An honest answer to a foolish question.

I don't try to compete with Joe Huffman mentally.  I'm smart enough to know that he is smarter than I.

The statement in question was, "gun violence is an inevitable part of there being guns in the society."

Joe, why don't you tell us, using your superior intellect and ability to understand the difference between the true and the false, exactly what's wrong with that statement.

This is the one you quoted Linoge about. There's something in that statement that requires "proof." Is that what you're saying?

First lets take a look at "gun violence".  All those poor disadvantaged guns growing up on the wrong side of the tracks.  Poor Austrian immigrants who have no particular skill other than reliability and willingness to take abuse.  They stay up night after night waiting for work until finally they snap, loading themselves and looking to cause trouble.  They go out and pull their own trigger, firing at random as the last gasp of their attempt to make sense of a cruel and senseless world.  Hat tip to Karl for his essay that I copied from shamelessly here.

Oh wait, maybe this isn't an honest answer to a loaded question.  Because there is no such thing as "gun violence" any more than there is such a thing as "steam engine violence" or "microprocessor violence".

There is only violence.  And most people think they understand violence but haven't looked deeply enough to understand that not all "harsh acts" are "violent".

Cain slew Abel.  Notice what is NOT in that sentence, any sort of noun other than the murderer and the victim.  It does not read, "The club forced itself into Cain's hand and swung itself to clobber Abel upside the head."  The "deodand" concept has no place in a logical society.  Sure random things happen such as volcanic eruptions, mudslides, and earthquakes that kill hundreds and sometimes thousands of people, but no one talks about "mother natures violence is a consequence of having mother nature in society."

Violence is a uniquely human trait because of malice.  We ascribe violence to animals when in fact they have no malice, this is an anthropomorphism that has unfortunately taken root in our society (I blame Disney).  A lion has to eat and as an obligate carnivore there his hunting is merely survival.  Can you tell the difference between a mugging victim and someone who just had rhinoplasty?  Very often they will look the same, and quite often feel the same.  So why do we call a mugger "violent" and not the doctor who performs such an unneeded surgery?

Because of motive.  We assign a malice to the mugger and benevolence to the doctor.  Even though the untrained eye can't tell the difference between the work of a mugger and a doctor.  In nature all animals have a "pure" motive for "violence".  Hunger or survival.  The law of the jungle.  Kill to eat or to keep from being eaten.  There is no malice.

And guns are incapable of malice.  Malice is a uniquely human trait.  And malice is what makes violence scary.

So there is no "gun violence".  There is ONLY "human violence".  MikeB is just a fool who is afraid to see that getting rid of guns won't get rid of "violence".

Dictator is as Dictator does...

Image Hat tip to Hunter at Vermont Campaign for Liberty

from Big Government

Quote;

"Dictator-weaved cloaks of ignorance have for decades enshrouded these populaces. The more mis- and un-informed you keep a people – the easier it is to dominate them.

It has led to a ceaseless stream of patently absurd stories being sold by the regimes – and bought by the people over whom they lord.

Many of them are aimed at Jews, Israel and/or the United States. Knowing that if these despots create Boogey Men to blame for their peoples’ horrendous lives, these poor peoples won’t notice that their plight is actually the fault of the Boogey Men creators themselves.

A magician’s misdirection – wave around and denounce the right hand while the left one holds everyone down."

"But as the Web began smuggling truth into these otherwise Orwellian worlds, this paradigm began unraveling.

Last May, President Barack Obama raised some eyebrows when he asserted:

“Information becomes a distraction, a diversion” that puts “pressure on our country and on our democracy.”

"Muslim-world autocrats would add that it ain’t great for dictatorships either."

"As the real knowledge base grew, so too did the cracks in the totalitarian walls erected around these peoples. These last two weeks, the ever more enlightened masses began spilling out.

For the most part, these revolts are effectively leaderless and decentralized. Which, by the way, is an accurate, frequent observation made of the Tea Party Movement. The Muslim-world protests appeared to appear out of nowhere, bubbling up into being through a thousand different cracks. Again, like the Tea Party.

I see where some are now headed, so:

Memo: To the domestic media and Leftists (please pardon the redundancy)

Re: Your absurd assertions that the Tea Party Movement is violent.

Body: Egypt’s uprising is violent. The Tea Party Movement is not.

It’s been two plus years – of town meeting, after rally, after election – and the verdict is in: The Tea Party Movement is not violent."

"The Internet is a massive truth delivery device – giving all of us access to the information that leads us to it. And in the end – eventually, sometimes after years or decades of suppression and oppression – the truth will always out, and conquer.

You can try to quash it, or regulate it away – but the human spirit yearns for it and cannot long endure anything less.

Whether those spirits live in Alexandria, Egypt – or Alexandria, Virginia."

(Read More)

...A mentor of the fraud in chief once said;

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” -Joseph Goebbels

The Internet provides the John 8:32 moment. "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” NIV.

Senator Susan Collins, (The ultimate RINO) a co-sponsor of the bill, said that unlike in Egypt, where the government was using its powers to quell dissent by shutting down the internet, it would not.

...BWAHAHAHAH!!! Yeah, like the Patriot act was to stop terrorists. What happens when the powers that be decide every American citizen who does not acquesis to the party in power is declared a terrorist? Like they already have?

“My legislation would provide a mechanism for the government to work with the private sector in the event of a true cyber emergency,” Collins said in an emailed statement, because she was too busy stuffing her craw full of Waygu beef to spare any face time. “It would give our nation the best tools available to swiftly respond to a significant threat.” (To our personal power)

The proposed legislation, introduced into the US Senate by "independent" senator Joe Lieberman, who is chairman of the US Homeland Security committee, seeks to grant the President broad emergency powers over the internet in times of national emergency.

"The internet is a dangerous place",(To our personal power)

...Not one more "POWER" should be granted these frauds. If anything, We the People should be STRIPPING the Mountebanks of the authority and ability to do ANYTHING to us.

Analysis....

Excellent analysis of what's happening in Egypt and the Middle East courtesy of Ann Barnhardt over at Weird and Pissed off.

Take a couple of minutes and give it a read.

Stay safe.

