centuries of Surveillance: From Privy Councils to FISA Courts

Via Timothy

As the song [1] says, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

State power, i.e., power derived from the “political means” of acquiring wealth through force, is nothing more than a pestilence sapping the peace and prosperity of all humankind, and has been manifest in many cruel and unique forms. Whether it be the whip on the back, the sword on the throat, the gun in the face, or grand global hostage taking via the threat of nuclear destruction, it is clear that state power is nothing more than immoral aggression — logically posterior, parasitic, and subservient to economic power, i.e., power derived from the “economic means” of acquiring wealth through production and voluntary trade. Whereas economic power creates wealth and shares this fruit, state power steals wealth and squanders its spoils.

Yet, despite these self-evident truths about the rapacious nature of state power,[2] some people consider state power to be the “boss” of economic power. Even the most ardent believer in that old chestnut, “we are the government,” cannot seriously suggest we are literally the government. Even those who see the government as a “social club,” a “social contract,” or some mystic representation of “the people,” must admit the club needs an executive committee, the contract needs drafters and enforcers, and the people need enlightened leaders (hence in each case a ruling caste).

At the root of the matter all such euphemisms are merely an insidious form of apologia — a means to obfuscate whilst upholding the idea that state power is the “boss” of economic power. It is a trick of language used by wolves and sheep alike, giving the wolves an excuse for their predation and the sheep a reason for their fleecing. Put differently, it is a way for the rabble to render their own chains, and with gilded hope and love, give “themselves” the reins. Such egalitarian doublespeak is a crucial tool used by the modern nation state to apologize for state power’s predation upon economic power, allowing the state’s agents to act as tyrants while calling themselves “servants.”

What a perversion of the truth and the law!

More @ Mises

NC: The Hurricane of 1806

Via Cousin Colby


As we approach the height of hurricane season, here is an account of a storm that had a significant impact on Pamlico's past.

 It was September 28, 1806. Busy Ocracoke inlet was filled with trading vessels hailing from far away ports found in the Caribbean and along America's northern coast. Many of the mariners in the harbor had little clue as to the maelstrom they were about to suffer.

"Lighters," small vessels more suited to the shallow inland waters of eastern North Carolina, were busy off loading cargos of naval stores and lumber onto larger ships to be transported to distant ports.
Others were taking on mercantile goods from such localities as New York and Philadephia, or sugar and molasses from the West Indian islands to be transported across the sound to the river ports of Washington and New Bern. In addition, there were two Revenue Cutters at anchor in the busy harbor.

The Revenue Cutters were part of the Revenue-Marine, which was established by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton in 1790 to serve as an armed maritime law enforcement service. The service operated under the authority of the U. S. Department of the Treasury, the commanders of the local cutters answering to local customs officials. The service officially changed its name to the U. S. Revenue Cutter Service in 1894, and in 1915, it merged with the U. S. Life-Saving Service to form the U. S. Coast Guard.

Washington, N.C. played a key role from the very start of the history of the Revenue Cutters. On August 4, 1790, Congress passed and George Washington signed a bill authorizing the construction of "ten boats" for guarding the coast against smugglers. The "ten boats" were to be cutter types, speedy heavy keeled schooners carrying an abundance of sail. "Boats of from thirty six to forty feet keel will answer the purpose, each ... armed with swivels," Hamilton told Congress. One of these first cutters was the Diligence, built in Washington, N.C. She was a 40 ton schooner armed with 4 swivel guns and carried a crew of four officers, four enlisted, two boys. She was commissioned on April 25th, 1791 and was commanded by William Cook who was joined by First Mate Joseph Wallace.

This first Diligence was replaced in 1796 by a second cutter of the same name, followed by a third Diligence in 1803. It was the third Diligence that had the misfortune of arriving at Ocracoke Inlet to join her sister Revenue Cutter, the Governor Williams, on the eve of a fierce hurricane.

The first signs of the approaching storm were seen at Ocracoke when gales began blowing from the east-northeast around midnight of September 28.

