An ethical person - like a politician, banker or lawyer - may know right from wrong, but unlike many of them, a moral person lives it. An Americanist first already knows that.
Bankers and their government agents will always act in their own best interests. Any residual benefit flowing down to the citizens by happenstance will just be litter.
Many will emit loud guffaws and snicker at this congressman for his stepping up to return a stolen liberty to Americans. Laugh if you must, but know that it is congressmen such as Rep. Sensenbrenner that are needed to restore our Constitutional liberties in a lawful and peaceful non-violent manner. Just know what a fool you are as you continue to saunter ignorantly, defeatedly, and uncaringly your stroll on the road to serfdom.
In apparent response to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive (ATF) attempt to regulate popular types of rifle ammunition off the civilian market, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) has reintroduced legislation to disband the agency.
Sensenbrenner, a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, contends that the ATF’s functions could easily be handled by the nation’s other law enforcement agencies.
“[The ATF’s] ‘Framework’ is an affront to the Second Amendment and yet another reason why Congress should pass the ATF Elimination Act,” the lawmaker said in a statement.
Republican lawmakers and 2nd Amendment supporters throughout the nation have most recently criticized the agency for its proposal to reclassify certain types of 5.56mm/.223 caliber ammunition as armor-piercing. The ban would specifically ban the manufacture and sale of M855/SS109 “green tip” ammunition.
But Sensenbrenner has long called for the ATF’s abolition, citing a series of well-publicized ATF scandals in recent years as proof that the agency does more harm to the nation than good.
In 2010, the ATF’s notorious Fast and Furious program shot to the center of public debate after news broke that Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed with a firearm the agency had allowed to “walk” into the hands of Mexican cartel members.
Then, in December 2013, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel issued a report detailing how ATF agents operating stings in six different cities “took advantage of the mentally ill, set up stings near churches and schools and made decisions which some claim actually increased crime in their neighborhoods” in a bid to trump up firearms charges against individuals.
A Government Accountability Office report out last summer noted the scandals and criticized ATF policy changes that caused the agency to overlap the duties of other U.S. law enforcement agencies while decreasing its original mission.
“Beginning in 2010, ATF made criminal organization investigations one of its highest priorities, similar to firearms investigations, and deemphasized alcohol and tobacco investigations that do not involve violent crime,” the GAO report noted. “ATF data show that alcohol and tobacco investigations decreased by 85 percent (from 168 to 25 investigations opened) from fiscal years 2003 through 2013. In 2012, to more effectively identify and address the most violent criminal threats.”
That report led to Sensenbrenner’s original call to dissolve the agency.
“The ATF is a largely duplicative, scandal ridden agency that lacks a clear mission. It is plagued by backlogs, funding gaps, hiring challenges and a lack of leadership. For decades it has been branded by high profile failures,” he said in September. “There is also significant overlap with other agencies. At a time when we are approaching $18 trillion in debt, waste and redundancy within our federal agencies must be addressed. Without a doubt, we can fulfill the role of the ATF more efficiently.”
Sensenbrenner’s ATF Elimination Act would place the ATF’s firearms, explosives and arson responsibilities to the FBI and alcohol and tobacco law enforcement to the Drug Enforcement Agency.
Though the most recent proposal to eliminate the ATF comes from a Republican, the agency has also come under fire from Democrats in the past.
In 1993, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) introduced legislation to “transfer all functions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms relating to the regulation of firearms from the Department of the Treasury to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”
21st century Honest Abe re-visits sovereign southern US state to maintain Washington's tyranny grip. State scalawag law enforcements & VFW complicit in Treason.
TEXIANS UNDER ATTACK # 2 At the regularly scheduled meeting of the Republic of Texas, officially starting at 9:50 a.m. and held, as usual, at the rented VFW Post 4892 in Bryan, Texas, the congenial and unimposing group was raided at 10:10 a.m. by an army of policing agencies with flashing emergency lights: Police Departments of Bryan and College Station along with their Brazos County Sheriff’s Office counterparts (northeast of San Antonio) along with deputies from the Kerr County Sheriff’s Office (west of San Antonio), The Texas Rangers, Department of Public Safety Highway Patrol State Troopers, The Texas State Attorney General’s Office, the FBI, and the US Marshall Service. Ingress and egress from Harvey Mitchell Parkway was sealed even to the media that responded two hours later from KBTX television during the four-hour ordeal.