Senecas' long, tragic history

Thomas Indian School

Effort to protect sovereignty must be viewed against backdrop of injustices

By Keith R. Burich

The Seneca Nation of Indians has embarked on a campaign to tell its side of the story over taxation, casinos, sovereignty and treaty rights and obligations. The nation’s new president, Rob Porter, has even set out on a goodwill tour of local and state political and business leaders.
The Senecas are trying to explain that the rights they claim are guaranteed in treaties and that those treaties are inviolate and protected by the “supremacy” clause of the U. S. Constitution. They could also point out how their exemption from state taxes came in exchange for millions of acres of land—an exemption that was really no different than the tax breaks and subsidies grant- ed developers for building condos on the waterfront, rehabilitating buildings, keeping businesses downtown or luring businesses from one town to another.
However, there is far more to their story than broken treaties and promises—a story that the government and the American public would like to dismiss or forget. The determination of the Senecas to jealously and zealously protect their sovereignty and independence must be understood against the backdrop of the injustices they and all Indians have endured for 400 years. The story unfolding in Western New York is merely the latest chapter in the long, often sordid, and always tragic history of Indian and white relations.
Indians have been driven off their lands, herded onto reservations, deprived of their ability to sustain themselves and their way of life, stripped of their languages and cultures, denied their right to practice their religions and, when they resisted, subjected to warfare that in any other instance would be considered genocide.
The numbers don’t lie. The North American indigenous population in 1492 was between 15 million and 18 million. It was less than 250,000 by 1900. The first peoples of this country were on the verge of extinction by the early 20th century. The removal of Indians from their ancestral territories to reservations resulted in the loss of land and the disintegration of social, political, economic and family structures that left tribes in a perpetual state of dependency and vulnerable to the whiskey and wiles of the white man.
Although the days of warfare, removal and epidemics sweeping through their populations ended long ago, the trauma of the past was transmitted along generational lines in the form of new and just as deadly epidemics: alcohol and meth, teenage pregnancy and suicide, diabetes and heart disease. The statistics are startling and disheartening. Indians have a higher mortality rate, including among infants, have a shorter life expectancy and are more likely to die from cancer, heart disease and alcohol abuse than the general population. On some of the more isolated, Western reservations, unemployment can reach 50 percent to 60 percent, and The Buffalo News has recently reported that Indians are the poorest people in America.
Government policies have made matters worse. Shipping children off to boarding schools to be Christianized and civilized, or relocating families to cities far from reservations, created generations of children who, to borrow a popular Indian metaphor, were neither wolf nor dog, neither white nor Indian. Alone and lonely, desperate and despairing, they all too often succumbed to the self-destructive behaviors that have ravaged Indian communities for generations.
In Western New York, the Senecas have enjoyed a revival due largely to casino revenues and their tax-free cigarette and gasoline enterprises, but that prosperity is only recent and came only after they were robbed of millions of acres of land and, thus, their ability to sustain themselves and their language, culture and independence. A few decades ago, they suffered from the same poverty and its attendant afflictions as tribes on other reservations, and from the same heavy-handed and clumsy efforts at forced assimilation.
For example, the Thomas Indian School on the Cattaraugus Reservation was not closed until 1957, long after most other Indian boarding schools were shuttered, and only after thousands of Indian children from across the state were taken from their homes, sometimes as infants, placed in the care of strangers and alienated from their language, culture and families. When they were released, often at the age of 21, they were cast adrift in a world they were not prepared to enter and that was unprepared to accept them. The end results of this education for assimilation were broken homes, broken families and broken lives.
The Thomas Indian School was a product of the destructive forces of removal that created generations of orphaned, abandoned and neglected children. The Seneca and other Iroquois tribes are generally not associated with removal since they retained some of their ancestral lands. Unfortunately, that did not save them from the trauma associated with removal, including poverty, disease, starvation, population loss, alcohol abuse and suicide.
The removal of the Seneca and other Iroquois tribes began in earnest with Gen. John Sullivan’s campaign in 1779 that destroyed villages, crops and food stores along the Genesee River and drove the Senecas west to the Buffalo Creek territory. When Sullivan’s troops were done, they left behind an invisible and deadly present: smallpox. The combination of warfare, starvation and disease decimated the native population of New York. The Seneca tribe alone would lose nearly 50 percent of its population. So bad were conditions on the New York reservations that throughout the 19th and into the 20th century, the Senecas would suffer from a higher mortality rate than the rest of the population. The loss of land and population undermined their social, economic and political institutions, and left them in a self-perpetuating state of dependency.
The Senecas eventually lost nearly all of the 4 million acres guaranteed by the Canandaigua Treaty of 1794. The loss of lands culminated in 1842 with the Buffalo Creek Treaty, one of the most fraudulent treaties in the long history of fraudulent treaties, that forced the Senecas off the more than 80,000 acres that encompassed most of downtown Buffalo. To be sure, the Seneca and other tribes were not forced to sign the treaties at gunpoint, but starvation can be just as compelling as a soldier with a gun.
The trauma of removal did not end with the treaties that defrauded them of their lands in the 18th and 19th centuries. In the 1950s, Senecas on the Allegany Reservation were forced out of their homes as their land, although guaranteed by treaty, was inundated with the waters of the reservoir created by the Kinzua Dam, while at the same time the Tuscarora Indians in Lewiston lost a good portion of their reservation to the New York Power Authority.
The losses suffered by the Seneca and other New York tribes are often forgotten or obscured by economic and constitutional issues. There are other facts that get lost, including the fact that Indians pay taxes like the rest of us. They pay federal income taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, and if they work and live or shop off the reservation, they pay state income tax, local property taxes and even sales taxes. Furthermore, the state takes 25 percent off the top of their casino revenues, which amounts to more than $100 million per year, and that brings us back to the question of taxation.
The Senecas claim that the same Buffalo Creek Treaty of 1842 that defrauded them of 80,000 acres of prime real estate exempted them “from all taxes, and assessments for roads, highways or any other purpose.” Their opponents cry foul, claiming that it gives them an unfair advantage in the cigarette and gasoline trade. However, the fact remains that the tax exemption Indians claim by treaty is nothing more, and in fact certainly far less, than the billions of dollars of tax exemptions and subsidies routinely granted to businesses like Bass Pro in exchange for dubious promises of economic stimulation and for which the taxpayers of New York are on the hook. However, there is one difference: the Seneca and other Indians have paid dearly and tragically for their rights.
There is more than just a little irony to all of this. For 400 years, Indians have been told to learn the white man’s language, live in the white man’s houses, worship the white man’s God and adopt the white man’s values. However, when they finally do act like white men by asking for rights that are guaranteed them by treaty and that white businessmen take for granted, they are somehow un-American.
Businessmen are always quick to invoke the American traditions of fair play and competition even though, as Carl Paladino pointed out in opposing the Statler bailout, such tax breaks and subsidies are inherently unfair. Of course, the Senecas could cut a deal or compromise with the state rather than risk a lengthy, expensive and possibly losing court battle. But if they do, they would not only be compromising their sovereignty, they would also be compromising their identity as Seneca, or Iroquois, or indeed, Indians.
Keith R. Burich, Ph. D., is a professor of history at Canisius College specializing in Native Studies. He has just completed a book on the Thomas Indian School on the Cattaraugus Reservation.

This is so true.

Also, don't count on an Apple device to store songs.  If your laptop takes a crap like mine did a while back, and you have to reload iTunes, say goodbye to your music.

Screw the DMCA.

Starting to understand yet? Some people are...

from Ol Remus and the woodpile report

Weaponized food

Quote;

"Socialism is envy and hate enabled by terror. The briefest inquiry into socialism reveals its attraction to the unstable, the deviant and the psychopath. It craves domination without limit, not just of men but of the man. Socialists don't accept or tolerate the concept of the inner-directed person and despise those who do. They're obsessed with managing the least detail of each person's life and tip into a rage at the smallest lapse in fawning devotion. In the US we're astonished with their fixation with what we eat when we should be wary of their indifference to whether we eat. The twentieth century says this is not an overstatement.

The Green Folder was the German National Socialist's plan to exploit the lands to their East. Part of it was the Hunger Plan of 1940 put together by Economic Staff East under Herbert Backe, a well educated and ambitious SS officer. Under this plan, rations for all Slavic peoples were cut below subsistence level to generate a surplus to feed Germany's invading army and Germany itself. Soviet POWs were the first victims, confined without shelter or provisions they perished by the hundreds of thousands. The planners calculated tens of millions of slavic people would starve even after the annihilation of "surplus populations", meaning the cities and the untermenschen. The Hunger Plan was soon expanded to include Poland where allowances were reduced to a quarter of their need. An additional three million Poles were expected to die of starvation.

Ukraine in particular had seen this before with the Holodomor in the early 1930s, meaning "death by hunger" perpetrated by the Soviet socialists when food was confiscated outright through a series of draconian regulations. At first, communes failing to deliver their quota were stripped of their grain and livestock and forbidden to receive deliveries of any kind. Then Ukraine's borders were closed and Soviet enforcers raided the country to ensure no food remained. Keeping back the merest personal stock was considered hoarding—stealing from the people and therefore treason. Ukraine became a death camp complete with cannibalism. About eight million died from hunger. No true socialist wastes a good calamity so the Soviet secret police terrorized the living and filled the Gulags. Ukrainian party members were among the first to be arrested but merely being alive, let alone in decent health, was evidence of a capital crime."

(Read More)

...Do you understand yet?

...The precursor of this horror in every case? Disarmament.

Resist. By any means necessary.

F*ck it.

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” – Barack Obama, candidate, September 12, 2008.

from Gonzalo Lira

Hat tip to Irons In The Fire

The Coming Middle-Class Anarchy

Quote:

"What’s really important is that law-abiding middle-class citizens are deciding that playing by the rules is nothing but a sucker’s game.

Just like the poker player who’s been fleeced by all the other players, and gets one mean attitude once he finally wakes up to the con? I’m betting that more and more of the solid American middle-class will begin saying what Brian and Ilsa said: Fuckit.