The Only Adams Farwell Automobile In Existence

Via Cousin Bill

Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee Meet With the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo


During their whirlwind tour of Cairo Tuesday, two top GOP senators held the most extensive meeting to date between U.S. officials and senior officials in the embattled Muslim Brotherhood, whose supporters are fighting in the streets to overturn last month’s military takeover of Egypt.

 Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) also met with Egyptian Prime Minister Hazem el-Beblawi, the leader of the military takeover Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Vice President Mohamed ElBaradei, local political party leaders, and civil society representatives. But their meeting with Muslim Brotherhood leaders was perhaps the most important in their effort to help the administration push both sides back to the negotiating table and end the violence that has seen 400 Egyptians killed in just over a month.

Rand Paul Labels Racism Charges 'A Bunch of Crap'

Image: Rand Paul Labels Racism Charges 'A Bunch of Crap'

Sen. Rand Paul snapped at an NPR radio interviewer Tuesday, when he was asked about an article suggesting that libertarian politicians ally themselves with racist movements.

"Don't you have something better to read than a bunch of crap from people who don't like me?" the Kentucky Republican snapped at NPR's "On Point" host John Harwood.

"I don't accept all of that and I don't really need to or spend the time talking about all of that," Paul said in response. "If you want to talk about issues and what I stand for, I'm happy to, but I'm not going to really go through an interview reciting or respond to every yahoo in the world who wants to throw up a canard."

Paul, a strong supporter of the tea party movement, was reacting to Harwood's reading of excerpts from a recent article in the Economist about the growing influence of libertarianism in the Republican Party, something Paul was invited to speak about in the "On Point" interview.

More @ Newsmax

New Atlanta school includes ROTC gun range

Back when we were Negroes

Roundabout via Cousin Joel

Image result for Harlem cotillion in 1954

The young people attending this Harlem cotillion in 1954 did not aspire to be 'hootchie mamas' or thugs, suggests the author.


  Date published: 10/12/2011


--There was a time until the early 1960s when the terms to describe those of African decent, like me--African-American or black or Afro-American--were almost unheard of. I remember a distinct conversation with a friend discussing descriptive terms for ourselves in 1963 or '64. The term "black" was just coming into vogue and he didn't like it one bit.

"Call me a Negro," he said, "but don't call me black." Now, the word "Negro" (publications used a lower-case "n") has almost become a pejorative, so I was a little surprised when my pastor, the Rev. Willie Reid, used it during a Thursday night revival.

"Back when we were Negroes," he said, and listed several things that were different about black life in America back then. That got me to thinking.

Back when we were Negroes in the 1950s, "only 9 percent of black families with children were headed by a single parent," according to "The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies" by Kay Hymowitz.

Black children had a 52 percent chance of living with both their biological parents until age 17. In 1959, "only 2 percent of black children were reared in households in which the mother never married."

But now that we're African-Americans, according to Hymowitz, those odds of living with both parents had "dwindled to a mere 6 percent" by the mid-1980s.

Let Us Suppose There Were No Grounds for Secession

Jonathan Worth served as general superintendent of the Fayetteville and Western Plank road beginning in 1856. Image courtesy of the North Carolina Office of Archives and History, Raleigh, NC.

Future governor of North Carolina, Quaker and Unionist Jonathan Worth, believed his State was driven out of the Union by Lincoln’s actions, which was forcing his fellow citizens to not only violate the United States Constitution by allowing a president to raise an army, but to also wage war against other States. On 30 May 1861 he wrote: “We are in the midst of war and revolution.  North Carolina would have stood by the Union but for the conduct of the national administration, which for folly and simplicity exceeds anything in modern history.”
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"

“Let Us Suppose There Were No Grounds for Secession . . . .   

If it was unconstitutional, did the opponents of secession have the right to combat it with equally unconstitutional measures? Was the president’s subsequent response any less illegal than the actions of the secession conventions, merely because his actions followed theirs chronologically? 

Beyond the question of right, was it wise to meet secession with extralegal force?  Was the preservation of the national borders worth the precedent of the chief executive initiating warfare, arbitrarily suspending civil liberties, jailing thousands on suspicion or political whim, using the military to manipulate elections, and even overthrowing the legitimate governments of States?