How is it that a supposedly free people can be subjected to intimidating, rough and highly intrusive search and seizure when assembling lawfully and peaceably from all corners of this vast Country of Texas to educate those in attendance about the Historical 1836 Republic of Texas Constitution and celebrate a Nation wide Valentine’s Day and a fellow Texian’s 89th birthday? The lead Kerr County deputy named in the paperwork, Jeff McCoy, who initially pretended to be a guest from Houston at the freely open-to-the-public meeting, stood up and blocked the only exit to the Republic of Texas’ rented room with armed and threatening police, announcing that he had a search warrant but he would not present it despite repeated requests stating that it would be made available AFTER the investigation. Everyone present was put on notice that they were not to leave the room without permission and escort by uniformed officers, almost all armed and wearing bulletproof vests. Some 15 to 30 minutes later a fleeting copy of the search warrant surfaced unannounced on the main table of which was never officially presented to those detained and searched. As if dangerous criminals, many of the Texian people – generally seniors of respected middle-class business, farming, broadcasting, engineering, scientific, health, veterans and faith-based backgrounds – were one-by-one physically searched on their person and in their vehicles, finger printed, detained and then had their personal belongings and property searched and seized. Surprisingly, the warranted DNA swabbing was omitted. A receipt (not well detailed or itemized) was issued to only SOME whose property was seized. Therefore most all seizures that day are considered LEGAL THEFT. Among the items stolen were cell phones, iPads, laptops, business papers, Republic of Texas paperwork and coinage of precious metals along with other valuables. Some of the phones were essential to their owners in conducting business and schoolwork, safely traveling the highways and attending to emergency medical calls as health professionals. One of the senior Texians often featured in documentaries and alternative radio and known to suffer with health concerns had to be taken by emergency vehicle to a hospital as a result of the forced takeover of the peaceful assembly. The team of investigators left with the trunk and backseat of an unmarked sedan apparently belonging to Deputy Jeff McCoy, fully packed with confiscated belongings without a copy of the Search Warrant provided to anyone associated with the Republic of Texas. Instead, the warrant was given to the Post Commander of the VFW facility who was instructed not to copy the document nor divulge its contents to anyone.
The fortuitously warrant revealed it was issued by 216th District Court Judge N. Keith Williams of Kerr County alleging an unauthorized summons had been issued by the Republic of Texas. The documents alleged to be unauthorized were a Writ of Mandamus and a Writ of Quo Warranto issued by “The Officers and Constituents of The International Common Law Court for the Republic of Texas to Melvin Rex Emerson Jr., Court Administrator, and Color of Law ID No. 24009018, 700 Main Street, Kerrville, Texas. Kerr County” and was so stated on the document “This writ is hereby served by said Petitioner upon you, Melvin Rex Emerson Jr. as an individual”. In no way was the “State of Texas” intimated to be part or parcel to the documents. If the Writ of Mandamus and the Quo Warranto issued for the Republic of Texas International Common Law Court were purely frivolous in nature, then why did this judge call out HIS MILITIA to address this action? What instilled such fear in him? Why was it necessary to confiscate tens of thousands of dollars, Gold and Silver Metals being private and confidential property that was unrelated to the search warrant for a allegedly Class A Misdemeanor offense? One Texian noted that one officer confided that he probably would NEVER see his property again. Just who is the guilty party here? Could it be that the people of the Republic of Texas are rightfully fully vested with the power of the paperwork served on Judge Everson? Undoubtedly, additional paperwork needs to be issued! You decide. Contrary to patently false reports by KBTX that the Republic of Texas and its assemblage were a militia group, the truth is that the Republic of Texas is a self-determined people attempting to throw off the yoke of military occupation of Texas through peaceful and lawful process. The entire land boundaries of the United States are also under military occupation thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. If you don’t believe it, you can read it for yourself: (http://thetexasrepublic.com Select: History Tab; Select “The Non-Ratification of the 14th Amendment – Highlighted by Robert Wilson” Selection option). John Harold Jarnecke President of the republic of Texas February 17, 2015 Contact: www.thetexasrepublic.com for the Secretary of State
Excerpts from:Senate Report 93-549
Senate Report 93-549 “EMERGENCY POWERS STATUTES: Provisions of Federal Law Now In Effect Delegating To The Executive Extraordinary Authority In Time of National Emergency” November 19, 1973 (cover page)
Background and History