Fuck the rules. Fuck playing the game the banksters want you to play. Fuck being the good citizen. Fuck filling out every form, fuck paying every tax. Fuck the government, fuck the banks who own them. Fuck the free-loaders, living rent-free while we pay. Fuck the legal process, a game which only works if you’ve got the money to pay for the parasite lawyers. Fuck being a chump. Fuck being a stooge. Fuck trying to do the right thing—what good does that get you? What good is coming your way?

Fuckit.

When the backbone of a country starts thinking that laws and rules are not worth following, it’s just a hop, skip and a jump to anarchy.

TV has given us the illusion that anarchy is people rioting in the streets, smashing car windows and looting every store in sight. But there’s also the polite, quiet, far deadlier anarchy of the core citizenry—the upright citizenry—throwing in the towel and deciding it’s just not worth it anymore.

If a big enough proportion of the populace—not even a majority, just a largish chunk—decides that it’s just not worth following the rules anymore, then that society’s days are numbered: Not even a police-state with an armed Marine at every corner with Shoot-to-Kill orders can stop such middle-class anarchy.

Brian and Ilsa are such anarchists—grey-haired, well-dressed, golf-loving, well-to-do, exceedingly polite anarchists: But anarchists nevertheless. They are not important, or powerful, or influential: They are average—that’s why they’re so deadly: Their numbers are millions. And they are slowly, painfully coming to the conclusion that it’s just not worth it anymore.

Once enough of these J. Crew Anarchists decide they no longer give a fuck, it’s over for America—because they are America."

(Read More)

...Make sure to follow other links at this story to get the full picture.

...Want REAL hope and Change? Turn on, Tune in, Drop out;

Leary explained in his 1983 autobiography Flashbacks:

“'Turn on' meant go within to activate your neural and genetic equipment. Become sensitive to the many and various levels of consciousness and the specific triggers that engage them. Drugs were one way to accomplish this end.

'Tune in' meant interact harmoniously with the world around you - externalize, materialize, express your new internal perspectives.

'Drop out' suggested an elective, selective, graceful process of detachment from involuntary or unconscious commitments.

'Drop Out' meant self-reliance, a discovery of one's singularity, a commitment to mobility, choice, and change.

Unhappily my explanations of this sequence of personal development were often misinterpreted to mean 'Get stoned and abandon all constructive activity'."

...Ponder this within the context of Liberty, Freedom, and founding principles.

...To paraphrase a WW1 Sgt; "If the dirty banksters want frightfulness, then by God let’s give it to them!”

Says it all...

Hat tip to Moonbattery

The Social Network

We bought The Social Network on DVD, because, at $13, it was cheaper even than two senior movie tickets.  And, after putting it off for quite some time, last night we watched it.

I'm not quite sure what I'd like to say about this film.  I was depressed at the end of it, because it was so vacuous.  Everyone -- from Zuckerberg through the Napster guy on to the vapid girl friends -- was empty.  They were just exactly like every other capitalist cypher.  They cared about either writing code or making money or gaining prestige, and that was all there was to them.  I've never been a big fan of Harvard, but God help them if these kids are examples of their current student body!  I understand about the competitiveness of getting into the "right" club, though I abhor it; but even that is better than the hideous single-minded pursuit of being first with some code, some idea, some invention for the internet.

Ok, it might be nice to be a billionaire -- and the youngest one ever, at that -- but to be a billionaire is not sufficient recompense for losing all friends and living a seemingly monastic, cramped life.  Maybe there was something wrong with this kid to begin with (we know nothing about his family or his life before Harvard) that sent him in such directions and left him in the state he seems to be in at the end of the film.  It is true that he seemed to care about the girl friend (played by Rooney Mara) he had at the beginning of the film, and that he followed her on Facebook.  But really, one hopes that he someday grows up and has a real relationship.  One wants to slap him upside the head and say, "Kid, get a life!"

Facebook is, without a doubt, one of the most significant developments on the internet since its inception.  It drew in, first our children, then us, and has now become an integral part of our daily life and that of many of our friends.  It effects not only the rich and privileged, but millions of people around the world.

It stands to reason we should know about the origins of this social phenomenon.  I wish the people who created it had been more interesting, but that's the way it was.  Still, one wonders what Tim Berners-Lee thinks!

Manufactured dearth in a land of plenty

from PPJ Gazette

I can’t buy local: I don’t live in China!

Quote;

"Buy local? Ok! I will do that! Wait…..this says product of China, product of Brazil, product of Mexico, product of Egypt, Guatemala, Argentina ………where is the stuff produced in the US? How am I supposed to buy local to support my local economy when there is nothing here that was produced locally or even in the United States? And this stuff over here? It just says “distributed by” a company in the US and I have no idea where the heck it came from.

In what I see as a sick joke mouthed by sick individuals in our government, the call has gone out to “buy local! Know your farmer!” I know the farmers in this area but they are being regulated and pressured out of business with the passage of the fake food safety bill in the senate. Maybe I should say by one senator…..”Dirty Harry” Reid. It was his one, unanimous vote in an empty senate chamber that broke the back of independent agriculture in the US.

Food riots coming to a town near you! Or maybe even yours.

By now we have all heard of the massive riots in Egypt. Previously, Tunisia’s government was overthrown and the riots in Greece and Italy and India against rising taxes, food prices, and corrupt governments comprised of self-entitled elitists, is growing. The so-called global economy promoted as some perverted form of capitalism and riddled with jingoistic terms like “free trade”, is destroying one economy after another. Face it: A global economy as it is practiced is not only economically disastrous, but also is the tool used to destroy nations. In that sense, it is working.

At the core of most of the revolts is food, or more accurately, food prices. There is not, in my opinion, a food shortage. There is however a shortage of food that is not controlled by some government agency somewhere, and in many cases based around the world are USDA and FDA offices that work in tandem with the US central offices to manipulate and control food prices. It appears that tremendous efforts have been put forward to ensure food shortages in several third world locations where population levels are higher than the controllers of the world would like to see them. The problem with this is; now they are setting their sites on us, right here at home.

Most people have the idea that food in our grocery stores just magically appears; maybe it just pops up out of the floors or drops down from secret store rooms in the ceilings. Even with the 60% rise in food costs over the last six months, most shoppers have done little other than grumble as they went through the check out. Most of these people are totally unaware that everything in that store would last twelve to twenty-four hours at most in the event of an emergency and these same people have done nothing to prepare themselves for the planned shortage of food here in the US."

(Read More)

...Later on in the article, this paragraph jumps out at you;

"What I see being planned for US consumers is a sudden disappearance of food on the shelves of stores. For us in the US, this would be a shock to the senses. The value of shock cannot be underestimated. It is shock that will cause us to accept whatever terms the government offers in order to survive. You are not going to like those terms."- PPJG

Western Rifle Shooters shows us the grand plan

And what to do about the "terms".

..."'Cause you can't starve us out, and you can't make us run..." Bocephus

"Do you resolve to declare sovereignty over your basic human right to save seed, grow, process, consume and exchange food and farm products?"

WHEREAS All people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and

WHEREAS Food is human sustenance and is the fundamental prerequisite to life; and

WHEREAS The basis of human sustenance rests on the ability of all people to save seed, grow, process, consume and exchange food and farm products; and

WHEREAS We the People of Vermont, have an obligation to protect these rights as is the Common and Natural Law; and in recognition of the State’s proud agricultural heritage; and the necessity of agricultural, ecological and economic diversity and sustainability to a free and healthy Society;

THEREFORE, Be it resolved, that We The People, stand on our rights under the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution and reject such Federal decrees, statutes, regulations or corporate practices that threaten our basic human right to save seed, grow, process, consume and exchange food and farm products within the State of Vermont; and,

Be it further resolved, that We The People, shall resist any and all infringements upon these rights, from whatever sources that are contrary to the rights of the People of the State of Vermont.

....By any means necessary. Resist. BY. ANY. MEANS. NECESSARY.

Gun Show: Columbus, GA

I was disappointed.  No one had an A1 style upper.

Picked up a ball cap with skull and crossed sabers for my roomie.

Picked up an AR armorers tool for myself.