Perhaps most relevant then and now, especially considering the potential for the repetition and expansion of those infringements under increasingly numerous and nebulous emergencies, is the question of whether those infringements were even necessary.

Did the permanent weakening of America’s best protection against tyranny not exceed the violence done to the Constitution by the secession of seven States, and might that fundamental document not have survived in firmer health with the remaining twenty-seven States adhering to it all the more strictly?

For that matter, would the bifurcation of the United States have been worse than the war waged to prevent it?  The instinctive reply (after requisite reference to the abolition of slavery) asserts that the precedent of secession would have led to further divisions, until the former nation had been thoroughly Balkanized; Lincoln himself alluded to that potential fragmentation in his first inaugural.

Yet the very choice of the pejorative “Balkanized,” which is so often employed in that argument, carries an assumption that a continent of smaller republics would not have been preferable.  

Nationalist advocates can and have produced abundant evidence of economic and social development under the reconstructed United States, but that evidence does not necessarily suggest that equivalent development would have been impossible under another political and geographic configuration.

Although it would likely have increased internal tension in the North, unopposed secession in 1861 ought, at least initially, to have eased the conflict between the sections – rather than aggravating it, as “Balkanization” implies.

Disunion would have made slavery a national issue within the Confederate States, rather than a divisive sectional problem within the United States, thereby eliminating what Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. considered one of the foremost impediments to a peaceful, internal solution for that evil.  The obstacles to proving any hypothesis of separation as a viable alternative apply equally to any assertion of it as an unacceptable solution.

If Lincoln considered the issue of secession negotiable at some point on a scale of increasing resistance, it seems that such devastating mortality would have figured fairly high on that scale.  Had he been able to foresee the harvest of death his choices would yield, anyone as reasonable as the sixteenth president might understandably have opted against the carnage and accepted the departure of seven fractious provinces in return for a smaller but more peaceable federation.

Of course ho owned no such foresight; the resort to arms seldom fails to inflict far greater suffering than either belligerent expects, but it took a peculiar blend of circumstances to turn the American Civil War into an unpredictable bloodbath.

It was Lincoln, however, who finally eschewed diplomacy and sparked a confrontation when he fully understood the volatility of the situation. Although he avoided the political blunder of firing the first shot, he backed himself into a corner from which he could escape only by mobilizing a national army, and thereby fanning the embers of Fort Sumter into full-scale conflagration.  

(Mr. Lincoln’s War, William Marvel, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006, pp. xv-xvii)

The Trouble With Studying History


You’ll be taught lies about John Brown, Lincoln, James Buchanan, Coolidge, and more 

In American history, there have been two Presidents who have been perceived as time-servers who knew that a crisis was coming: James Buchanan and Calvin Coolidge. Buchanan did not get out in time. Coolidge did.

Buchanan is generally rated by American historians as among the worst Presidents in American history. This has been true ever since 1948.
Credit, or blame, for the first scholarly ranking of the presidents usually goes to Harvard historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr., who conducted a poll for Life magazine in 1948. He asked 55 specialists in American history to rate the presidents as great, near great, average, below average, or failure. Abraham Lincoln topped the list, followed by George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Claiming the cellar of that list were Warren G. Harding and, in ascending order, Ulysses S. Grant, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Calvin Coolidge, John Tyler, Benjamin Harrison, and Herbert Hoover.
U.S. News updated this in 2010. The bottom: Andrew Johnson. The next-to-last: Buchanan.

Polling of conservative and liberal historians produced the same result for the best: Lincoln. So, the two worst were the men who preceded and followed Lincoln.

My conclusion: do not send your child to major in American history in college. I speak as someone with a Ph.D. in the field.

Lincoln made a decision to bring the South back in because, as he said in his first inaugural address, he wanted to make certain that the union could collect tariffs.

More @ LRC

The Secret Republican Strategy to Secure Amnesty for Millions of Illegal Immigrants

Via avordvet


J. D. Hayworth is a Republican who represented Arizona in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2007 and is currently a National Adviser to

The names may have changed, but the tactics remain the same.  After decades of promises to address illegal immigration, we are once again hearing the same old nonsense from Republican politicians. Lawmakers vowing to act tough on border security while looking to secure amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants has become infuriatingly all-too-familiar.