Senate Report 93-549 entitled “EMERGENCY POWERS STATUTES: Provisions of Federal Law Now In Effect Delegating To The Executive Extraordinary Authority In Time of National Emergency” was issued on November 19, 1973 by the “Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency” pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 9 – 93rd Congress, 1st Session.[1]
…..These proclamations give force to over 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes.[4]
Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.[5]
….The “termination” was in name only. The emergency powers are now continued in the U.S. Code as permanent everyday powers.[8] The state of national emergency has become a permanent condition.[9]
….Every president since Roosevelt has used emergency powers extensively, some claim falsely that the United States has been in a continual and permanent state of declared national emergency since March 9, 1933.[14]
….The US Senate Report states: “That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.”[29]
“A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency.” [30]
30^[U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, Emergency Powers Statutes, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 93-549 (Washington: GPO, 1973) | page= 1]
We truly live at a momentous time. Play your cards right (whatever those cards may be) and you'll provide for your foreseeable generations to come.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by John Rubino on February 24, 2015
Business Insider’s Myles Udland just posted a chart,
drawn from research by the Bank of England, showing interest rates for
the past 3,000 years. And for all those who’ve been feeling like today’s
“new normal” is actually profoundly abnormal, here’s your proof. It
turns out that interest rates, both long and short-term, are lower than
they’ve ever been. Not lower than in this cycle, or post-war or in the
past century, but ever, going back to the earliest days of markets.
And they’re still falling in most of the world.
Central banks are cutting rates on a daily basis (Turkey
was today’s announcement), in some cases to less than zero. Something
like $2 trillion of sovereign and corporate debt now trades with
negative yields. Virtually the only major entity considering raising rates is the US,
and the incongruity of this threat has traders balking. See Bloomberg’s Traders still don’t believe the Fed is ready to raise rates . If this is indeed uncharted territory and we’re going further in
before we’re done, what are the implications for markets and, well,
everything? A couple of thoughts: The insurance industry, pension funds and money market funds all
depend on positive yields to operate. A life insurance company, for
instance, can keep premiums low because it can invest that cash for
years before having to pay out on the policy. What happens if the bonds
it buys start yielding nothing (or less than nothing)? What about a
money market fund that can no longer find investment grade corporate
paper yielding much more than zero? Pension funds, meanwhile, have
generally promised 7%-8% returns to their members, but now have to get
all of those profits from the equity and real estate sides of their
portfolios. For any of these entities to stay in business they now have to act
like hedge funds, taking on extra risk, rolling the dice and hoping that
the good years outweigh the bad ones. In other words, these formerly
safest-of-the-safe investment vehicles become just as risky as the
typical eTrade account. Then there’s the impact of negative rates on the market’s price
signaling mechanism for the rest of us. Interest rates are the price of
money, and as such they tell investors, entrepreneurs and consumers what
to do. Low interest rates generally say “buy, build, consume, take
risks” while high rates say “save, sell, conserve, wait.”
But zero or
negative rates? Are they just an extreme version of low rates or is
there a qualitative difference? Everyone has a theory about this but in
the absence of historical precedent, we’ll have to wait and see. Anyhow, the coming negative interest rate world will provide plenty
of thrills, chills and blog post material. For now it’s enough to note
that we’ve never, through depressions, world wars, bubbles and famines,
seen anything like today’s economy.
How the State of Massachusetts is Moving the Goalposts in Light of Dr. Kishore's Successful Treatment of Addiction to Provide Pharmaceutical Companies with a State-Funded Customer Base
This is the seventh in an ongoing series of articles about Dr. Punyamurtula S. Kishore, the Christian doctor who innovated the Massachusetts Model of addiction treatment.
The previous six articles documented how conventional addiction therapies based on substitute narcotics (methadone and Suboxone®) leave only 2% to 5% of patients who won't relapse back into full-scale addiction after twelve months. The few who haven't relapsed will often take prescribed substitute narcotics indefinitely, creating life-long issues for them. In contrast, Dr. Kishore's sobriety-based approach is non-narcotic in orientation. His method doesn't lead to a miserable 2% to 5% success rate at the one-year mark, but an astonishing 50% to 60% success rate based on hard test data (rising from 37% in 1994 to over 50% in 2011 with a quarter-million patients having passed through his program).