Violence, restraint, and goals

Setting off bombs is a largely unsuccessful tactic for insurgents.  Didn't work for McVeigh, hasn't worked for the Palestinians, hasn't worked for the IRA, but it did work for Al Quaeda with the Madrid bombings.  So the question is why did it work in Spain but not elsewhere?  This goes back to the hearts and minds of the people.  The effect of the bombing in Madrid wasn't so much as to kill civilians and destroy infrastructure as it was to shatter public support for Spain's support of the US led "War on Terror".  So the bombing had a psychological effect greater than just a random explosion of say a gas line or tanker truck.

This is why propaganda is so important to the Strategic and Operational goals of an Insurgency.  The message the Spanish people got loud and clear was "you brought this on yourselves by supporting the US war aims" stick with the "and we won't blow you up any more if you pull support for the US" carrot.  Carrot and stick, alternate state of government option, and one bomb.  None of those operations alone achieved the desired effect, but by combining propaganda with violence Al Quaeda managed a successful operation.

So looking at past successful and unsuccessful attacks, here are some of the things that I see.

When should an insurgent use violence as a tactic?  When it supports the propaganda, reinforces Operational goals, or provides an immediate tactical advantage.  Successful insurgencies do not have to be terribly violent.  But they must always possess the capability of violence to be taken seriously.  When violence supports the Strategic (overall goal) and Operational (an achievable end state in a geographic region) then and only then should violence be considered.

Where should an insurgent target?  Where the enemy is vulnerable.  Is he strong in the cities, suburbs, or rural areas?  Attack where he is weak to show that the government cannot protect itself or its people, but DO NOT TARGET the people. 

Who should the insurgent attack?  Once again there isn't a list, but identify who is most vulnerable.  Picking the low hanging fruit can cause a .gov to expend massive resources to harden itself.  How many additional police officers on the street could be paid for by the TSA's budget?   Attack who is vulnerable.

What should insurgents attack?  Symbols of power and legitimacy.  One of the major victories in Iraq was the establishment of a relatively modern legal system.  The National Police were a continued target by the insurgents because nothing is as legitimate as impartial rule of law (while the Iraqi's don't have that, they are light years ahead of where they were under Baathist rule).  Historically prisons have been symbols of revolution, but Abu Ghraib became a constant target as the insurgents wanted to be seen as liberating Iraqis from abusive American occupiers.  We knew that the insurgents would try to take down the legal system any time they could which is why security around courthouses was very tight.

How should an insurgent attack?  In a manner that targets multiple areas of vulnerability.  A cyber attack that releases classified information can be more devastating to .gov legitimacy than kidnapping a public officials family member.  Totally wiping out a combat outpost is a wet dream for Taliban commanders as it would attack the moral of the American People, the legitimacy of US Forces to provide security, and would provide a persuasive propaganda argument for Taliban might and power to the Afghan people.  Look for multiple effects from a single target.  Think high payoff low tech and NOT targeting the people unless you want to be seen as a criminal/terrorist organization.  Now Al Sadr and the IRA have managed to play "good guy/bad organization" games with limited success, but I do not recommend their model. 

And finally intelligence is the driving factor for the who, what, where, when, how of a successful operation.  Intelligence needs to be broad, deep, and fully developed.  Not only do you need to know how many men the enemy has, but what is the response time for reinforcements, what is his logistical footprint and pipeline, what equipment gives the enemy an advantage, what low tech solution will take away that advantage, where and how does the enemy travel,  and a gajillion other things.  Dutchman6 likes to quote Michael Collins about gathering intelligence "I want to know what they had for breakfast!"  And it is truly the intelligence gathering cycle that drives SUCCESSFUL operations. 

Because while information may flow over the internet, it is on the ground that insurgencies exist.  Even bloodless "open source" insurgencies HAVE to exist on the ground to be effective.

Wondering....

I have often wondered how the military of a declining super-power would respond if ordered to turn their weapons on their fellow citizens to quell an uprising against their tyrannical government?

Being a veteran myself I know that as an Infantryman I was taught to follow the lawful orders that I was given by my superior officers.  As a squad leader I trained my people to perform the tasks and to gain the knowledge required to complete the mission and to survive as an infantryman. My motives were different, in a sense, than the motives of the officers that were giving the orders.  They had the "Big Picture" to look at.  I had my squad to protect. You train and train and train so that, when given that order, you will function flawlessly.   Constant training and discipline are the glue that binds it all together.  They are the two things that, if done correctly, make you successful in accomplishing your mission and in keeping you alive.

The hope is that the training is so well ingrained into your mind that you will act and react without thinking.  If your training is good and your tactics are sound your chances of success, and survival, are greatly improved.  That's the goal.   Success.  Survival.

Still I wonder, would they turn their weapons on their fellow citizens if ordered to do so by their superiors?  It's something that I never even considered being ordered to do when I was in the Army.  Of course, that was over 30 years ago.  The times were different then.  The world was different.  We had The Cold War, The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Union, the East Bloc, Arab terrorists blowing up things at American military bases in Europe, the Olympic murders, little civil wars all over the world, mostly in Africa. 

It was different then, yet the same.  America had war protests going on all over the country when I was in High School and when I first enlisted in the Army.  I was spit at in the Philadelphia airport in the summer of 1972 while running through the terminal in uniform to catch a bus to Fort Dix.  That was an awakening for me.  My second awakening.

A bunch of Liberal Hippies yelling and screaming and protesting the immorality of the unjust war in Viet Nam.  Big Bad Amerika killing innocents in the jungles of South East Asia.  Corporations getting rich off of the war and the sweat and blood of the workers. 

What I find astounding (insert sarcasm) is the fact that the instant that President Nixon announced the end of the draft, the anti-war protests ended.  That's when I realized what Liberals were all about.  They weren't protesting the war.  They were using the war to protest the draft.  They didn't want to serve.  They didn't want to give back to the country that was giving them so much.  All they wanted was their tie dyed tee shirts and their dope.  And to take over the world.  They wanted to destroy "The Establishment".  They wanted "social justice" for the poor and downtrodden....  They wanted to rule the world.  Peace.  Love.  Dope.  They just couldn't get behind that "Duty, Honor, Country" thing.  They suffered from too much self interest, I guess.

Today these people are the elected representatives in the Senate and the Congress of the United States.  They are the people who are tearing this country apart.  They still don't think.  They still don't listen.  They "feel".  They still run their mouths, they still call those who don't agree with them names the way a junior high kid would. 

I guess some things don't change.

My first awakening?

About a week before completing Basic Training. 

We were marched to the range to qualify with the M-16 rifle.  Record Range.  Something we had all been looking forward to for quite a long time.  I wanted to earn that Expert Marksman Badge so badly that I could taste it.  It was a good day.

After we were finished with the range we were marched out to a heavily wooded area of Fort Leonard Wood for some additional training.  The Drill Sergeants were being very friendly with us for the first time since we arrived at Basic.  They brought us hot chow as the sun was starting to set and let us take it easy and relax.  We all felt like this was going to be something special.

After the sun went down we noticed that there weren't any Drill Sergeants around.  That was weird.  We hadn't been out of their sight for over 7 weeks, now they were gone.  We started talking amongst ourselves, wondering what we were supposed to do.

It didn't take long before we found out.

5 or 6 "soldiers" in strange looking uniforms with strange looking helmets came out of the woods firing their weapons and yelling and screaming.  We were confused and just sat there, looking stupid.  Feeling stupid.  We all knew we should be doing something!  There were probably 60 of us in the company and we all sat there dumbfounded.  When the 5 or 6 strange looking soldiers yelled at us to get on our feet and form a file, we did it without question.  When they told us to move up against the guy in front of us and lock our arms around his waist, we did it.  Without question or hesitation.  60 "soldiers" who were about to complete Basic Training standing in a file, tight enough to "make your buddy smile", arms wrapped around the waist of the man in front of you. 

Talk about feeling uncomfortable.  And scared.

Then they screamed at us to run.  Don't let go of the man in front of you.  In the dark.  In a wooded area like the picnic area of a park. 