In 2005, as soft Republicans tried to slip amnesty through, I warned that the scheme was a “classic bait-and-switch” by the House passing a bill with “get tough” border enforcement, only to have it watered down in conference by a more liberal Senate that would insist on an amnesty plan. The bill would be brought back to the House where immense pressure from big business lobbies, the establishment media, and Democrats and moderates would be brought to bear for final passage.

What kept that scenario from happening was outcry from the conservative grassroots. Today, eight years later, with a different president and different House Republican leadership, we are seeing the same bait-and-switch tactic, but we are perilously close to them succeeding because the GOP leadership has become smarter, and more devious with their messaging.

The House GOP will vote on tough enforcement provisions in a bill sponsored by Rep. Mike McCaul, Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, but Chairman McCaul has already been told behind closed doors by Speaker John Boehner that this “enforcement bill” will not be brought up in a House-Senate Conference to be combined with the infamous “Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill” that passed earlier this year in the Senate.

More @ The Blaze

Soldier of Misfortune


David Bax helped save 35 aid workers in a Mogadishu firefight. So why did they turn against him? 

The tip came early in the day on June 19. Islamist militants had breached the inner sanctum of the United Nations' humanitarian compound in downtown Mogadishu -- and they were trying to slaughter the relief workers inside.

It wasn't David Bax's job to respond to such an attack; the former South African soldier was hired by the U.N. simply to defuse explosives in and around the restive city.

But Bax wasn't about to sit on his hands while a massacre went down. Within 30 minutes, Bax had mobilized his convoy, consisting of Burundian soldiers, U.N. explosives specialists, and foreign security contractors, into a rescue party.

While the firefight between al-Shabab militants and Somali guards raged inside the U.N. facility, Bax led his team to the outer wall and waited for a lull in the shooting. When the pause came, they rushed into the compound and began loading the terrified U.N. survivors onto Bax's Casspir armored personnel vehicles. Once the vehicles were full, Bax's team sped off and delivered the survivors to safety at the secure U.N. compound at Mogadishu's airport. In the end, one U.N. staffer, two South African contractors, four Somali security guards, a Somali electrician, and several Somali civilians were dead. As many as seven al-Shabab fighters were also killed in the operation. Most of the fighting was carried out by Somali security guards, who suffered the largest number of casualties. While Bax's team didn't engage in the firefight, there was little doubt that he and his team had risked their lives.

But the United Nations didn't award Bax a commendation for his bravery. In fact, days after the attack, Bax, the program manager for the U.N. Mine Action Service (UNMAS) in Somalia, came under fire from some of the very people he tried to save, and his U.N. career may now be on the line.

THUGOCRACY: Durbin’s Staff Sending Out Intimidating Letters About ALEC And Stand Your Ground

Via avordvet

Two different conservative organizations with whom we’ve got contacts have received letters from ’s office today which look an awful lot like the actions that precipitated the IRS scandal. Apparently there’s a massive fishing expedition afoot.

This came to the our buddy Kevin Kane at the Pelican Institute.

     Dear Mr. Kane,

    I write to seek information regarding your organization’s position on “stand your ground” legislation that was adopted as a national model by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

    ALEC describes itself as a think tank that develops model bills for state legislators. In 2005, ALEC approved the adoption of model “stand your ground” legislation entitled the “Castle Doctrine Act.” This model legislation was based on Florida’s “stand your ground” law, and it changes the criminal law regarding self-defense and provides immunity for certain uses of deadly force.

    In years subsequent to 2005, ALEC cited the introduction and enactment of state bills based on its model “stand your ground” legislation as “ALEC’s successes.” As recently as March 2012, ALEC issued a statement defending its model “stand your ground” legislation from criticism after the killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida. On April 17, 2012, ALEC issued a press release stating that it was eliminating the task force that had initially approved the model “stand your ground” legislation.v However, ALEC has never issued a statement retracting the organization’s approval of its model “stand your ground” legislation, nor has ALEC ever issued a statement calling for any state laws based on ALEC’s model “stand your ground” legislation to be repealed.