As we started to clumsily run we could sense very bright lights coming on behind us.  A light similar to a porch light came on in front of us, perhaps 200 yards away through the woods.  We ran toward the light.  The enemy soldiers screaming orders at us all the time.  That "porch light" was a low wattage incandescent bulb on the side of a white wooden building.  When we got to the building it looked like a small machine shed with a walk-thru door on the front at the far end of the building.  They screamed at us to go inside.  We complied without question.  There were lights and bleachers in this building.  It's dimensions were probably 12 feet by 30 feet.  We sat in the bleachers and were left alone. 

Soon we started asking each other "what the fuck just happened to us"?  We got that giddy nervous laugh that comes as the adrenalin starts to dissipate from your body after being terrified.  Terrified for 9 or 10 minutes that seemed like an hour.  We figured that an instructor would soon appear to talk about night land navigation or something.  I suppose we thought that because we had heard the Drill Sergeants talking about it amongst themselves at the range earlier that day.  Glad that was over.

The door burst open and one, JUST ONE, of the soldiers in the funny looking uniforms came in the building.  He was screaming and swinging a soaking wet white towel.  We again cowered as he used that towel to hit anyone he could in the head.  Terror.  5 minutes of terror.  Pure terror.  No one did a thing.  60 of us.  Nothing.

He ordered us outside.  We formed our centipede file again and were forced to run toward the bright lights 300 yards away.  Barbed wire.  12 feet high.  We went through the gates and they were closed behind us.  A fucking camp.  Shit.  We were all scared.  They were screaming at us.  Making people get on the ground in the dying cockroach position.  Some were forced to their knees and made to take their fatigue jackets off.  Their tee shirts were pulled over their faces and water from canteens was poured over their mouths and noses.  Can't breathe.  Panic.  No place to go.  I was forced into a wall locker that had been laid on its back in a hole in the ground.  They closed the doors and started throwing dirt on it.

Soon the lights went off and the yelling stopped.  The lights came back on and the "guards" were gone.  Someone who was unfamiliar to us but who seemed concerned and knowledgeable told us that we had to leave the compound and head through the woods.  It was a mile to a road where buses would pick us up and take us back to the barracks.  We only had an hour to get there and there were enemy in the woods.

Somehow we all made it back to the buses.  The Drill Sergeants were there and they treated us differently than they had in the past.  More respectfully.  They weren't calling us Knucklefuck and Maggot and Dickhead any more.  Those of us who had longer and more difficult to pronounce last names suddenly heard those names being pronounced correctly for the first time in almost 2 months.

That night, those few hours, were a life changing experience for me.  I learned that people are sheep.  All of us are, at one time or another in our lives.  I learned that you can be scared to the point that you cannot make a rational decision no matter how hard you try.  I learned that 60 men who could have easily overpowered their "guards", didn't.  Training.

I made a decision right then and there that I would never allow myself to be put in the position of being a cowardly sheep again.  I have never been so ashamed of myself as I was when I went over that night in my mind.  Perhaps ashamed is too strong a word, perhaps disappointed in myself is a more appropriate  description of how I felt.   I wasn't prepared for what was happening to me....

That was almost exactly 39 years ago.  So far, I have been successful in not feeling so helpless or useless in any situation I have encountered.  I have been through a lot in my life, both in the Army and out.  I've learned from it.   I'm no longer that naive 18 year old who was learning to be a soldier.

That experience made me a better man.  I learned more about myself and those around me in those few hours than I had learned in my entire life up to that point.  Training.

That night was burned into my memory in a way that is even stronger than my memories of my wedding day or the births of my 3 sons.  It prepared me for every other thing that was to come in the remainder of my life.

But I digress....

If the leader of a "free" country ordered his Generals to turn their weapons on their countrymen to quell an uprising against what they believe to be a tyrannical government, would those Generals give the orders?

Suppose the Generals do give the order to quash the insurrection....  Would the Colonels follow through?  The Majors and the Captains? 

How about the troops?   Would the Grunts follow orders to carry out an illegal, immoral order?  An order with no basis in law?  An order to keep a tyrannical government in power?

Would anyone have the balls to just say NO!?

This is something that I wonder about sometimes.

Stay safe.

Solutions?

I'm not trying to be a dick, just focused and brief: Care to offer any solutions? I like your analysis (and blog), but we have plenty of analysts. All of the winnowing jobs are completely full. How about using your expertise to focus on what will work, and building the frameworks of ideas we need to start building a future?

Mike

A game plan for an insurgency is not something you can really script in detail.  There is no successful formula that guarantees success.  However, there are things that are fundamentally sound.

Case in point, the ultra liberal editors of The Stranger, a Seattle publication put together this website http://www.urbanarchipelago.com/ and they make some very good points about the different nature of urban and rural politics.  Which makes a potential insurgency Wyoming or Alaska look very different from one in Los Angeles, Portland, or Boston.

The three levels of war are Strategic, Operational, and Tactical.  Propaganda is a method for achieving a strategic gain.  A group of insurgents in one location would be in charge of the missions and efforts to achieve the strategic mission in that area.  At the tactical level this would be a cell, team, or individual doing a single mission to further the operational goal and strategic goals.

But what to do right now to prepare for the future?  Stock up on things that you may need later.  Recruit young minds to the cause.  The Vietnamese Political Cadre were masters of indoctrination.  Is there any wonder why the Statists have seized control of schools through the Dept of Education and Teachers Unions?  So that is where the enemy is, and the enemy is targeting the next generation (why do you think the Taliban targets teachers in Afghanistan?).  Getting back to a  previous post this is almost a "slow cycle" OODA loop operation.  The fight is always over the hearts and minds of the people.  Insurgents who win the hearts and minds win the war.

I'm not going to tell anyone to how to make an IED, or conduct a linear or L shaped ambush.  When violence is justified this blog will probably have been shut down due to "security concerns" or some such excuse.  There are plenty of resources available to anyone who wants to learn the art of violence.

To succeed an insurgency must offer the perception of a better government than the current regime.  You don't get that by killing people.  If an insurgent kills a cop that is a propaganda loss, unless somehow the media can put forth the stories of how corrupt that cop was.  If you kill someone who rapes grandmothers and eats babies it is usually a propaganda win.  If you kill a cop, just because he is a cop, that is the cold blooded murder of a public servant.

Remember, "The Turner Diaries" is dangerous fiction.  Provoking the .gov to get an oppressive response does not work.  Government oppression is a relative thing, like boiling a frog.  If restrictions of civil liberties sparked insurgencies then the UK and most of Europe would be fighting.  Obviously that is not the case.  The TSA pisses me off so much I think about holding a protest whenever I am near an airport, but the bulk of our population views it as reasonable.  To get support the propaganda cells of the insurgency need to change peoples minds, to think that the TSA is unreasonable.  It is a very tough job, a lot of people like the illusion of security.  In fact people will choose the illusion of security over actual security most of the time.  Which is why minimum wage rent-a-cops are hired instead of redundant passkey and biometric scanning stations at many facilities.

We have a hard time beating Radical Islam because SO MANY MUSLIMS AGREE with the goals and means of Radical Islam.  That is passive support by a large portion of the population.  For an American Insurgency to work, there has to be that large scale passive support.  People who don't want to fight, don't want to have anything to do with the insurgency, but really don't care for the .gov either.

The "Three Percent" number for active insurgents is not wrong.  But that would mean 9 MILLION active insurgents in the US to have a successful insurgency.  That is a lot of people.  If we use Radical Islam as a guide, we need between 25 and 40% of the population to passively support.  That is between 75 and 120 MILLION Americans.  These are large numbers.  But how do insurgents WIN?  By winning the hearts and minds.  Guns are fine, and the threat of force is very important but the war could be won without a shot fired in anger.

So Mike, I can't give you a checklist of things to do.  But as long as you focus your individual efforts to align with the Strategic goals, you will be doing fine.  However, I do not know what the Strategic goals of an American Insurgency would be.  Personally I would like to see a return to a Constitutional Republic with a limited Federal Government.  It would be awesome for the FedGov to declare the Constitution a symbol of insurgency.

However, lets think about the counter propaganda from the .gov.  "A Return to the Original Constitution Is a Return of Slavery" and "Racist Right Wing Terrorists Seek to Impose Jim Crowe Apartheid in the US".  So maybe an edited version of the Constitution.

Hearts and minds.  Can't stress winning hearts and minds enough.

Legitimacy, it's all about perception.

Every insurgency has a "center of gravity" that shapes the organization, activities, and efforts of the movement.  On the other side every Government has a desire to maintain sole legitimacy over the population.

There is contention among professionals whether the American Revolution was an insurgency or not.  I say that it is based on the following: attempts to reform British rule before seeking independence, specific criminal acts such as the Boston Tea Party for symbolic victory, widespread propaganda efforts through the printing press, establishing a shadow government in the form of the Continental Congress, a population divided between support for the Crown and support for independence, and especially the British response forcing the "reformist insurgency" into "shooting insurgency".

That isn't to say that our Revolution was purely an insurgency, the ending was purely a conventional military affair and the phases of battle did not really follow the "Three Stages".  Revolutions and insurgencies are not mutually exclusive.  What is important is to recognize the parts that worked, and the parts that didn't work.  Stealing from locals to feed the Continental Army did not win the hearts and minds of Loyalists or fence sitters.

The British could have maintained control simply by adopting SOME of the reforms that the colonials wanted.  The Founding Fathers were reasonable men, and they would have traded time for concessions from the Crown.  This model worked quite well in other Commonwealth nations.

Currently the Tea Party is big news.  And now the Republicans are now debating whether to repeal or replace Obamacare.  This is clearly not a reform acceptable to Tea Partiers and most Conservatives.  Instead of taking the hint to reign in spending President Obama paid it lip service and then spoke about "unprecedented investment" into areas of research that the free market has given up on as unprofitable.  If a large portion of the population is feeling betrayed and marginalized, a crafty insurgent will capitalize on that.

A smart American Insurgent would now be stepping up propaganda attacks against the legitimacy of the US Government.  Maybe letting the cat out of the bag that while we still outspend China by 4:1, in the next five years our interest payments to China alone will cover their entire military budget.  Maybe by pointing out the unintended consequences of ethanol and the moratorium on oil drilling.  Maybe by pointing out that since Obama took office more service members have died in Afghanistan than all of the years under Bush.  Maybe the union buy outs, trashing of contract law, and healthcare fiasco.

There are a lot of uncomfortable truths about the current system to use as propaganda.  The other half of propaganda is the promise that the Insurgents can do it better.  That by returning to the rule of law all American's investments would be protected impartially.  That by guaranteeing civil rights, ending the war on (some) drugs that SWAT teams wouldn't kill children with smoke grenades.  There are a lot of ways to promise that life will be better under an Insurgent rule.

And this can all be done without firing a shot.  Our Founding Fathers did this for years before the Legitimate British Government forced them into a fight.  The Battles of Lexington and Concord are a list of nearly everything that a Government can do wrong to suppress internal rebellion or dissent.

Remember back when "dissent is the highest form of patriotism"?  Now that the Statist party holds the reigns of power dissent is categorized as "violent rhetoric" and "hate speech".

Finally, an Insurgency wins by being seen as legitimate.  That means convincing the fence sitters.  If we look at the last three presidential elections they have been decided by less than 2% of the voting population.  That is lot of potential support for a reformist insurgency.  Targeting efforts to win both the active and passive support of that roughly 50% of the population is key.

And here is the hard reality.  Without capacity for violence the Insurgency will not be taken seriously by the Government.  Samizdat did not work in the USSR because they couldn't have resisted simply by lack of means.  Nonviolent protest only works because those in power get the idea of what would happen if the protests became violent.  To gain a propaganda victory the .Gov has to screw up and bring the power and might of the State against dissenters/insurgents. 

Please note, "The Turner Diaries" are a dangerous fiction.  Historically no insurgency has been successful by this method.  Some have tried it, and recently Iraq was a good example of this tactic, but it failed.  Tim McVeigh tried it, and he is rightly viewed as terrorist scum.   If you know anyone who proposes "The Turner Diaries" as a model use the dark parts of your imagination to figure out what to do to him.

In a Socratic method I would like to end with the following questions.  What is or would be the most effective center of gravity for an American insurgency?  What concessions would American Insurgents give to get some of the reforms they desire?   How could an American Insurgent temper the image of an armed radical to that of a reasonable alternative to the current system?  What symbolic battles won OR lost will resonate with the people to gain their support?

Here we go....

This little article over at Newsweek is interesting....

That didn't take long.

I wonder what the Fed will say about this?  One thing is certain....  The Libs will scream like zombies.  That makes me happy.  Know what I find strange about this?  Last year when Arizona wanted to shut her southern border down, the MSM was all over that immediately.  Everyday.  Front page headlines talking about the cold, heartless Conservatives who wanted to control illegal immigration and the crime that goes with it.  Now this.  Why isn't the fact that 10 states are proposing legislation that requires a candidate to actually prove eligibility all over the front pages?  This is something of a big deal, if you ask me.

Which brings me to the next question...  Why wouldn't he just show his long form birth certificate and be done with the controversy?

Either his papers aren't in order, or he want's the controversy because it distracts attention from other things.

What do we know about this guy?  Who is he?  Where does he really come from?  Was he born in Hawaii?  Kenya?  Baltimore?  Seriously, we know absolutely nothing about him.  Nothing.  That speaks volumes about the Moonbats who elected him.  I believe that it's our right as American citizens to know who our president is.

Hypothetical situation:  Can you imagine the reaction of the Liberals if the Supremes were to decide that obama wasn't qualified to be president due to his dual citizenship at birth?  (Did he ever renounce his British citizenship?)  They would scream and rant about how obama's destruction of America was destroyed by a bunch of birthers.  They would never even consider the fact that they had been deceived by the communist community organizer.  The thought would never enter their minds.  They are OK with circumventing all or part of The Constitution when it suits their needs.  They would begin with the name calling, the  pointing of fingers, and the blame game.  They would scream like banshees.

Wouldn't it be wonderful?

In my mind, the definition of "natural born citizen" doesn't require any legal wrangling to define it...

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

A natural born citizen, common sense would dictate, is a person born of American citizen parents.

Ahhhh welllll.......  It ain't gonna happen.  It is what it is.  I do like the idea of the states standing up to the Fed and passing legislation requiring proof of eligibility before allowing a presidential candidate onto their ballot.  That's good thinkin'!

Stay safe.

Says it all...

From Oleg Volk

I suggest you stand a post...

from TL in Exile

Vigilant Defense

Verbatim;

There is one irrefutable fact: I was born in America and I was born with rights given to me by God and recognized by the Constitution of the United States of America. There is no question as to the veracity of that statement, but to atheists they might consider that their rights come from nature. Each is free to believe what they will as long as they recognize that rights are not privileges, conditional luxuries or rewards for good behavior. Also, however, rights are not self-enforcing; they are the product of vigilant defense.

What does that mean? It means that every time they pass a restricting gun law or speech law and you do nothing about it, you verify the legitimacy of it. We see in Tunisia and Egypt the result of injustice, but not here in America. I know, you are but one person against a whole government, what can you do? If there were a protest, you would join. If there were a riot, you would engage. Hmmmm.

Here is the doctrine of 1x1x1. You are an individual, you are 1. You can do 1 act as a means of rebellion against that law. You can produce 1 outcome from your act.

This is minor. This is the start. This is the very least you could do. It is anonymous, perhaps even spontaneous, but better if well planned for effect. Look around your AO, what is vulnerable, what is a message that can be sent as protest? If you demand to act as an individual, then for God's sake, act! Here is your chance, embrace the doctrine of 1x1x1.

There are those of us who are willing to stick our necks out, to break laws if necessary, it is an American tradition. Sitting at the "white" counter was breaking the municipal codes, it was breaking the law. Any law, in contravention of the Constitution, is no law and since the government will not enforce the Constitution, it is itself illegal. There is not one representative, or senator alive who has sworn to uphold the Constitution who is not right now in violation of the law. To obey a law handed down by an illegal government to restrict the liberties issued by God is no sin and it is not illegal. But, even if it were, you have that right as an American as a form of protest. Throwing tea into Boston Harbor was an illegal act committed by criminals against a legal authority, yet it inspired those jealous of their rights to act. Today, that act is revered for its inspiration to form a new government, one that now has forgotten the lessons of those times.