    Although ALEC does not maintain a public list of corporate members or donors, other public documents indicate that your organization funded ALEC at some point during the period between ALEC’s adoption of model “stand your ground” legislation in 2005 and the present day. I acknowledge your organization’s right to actively participate in the debate of important political issues, regardless of your position, and I recognize that an organization’s involvement with ALEC does not necessarily mean that the organization endorses all positions taken by ALEC. Therefore I am seeking clarification whether organizations that have funded ALEC’s operations in the past currently support ALEC and the model “stand your ground” legislation.

    I ask that you please reply to this letter by answering yes or no in response to the two questions below. Please feel free to provide additional information explaining your yes or no response.

    1. Has Pelican Institute for Public Policy served as a member of ALEC or provided any funding to ALEC in 2013?

    2. Does Pelican Institute for Public Policy support the “stand your ground” legislation that was adopted as a national model and promoted by ALEC?

    Please provide a response to this letter by September 1, 2013. Note that I am sending similar letters to other organizations that have been identified as ALEC funders at some point between 2005 and today. In September, I plan to convene a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights to examine “stand your ground” laws, and I intend to include the responses to my letters in the hearing record. Therefore, please know that your response will be publicly available.

    Thank you for your attention to this request. Please feel free to contact Dan Swanson or Stephanie Trifone on my staff at 202-224-2152 if you have any questions. I look forward to receiving your response.

We heard earlier today that the Center for Security Policy received a similar letter.

Kane told us that the suggestion the Pelican Institute is a funder of the American Legislative Exchange Council is a ludicrous one and wonders where Durbin, the Illinois Democrat whose reputation as a jackbooted partisan willing to sink to any level to score points for the Left is exceeded only by Harry Reid, could have gotten such an idea. Obviously Durbin or someone on his staff got hold of a sign-in sheet or two from some ALEC conferences and decided to embark on a fishing expedition.

Sharpton: Blacks Don’t Commit Crimes




If you follow the logic of Al Sharpton, black people must live in crime-free neighborhoods. 


I know that news is shocking, given the statistics that prove otherwise. We are told that black communities have the highest crime rates; however, these stats are demagogued to make black people look bad.

And though there is no crime in black neighborhoods, white cops routinely visit black communities to target black people. “Stop and frisk” is applied indiscriminately, at almost 100 percent, in black neighborhoods on black people.

Then they plant drugs or guns on black people, which accounts for the disproportionate incarceration rates of blacks in the criminal justice system.

Given these heinous statistics against blacks, it makes sense then that there are no black cops in America, right?  All the cops in America must be white — white racists, in fact. Because black cops would not arrest black people — at least not real black cops.

Prof kills entire family, keeps teaching job


Administrators at a private university in Illinois are standing by a psychology professor, despite his own admission that he shot and killed his father, mother and teenage sister in 1967.

Officials at Millikin University in Decatur, Ill., said they would allow the psychology professor, James St. James, 61, to continue teaching, according to a statement provided to Campus Reform on Tuesday.

The professor’s murderous past came to light in a story published late last month by the Georgetown Advocate, the local newspaper in the town where the killings occurred.

After tracking down and interviewing the atheist professor, reporter Ann Marie Gardner described him as “the picture of a classic hippie: casual air, long pony tail, and a Grateful Dead sticker on his aging pickup truck.”

More @ WND

Naturally, BBC Calls Dead Boston Bombing Suspect a Right Winger

   The religion of insanity.

The BBC, which is pretty close to Britain's version of MSNBC, has determined Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev was simply a Muslim of convenience while his real hatred and radicalization stemmed from being a right-winger. How did the BBC determine this? By talking to Tamerlan's friends about his radicalization.

One of the brothers suspected of carrying out the Boston bombings was in possession of right-wing American literature in the run-up to the attack, BBC Panorama has learnt.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev subscribed to publications espousing white supremacy and government conspiracy theories.