What is the price of our inaction? $14 trillion of debt and counting. The futures of our children. Lost liberty (a value incalculable through the avenue of price). The violations of our sovereignty, our borders, our security and our rights. That ain't much, why all those things are trivial to the comfort of yourself as a "law-abiding" citizen. The trains were full of "law-abiding" citizens and the streets ran with the blood of the righteous. What else would an illegal government bent on the subjugation of its people do?

...So what are you waiting for? Some one else to guard the wall and your God Given rights? Stand a post, Whether in the Imperial city, Your State house, Townhall or lonely frontier. No one will take care of you better than you.

How to win

Insurgents win through the people.  Gaining legitimacy either through reforming the current government or replacing it.  Which brings us first to the skies above Korea and then to the mountains of Afghanistan before ending in Massachusetts.  Col. Boyd was a fighter pilot in Korea and the man who termed the phrase "OODA Loop".  If you don't know what an OODA loop is, go Google.

Col. Boyd noted that American F-86's were shooting down Russian Mig-15's at about a 3:1 kill to loss ratio.  When Col. Boyd started looking for WHY that was, he eliminated pilot skill by comparing Russian Pilots and American Pilot kill ratios against the Luftwaffe in WWII, and the ratios were essentially the same.

So why were they different over the Korean peninsula?

As he continued his investigation Col. Boyd found that the cockpit of the Mig-15 has a very limited view and the pilot can not see behind him at all.  In comparison with the F-86 which had a great big bubble canopy providing excellent observation.  And while the engine on the Mig was more powerful, giving it an altitude advantage, the hydraulics were better on the F-86, giving it a slight maneuverability advantage.

Col. Boyd wrote about how hard it was to bring down Migs even with the six 50 caliber machine guns on the Saber, but as long as the pilot could use his maneuverability advantage to get where the Mig pilot couldn't see, eventually any decision the Mig pilot made would be irrelevant to the outcome of the dogfight.  The very minor detail of cockpit design from an engineering standpoint became a very significant tactical advantage.

Facing a modern government insurgent have to be masters of "fast cycle" operations to stay inside of the OODA loop of the .gov.  In the movie "The Next Three Days" Russel Crowe writes 15 and 35 on his wrist to remind him how long it will take the .gov to shut down the city center and then the city periphery.  This is a very good example of a concrete reminder of the short reaction time that someone seeking to do something of which the .gov disapproves has to successfully complete their operation.

Now back to an insurgency.  Fast cycle operations have to be complete before all the technological might of the .gov can be brought to bear.  Short, quick, raids are a good example.  As are IED attacks.  Something that causes the .gov to go "huh?" and commit assets to respond.  Insurgents have to be gone before the UAV/Helicopter/Spyplane flies overhead and begins directing the movement and maneuver of ground forces.

Fast cycle attacks are what Al Quaeda and Taliban forces are conducting in Afghanistan.  We have lost more Soldiers there in the last two years than all the years under Bush combined.  This is because an Insurgent will win simply by staying on the battlefield, and President Obama has already committed to a timeline for withdrawal.  It is now a race between US Forces to train the Afghan Security Forces to do their job quicker than the bad guys can tear down the progress.

Slow cycle operations are things that take years of recon to end in a day of disaster.  Think USS Cole and 9/11 for examples.  On a different front, think "Heller" and "McDonald", years of work for one day of victory giving a *hopefully* lasting reform.

Let's go to Tucson for a moment.  What did the mainstream media, and even the local sheriff blame for the shooting right away?  Conservative rhetoric.  By blaming conservative ideology they tried to equate the Tea Party as an insurgent group and Sarah Palin as the leader.  The sad fact is that they their lies make their point a truth, that conservatives looking to reform the government are in fact a reformist insurgency.

And currently everything is still legal.  No one has resorted to shooting, bombing, kidnapping, murdering, demolishing, poisoning, or terrorism.  So far it has been people on the internet and alternative media writing, organizing, and working within the system to change it.

However when the police of Arlington Massachusetts confiscated Travis Corcoran's property and firearms license without charging him with a crime, the rules of the game were fundamentally changed.  By protesting an overarching government that trashes the Constitution Travis had the government respond in violation of the Constitution.

When the .gov responds, it's for real.  Will the next battle be in the courts?  Or will the next battle be on the streets?  I hope it is in the courts, and I pray we win.

Misleading numbers

So the Washington Pissed in their continuing pro-gun control series has taken data from the State of Virginia and proclaimed it the ultimate truth that the AWB kept "high capacity" magazines out of the hands of criminals.

Without ever looking at the actual crime stats.

Considering that the violent crime rate in Virginia was unaffected by the AWB it stands to reason that the reduced number of criminals being apprehended with normal capacity magazines is simply due to market forces, and that since the violent crime rate went down the availability of normal capacity magazines has no deterrent effect on violent crime.

Though the Washington Pissed tries to make the argument that more bullets in a magazine equals more bodies on the ground they end up resorting to anecdotes.  Remember kids, the plural of anecdote is not data.

So, to sum up, one source of data (and I don't have any problem with their data), a couple anecdotes, and some leftist logic later you have the Washington Pissed lobbying for more restrictions on firearms.  A google search for Alice Crites and staff writer Sari Horwitz turns up a long list of articles that bemoan the lack of government power to "stop the violence" or "track the guns".

In fact Alice Crites and Sari Horwitz have a long history of ignoring facts and spinning data to fit an agenda.  Remember, layers and layers of editorial oversight....

The fact that they don't want to talk about VIOLENT CRIME, only number of normal capacity magazines seized should tell you everything you need to know.  An article like this is really all about "the dog that didn't bark".

5 types of insurgents

A successful insurgency has all of these in the mix.

1. Leaders
2. Fighters
3. Trainers
4. Supporters
5. Recruiters

Leaders can be anything from the guy who wrote the plan to the team leader that carries out an attack.  These are the people that provide vision (strategic leadership), specific area goals (operational leadership) and specific unit actions (tactical leadership).  Our own Revolutionary War saw publications by Thomas Paine such as Common Sense provide a strategic vision for America.  George Washington was placed in charge of Operations for the Continental Army, and he provided Operational leadership, holding a rather ragtag militia and forging them into a fighting force.  Men like Francis Marion focused on tactical leadership, conducting operations that were limited in nature, but aligned with the Operational and Strategic leadership.  It is important to remember that not everyone can be a leader.  Too many leaders fighting for control of the insurgency will cause fragmentation and the .gov will win which is why any leader trying to gain power for him or herself must be eliminated for the insurgency to stay focused on the strategic victory. 

Fighters are those that shoot guns and blow stuff up.  Also fighters conduct the traditional "criminal acts" of insurgents such as assassinations, kidnappings, torture, and extortion.  If use of force is necessary for the accomplishment of an operation, you need fighters capable of doing the job.  A fighter needs to be able to take an order and execute. 

Trainers are those who take recruits without skills and give them the skills to be a fighter, supporter, or recruiter.   Trainers also take fighters, supporters, and recruiters and turn them into trainers in their own right.  Whether it is improvised explosive construction, sniper operations, close quarters battle, bridge demolition, every skill needs someone who can pass it on.  Even supporters need to know how to set up a safe house, how to hide and cache supplies, how to provide medical care outside normal channels.

Supporters are the most important part of a successful insurgency.  Because they become the sea that the insurgent swims in.  Support can be active or passive.  Passive support is a win for the insurgent, it allows freedom of movement.  Active support can be logistical, medical, moral, and intelligence.  Intelligence is always key to winning.  Right now there is plenty of support for .gov reform in the US.  This doesn't mean that there is support for a shooting insurgency, that all depends on how the .gov cracks down. 

Recruiters sell the undecided on supporting the insurgency.  Turning someone completely undecided into a passive supporter for the insurgent is a win.  Turning a passive supporter into an active supporter is a win.  Turning that individual who has been wronged by the government into a Fighter is a big win.