He also had reading material on mass killings.

Until now the Tsarnaev brothers were widely perceived as just self-styled radical jihadists.

Panorama has spent months speaking exclusively with friends of the bombers to try to understand the roots of their radicalisation.

The Tsarnaev brothers, ethnic Chechens, spent their early years moving around a troubled region of Russia torn by a violent Islamic insurgency.

But for the last decade they lived in Cambridge, near Boston.

The brothers' friends told us Tamerlan turned against the country and became passionate about Islam after becoming frustrated when his boxing career faltered because he did not have American citizenship.

Their friends wouldn't all speak openly because they were afraid of being wrongly viewed as associated with terrorism.
Excuse me as I try not to laugh. Is the BBC really trying to argue that the Tsarnaev brothers became radical right wingers in....Cambridge? C'mon.

More @ Townhall

Ted Nugent to Race-Baiters: ‘Kiss My Black A**!’

Via WiscoDave


Rock star legend Ted Nugent had some pretty harsh words (to put it lightly) about those on the left who are using the race-card to smear him, unjustifiably labeling him as a racist, as they do all who disagree with Obama’s Marxist politics.

At about the 7:30 mark in the audio (listen below), after discussing the Democrat Party’s 50 year destruction of what was once the great City of Detroit, the “Motor City Madman” goes off on the left’s recent smear campaign against him. Listen below to Nugent’s interview with Tim Constantine, the “Voice of Reason,” of The Capitol Hill Show, which you can listen to daily on TPNN radio, LIVE from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM ET, Monday through Friday here:

TED NUGENT: Everyday I hang out with black people and they’re just like me.  They have an alarm clock, they bust their ass to be as productive as possible, they take care of themselves, they speak clearly, they show respect for themselves and others, and there is zero racism in the Ted Nugent world. Zero! There’s always been zero racism.

 So when I speak, don’t anybody tell me I can’t say things because of the color of my skin. Kiss my black ass! I will say whatever I damn well please because I screen it through an intellectual process to make sure it’s honest, accurate, and sincere, and supported by evidence. And when I listen to my son’s hip-hop and rap buddies, when I listen to my black bass player, Johnny Guettel, when I listen to my Mexican bass player Marco Mendoza, they say the exact things that I say. And no one should be afraid of speaking the truth just because some punk will call you a racist, because in your heart, you know you’re not. 

More @ TPNN

Whether We Win or Lose on Anti-gun ObamaCare is Our Choice

“Go to and sign up and become a member of GOA.  It’s cheap and it’s an excellent way to stay informed on the issues with the no-compromise gun group [in] in Washington DC.” -- Talk radio host Steve Deace, June 4, 2013

Cowards can find a thousand reasons for not doing what they’re afraid to do.

After staging 38 votes to repeal the anti-gun ObamaCare law -- and having Harry Reid throw their bills in the wastebasket 38 times -- House and Senate Republicans now have a chance to force ObamaCare repeal right down Harry Reid’s throat.

The only question is whether or not they have the courage.

Gun owners have opposed ObamaCare since its inception, given that a national health database could be used by federal bureaucrats to disarm millions of law-abiding Americans.  The use of medical data has already been used to disarm gun owners in New York -- and has led to more than 150,000 military veterans losing their gun rights for ailments such as PTSD.

This law must be defunded prior to October 1, when two things happen:

* The first is that the “health care exchanges” are supposed to come on line. People -- and particularly young people -- will find out how much money they’re going to have to flush down the toilet for inflated politically correct premiums, under penalty of law.

* The second thing that happens on October 1 is that much of the federal government will “slow down” -- not shut down as has been erroneously reported -- unless a funding bill called a “Continuing Resolution,” or CR for short, is approved. For better or worse, most of the federal government will continue to operate as usual, and all “essential” discretionary functions will continue as well.

But there’s one thing that’s definitely “not essential,” and that’s ObamaCare.

In the Senate, Republican Mike Lee of Utah sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on behalf of almost a dozen colleagues, stating that they will not support a Continuing Resolution that funds the implementation of the anti-gun ObamaCare law.

In the House, Rep. Steve Stockman introduced H.Res. 333 on Friday -- a resolution that, if passed, would forbid the House of Representatives from passing a CR that funds ObamaCare.

So to recap the bidding: On the very day that the American people flip their lids over this wildly unpopular ObamaCare mandate, Republicans have the opportunity to stage a showdown. And if they win, ObamaCare goes down the tubes, along with the rest of Barack Obama’s agenda.

So, given that option, why would the GOP not want to pursue it?  Just listen to what a few Republican senators have said recently:

* Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) said that using the CR to defund ObamaCare is the “dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.”

* Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) said that, “I think it’s a silly effort.”

* Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) said this was the “dumbest idea” he had ever heard.

* And Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the effort was “a bridge too far for me.”

Despite these acts of cowardice, the American people are firmly behind Congress doing something to defang this anti-gun law.

According to a CNN poll, 73% of the American people favor repealing ObamaCare, either fully or partially (March 2012).  So given the widespread opposition to this anti-gun law, why are many GOP legislators balking at this opportunity to drive a stake through its ugly heart?

There are at least five misrepresentations that some Republicans are using to justify their cowardice on ObamaCare.  Click here to see what these misstatements are and how they can be easily answered.
ACTION: Contact your Senators and Representatives. Tell them to insist that NO Continuing Resolution to fund the government contain money for the ObamaCare individual mandate.  Take these three actions right away:

1. Click here to contact your Senators and Representatives.  Urge your Senators to sign onto the Lee letter and your Representative to sign onto the Stockman resolution (H.Res. 333).  You can also call your legislators using the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

2. Distribute this alert to all your family, friends and co-workers and encourage them all to take action.

3. Be sure to visit your legislators in person at any Town Hall meetings they schedule this month during their August break.  You can contact their offices (at 202-224-3121) to find out when they’ll be hosting a Town Hall meeting in your area.

What Congress just did ‘will make you want to throw up’

Via Mike

 greta van susteren


When the actions of the federal government succeed in riling up the normally stoic Fox News host Greta Van Susteren, you can be sure that something sinister is afoot.

And she is so ticked by the current reign of lawlessness she could just vomit!

As elected officials slipped out of town for a 5-week recess, we learned a deal was struck to exempt Congress from new higher premiums associated with ObamaCare. A move designed to avert the provision in the law which said members of Congress and their aides must be covered by plans “created” by the law or “offered through an exchange.”

The Office of Personnel Management, under heavy pressure from Capitol Hill, determined that the health care premiums of members of Congress and their aides can be subsidized by taxpayers, according to Politico.

As noted by Mediaite, Van Susteran responded in a blog post titled with all capital letters “THIS WILL MAKE YOU WANT TO THROW UP,” in which she railed against the “appalling” exemption, repeatedly expressing her “disgust” with elected officials.

“It is indecent….just WRONG,” she wrote. “So let me get this straight….they push OBAMACARE on EVERY OTHER AMERICAN except themselves. Really? Unbelievable, isn’t it?”

The Final Report of James I. Waddell of the CSS Shenandoah.
The Shenandoah entered St. Georges Channel on the morning of the 5th of November, just 122 days from the Aleutian Islands, and the acting master, Irvine S. Bulloch, made an excellent landfall; he had not been able to rate the chronometers since leaving Melbourne, and could only conjecture their accuracy while she was in the Arctic Ocean, for we saw no land after leaving the Aleutian Islands until the beacon in St. Georges Channel was seen where it was looked for. We had sailed a distance of 23,000 miles without seeing land. The navigation is very beautiful when that fact is considered. I received a pilot after night, and when he was informed of the character of the steamer, he said. "I was reading but a few days ago of her being in the Arctic Ocean." I asked for American news. He said the war had gone against the South, and I directed him to take the ship into the River Mersey, that I might communicate with Her Majesty`s Government.

The quiet satisfaction of all countenances for the success in reaching a European port was unmistakeable, and I have no doubt a weight was removed from each heart, if I may be permitted to judge others by my own. I felt a great relief, because I felt I had done my duty toward the power which had placed me in that responsible position, my duty was next to those who had shared the perils and trials and privations of the cruise.