A conversation on Church street in Burlington...

Hat Tip to Reaganite Republican and Moonbattery

How Liberals 'Think'

A progressive hack explains why
unhelpful evidence is irrelevant...



...Arguing with Liberals/ Socialists/ Communists is like arguing with a toilet brimming with crap. It can't give an intelligent response to any subject, and just sits there stinking up the place. Best just to give it a double flush and be on your way...

Snow, Snow and more Snow

This is certainly the snowiest winter in my 36-year experience of living in New York City, so I don't know what it would be like if I were still working.  To get up, gear up and struggle up 11 city blocks would be getting QUITE old by now, I expect, and we still have a couple of cold months yet to go.  With my bad knees, it's a worse commute than it sounds.

Lucky as I am to live in Manhattan and in a large coop with many employees who run the bobcats and shovel to clear our walkways, I have nothing to complain about!  And it is amazing to sit in my warm living room and watch the huge, beautiful snow flakes whiz past.  I don't even wish to be in the balmy Caribbean.  I don't want to be anywhere but where I am!

Sleep....

Since I can't sleep, I'm reading blogs this morning....

Here is an excellent post from American Thinker....

And this one from Adrienne....

Another one from American Thinker...

Stay safe.

Enumerated Powers....

The following article by Chris Carter is taken from "Unto the Breach" over at  Victory Institute.  Follow the link and read the other articles.  Some good stuff there!


“The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written.”

- Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803)

"Now consider what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 33:"

“But it will not follow from [the Constitution] that acts of the [federal government] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the [states], will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.“

"Simply put, when the federal government acts outside its constitutional powers, it should be considered an act of usurpation.
Clearly, any branch of government operating outside the bounds of their limited authority is unconstitutional, but the problem appears that nothing has been clearly codified. If our legal system gave the same consideration to high crimes, treason, and usurpations as it did to, say, fraud and murder, our elected and appointed officials would know precisely what they could–and couldn’t–get away with."

Stay safe.

The First day of a New era begins today

Join the siege of Washington.


On Monday, January 24th, 2011

The Siege begins! It is a siege of our representatives, not ourselves. This is not a sit-in or a protest so much as it is a mobilization of citizen oversight. Too often we have heard the promises only to witness the ultimate betrayal of compromise. Too often we have seen the values to which we have dedicated ourselves and our lives sold out for pork-barrel projects. Since that is the nature of government, no election will solve the citizen's dilemma. The Guardians of Liberty have stepped up to make sure that it won't happen this time. They have mobilized to Washington DC to facilitate the constant stream of willing patriots dedicated to "holding their feet to the fire."

You don't have to reinvent the wheel every time you need to have your voice heard in the halls of congress. You don't have to be part of an organization. Whether as a group, or alone, the Guardians of Liberty will be there to help you express your anger, or your support (they need both). Go to The Strategy page to find out exactly how this is done.

We will provide:

* Maps to representative's and senator's offices
* Handouts to help address concerns in a concise and effective manner
* Information on transportation and lodging in the area
* Information on memorials and monuments

ALL WE ASK IS THAT YOU SUPPORT THE GUARDIANS OF LIBERTY IN THIS EFFORT
With your help we can:

* Repeal Obamacare
* End the Fed
* Restore Liberty to the People and Make Our Rights Inviolable.

Email us now for more information, or to schedule your trip.
Why You Need to Commit to a Tour of Duty in DC

We have been lied to by everyone and for a long time. Thomas Jefferson (to the left) knew that governments tended toward oppression and tyranny. What America is enduring right now is not extraordinary, it is common. It is what Jefferson understood: that it takes a motivated and dedicated citizenry willing to rebel if necessary to keep the prize of liberty in the grasp of the individual. His famous quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" is a warning not to the tyrants, but to the patriots. If one reads the whole quote, Jefferson thought this should take place every twenty years or so. We have come a long way past that and we can now see the damages built into our government as a result. A whole method of robbing us of liberty has been codified and sanctified.

Consider your visit to Washington DC an act of national defense not unlike that being performed right now by our brave troops overseas. They deserve to get the America they are fighting for. They deserve our diligence to provide that for them. Consider it your Tour of Duty.

IF you cannot make it to DC consider a donation that will help Guardians of Liberty provide this service. We are not backed financially by a big organization or a rich benefactor. Right now, this is being funded by the founders and generous contributors. That's it. But, we are dedicated and we are determined.

And now, a word from our founder...

TL in Exile

In Verbatim;

Tomorrow is the 24th and if the lack of participation is anywhere near the same as on the 21st, which I highly expect it will be, then the idea of a siege, or holding our representative's feet to the fire and making them battle through the trials of ripping Obamacare out of the lawbooks will largely have been for nothing. I know, I know, we accomplished something, yes, I agree. No effort is without result, either good or ill.

The 24th will not be the end of anything, or indeed the start, but a necessary stop along the winding path of justice and liberty. On the long, rising grades of a steam engine in the mountains, a good dose of water is needed. While maintaining the momentum would seem to be the wisest choice, going up the hill without sufficient water for steam is insane. There can be no good outcome of that. So, like the locomotive, I have stopped here in DC as a moment of necessary taking on water for the grade ahead.

My efforts to reach out to the concerned citizens of the nation has been accomplished. Perhaps I needed to take that step in order to take those further along. From here on out I will be seeking other means and methods of doing what I have tried to do this way. If I cannot reach those on the periphery of necessary action, perhaps I can find the few willing to put it on the line for what they know is right and solidify my role in their company.

I will not lay down, I will not relent, but I will not beat a dead horse. If indeed this is the outcome of my efforts, then so be it. If it is the outcome of so many others who have done the same as I have, or better, then we had better buckle up, because the inevitable showdown is just that much closer to taking place.

The one thing I keep coming back to is this: If indeed there is no use in what I have been trying to do, then why aren't we all doing something else? I started Guardians of Liberty based on the fact that there seemed to be no active resistance to TPTB, nothing I could rally to, so I assumed that it was not yet time to act, but from where I sit, if things are such that talking will no longer do any good, where is the action that should be taking place in its stead? Keep in mind, I am not calling for action, I am curious as to where it is. What form has it taken?

Tomorrow evening, when I have settled in my mind that I have done everything I could do to peacefully seek the restoration of justice and liberty, I will embark on a different method of achieving the same. I will ask no one to join me, nor will I seek the company of others. I have tried that method to no avail. I know what needs to be done and I don't need help in achieving it. Each man is 1, times that by an act that is 1x1, times that by an outcome and you get the equation: 1x1x1. That is the way to freedom. That will be my rally cry.

Movie Review: "The Next Three Days"

This is the most disturbing movie I have seen in a long time.  Because everything is plausible, the story is very real, and the acting is superb.  If Russel Crowe doesn't get an Oscar nod for this the Academy isn't doing their job.

I went hoping for a classic prison break action film but instead got an emotional drama.  Instead of focusing on how an innocent person gets locked away they focused on the failure of the appeals process, the failure of police investigators, and the increasing alienation of a man from the system.

During the scenes where Russel Crowe is teaching English, two books come up.  "Don Quixote De La Mancha" by Cervantes and "The Count of Monte Cristo" by Dumas.  The premise is that Don Quixote's refusal to play by the rules of reality and rationality were in fact necessary.

So an otherwise rational man decided to be irrational and break his wife out of prison.  The character struggle between doing what is right and what is necessary made some of the most engaging theater experience that I've ever sat through.  In the end the escape is successful, but success always balances on a fine thread held by razors.

And what disturbs me most is how real everything could be.  How cold and uncaring the bureaucracy that does it's job instead of searching for truth.  How could this movie affect me in such a visceral way when Texas has already executed innocent men?  Our system is supposed to be biased towards letting the guilty go free instead of punishing the innocent.

Have we as a society crossed a boundary where we accept a bureaucracy that is inhuman?

I think we have, and this disturbs me.  While we can change Congressmen every two years, Presidents every four, and Senators every six, we cannot change the Bureaucracy.  This needs to change.