On the morning of the 6th of November, 1865, the Shenandoah steamed up the Mersey in a thick fog, under the Confederate flag, and the pilot, by my order, anchored her near H.B.M. ship of the line Donegal, commanded by Captain Paynter R.N.

Shortly after the anchored a lieutenant of the Donegal visited me to ascertain the name of the steamer and give me the official intelligence of the termination of the American war. He was very polite toward me and left me to beleive he felt a sympathy for us in our situation. The flag was then hauled down by my order at 10 a,m. on the 6th of November 1865. I addressed the communication to Her Britannic Majesty`s minister for foreign affairs. It was prepared on the night of the 5th of November, after receiving intelligence from the pilot. Of course the subject for such letter had been pondered over some days before.
The following day a gunboat came alongside the Shenandoah and made fast to her, customs officers took possession of her, and I relieved the officers and crew of all duty. The visit and detention of the gunboat was in consequence of an application from Mr. Adams, or his substitute, that the Shenandoah should be secured from getting to sea again. How absurd that must sound to the reader! It was intended to be an offense offered to a defeated but unconquered enemy; to men who had succeeded in disposing of the Shenandoah in a way not congenial to the Yankee nation. The ship and all on board were held by the authorities simply by far as confinement to the vessel; the only person upon whom an absolute restriction was placed was myself. 

I was informed that everybody should remain on board, and an order to that effect was given by me; but some officers and several of the crew voluntarily left the vessel with no intention to desert, which was discovered by the lieutenant commanding the gunboat, and he said pleasantly; !I don’t care if the lads do take a run on shore after night as long as I do not know about it." He then mentioned the officers who had gone on shore, and I informed him I knew nothing of it and regretted to learn that anyone had done so> "Oh," said he, “you won’t leave the vessel I know, so it don`t matter about the others going on a bit of a lark." I was several timnes invited to go on board his gunboat, but I invariably refused to leave the vessel, I would leave on only one condition, which was the surrender being received I would be at liberty to go wher I pleased; otherwise I must be taken out of her a prisoner. Captain Paynter visited me sometimes twice a day and expressed his approval of the good conduct exhibited by those who had so recently been under my command under the painful circumstance of our situation. "It is," said he "the result of discipline and confidence in your rectitude."

On the 8th of November 10 officers, 14 acting appointments, and 109 enlisted men, which constituted the Shenandoah`s crew, were unconditionally released. The customs officials inspected our baggage more in hunt of tobacco than treasure, I suppose. My baggage was very closely examined, but that proceeded more from my directions concerning itthan any desire on the part of the officials to be impertinently inquisitive. I had neither thoughts nor stores to conceal from anyone. I presented my tumblers, decanters and bedding, with a few trophies from the islands, to the wife of the lieutenant commanding, in care of whose husband I was left, as a souvenir of our acquaintance. He was a good fellow, and was faithful in the discharge of his duty. Before leaving the steamer, I transferred all captured money, as will be seen by this copy of the following receipt. 

The late officers and men of the steamer were taken to Great George Landing, Liverpool, after night at the expense of Her Majesty`s Government. I thank Captain Paynter for his kindness to me, and for the interest he showed by his manner in us. During his visits he asked many questions of me for the benefit of the admiralty.

The Shenandoah was actually cruising but eight months after the enemy`s property, during which time she made thirty-eight captures, an average of a fraction over four per month.
She released six on bond, and destroyed thirty-two.

She visited every ocean except the Antarctic Ocean.

She was the only vessel which carried the flag around the world, and she carried it six months after the overthrow of the South.

She was surrendered to the British nation on 6th November 1865.

The last gun in defense of the South was fired from her deck on 22nd of June, Arctic Ocean.
She ran a distance of 58,000 statute miles and met with no serious injury during a cruise of thirteen months.

Her anchors were on her bows for eight months.

She never lost a chase, and was second only to the celebrated Alabama. 

I claim for her officers and men a triumph over their enemies and over every obstacle, and for myself I claim having done my duty.