...from Hippocrates Oath, solemnly kept by Dr. Kishore - Man cannot serve two masters.
Massachusetts buried this medical miracle by incarcerating Dr. Kishore in September 2011 and withholding Medicare payments to his fifty-two treatment centers, causing their complete collapse. The consequences of the state's actions against Dr. Kishore's work permeate the previous six articles. To repeat that material, even in condensed form, would consume most of this present article. If you've not followed this series, review the earlier articles before diving into this newest article. Without the background of the earlier articles, you can fall prey to ongoing manipulation (by omission and commission) by the state and its media gatekeepers.
Moving the Goalposts
The first example of "moving the goalposts" in this series had reference to the cleverly-edited graphic used to hide the disastrous 80% recidivism rate occurring during the first month of conventional drug addiction treatments. Because the first-month results have simply been chopped off the graph, they don't come under consideration. This opens the door to redefining success. One moves the goalposts for one of two reasons: to block a competitor from succeeding, or to create the illusion of success for yourself. This tactic is a blatant example of the latter.
Moving of the goalposts in such a way can only be effective if you are ignorant of the correct location of the goalposts. If someone comes along and blows the whistle on how dislocated the goalposts are, and what constituencies are benefiting from the reality distortion field thus imposed, he becomes a threat. If the whistleblower's success rate is many times higher than the conventional success rate, this becomes a second layer of threat.
Both forms of threat to the status quo need to be quashed to maintain the blissful ignorance of the populace, to keep the goalposts at their "preferred" new location. When the media keeps the people it reputedly serves ignorant of both aspects of these moved goalposts, it becomes a key accessory to the redefinition of success. Once journalists start down that road, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to admit fault, recant, and fight against the ignorance they've been enforcing so faithfully. No one wants to admit culpability in moving the goalposts. Therefore, Dr. Kishore's clinical record is simply ignored.
There are three other major respects in which crucial goalposts have been moved during the escalating drug addiction crisis taking its massive toll upon our communities. We will examine the tactics, significance, and high price we are all paying for the moving of these goalposts that should never have been moved. We will then come to understand why Solomon's maxim remains painfully valid for us today: "Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless" (Prov. 23:10). Click to continue reading this article.
In American culture there is one
persistent villain portrayed as the enemy of humanity, the perpetrator
of deception, and the agent for social corruption and human harm: the
businessman.
Whether in news commentaries or on the movie screen, the businessman
is presented as a heartless, greedy manipulator so concerned with
squeezing the last possible dollar out of anything he does, that he is
willing to destroy the planet, kill his competitors, poison little
children, and sell his own mother "down the river" if it will serve his
material and financial purposes.
The only thing that saves us from the end of the world at the hands
of these criminal private enterprisers is either some righteous
individual who refuses to "take it any more" or the virtuous hand of a
government agent dedicated to protecting mankind from those who,
clearly, care nothing for the common good of humanity.
Critics of Capitalism Want to Abolish or Regulate It
This imagery of the businessman's way of gaining profits has been
extended by many intellectuals, academics, and public policy pundits
into a general criticism and, indeed, condemnation of capitalism.
What can be praiseworthy, ethical or just in a social and economic
system that fosters people to focus only on their self-centered personal
interest in the pursuit of material gain with little or no thought to
the betterment and improvement of mankind?
The conclusion that many of these critics have reached over the years
and decades is that the entire capitalist system must be done away with
and replaced with an alternative social and economic system such as
socialism; or, at a minimum, business enterprise has to be placed under
the detailed supervision and regulatory hand of government bureaucrats
presumed to be concerned with and devoted to the general welfare of the
country as a whole instead of individual private interest.
I beg to differ from this interpretation of businessmen and the free
enterprise system in general. Instead, I would argue that a truly free
enterprise, competitive capitalism is the most moral and humanely
beneficial way for people to live together that has ever been stumbled
upon by mankind.
Capitalism's Premise: Individual Rights and Liberty
There are basically two way human beings can interact and associate
with each other: through the threat or use of force or by mutual
agreement and voluntary consent.
When have you ever walked into a shoe store looked around and, maybe,
tried on a pair of shoes, but when you decided to leave without buying
anything a gruff and intimidating character with a club or a gun said,
"The boss says you ain't leaving without buying something"? I doubt it
any of us have had any such experience.
Why? Because the philosophical and moral premise underlying
transactions in the marketplace is that each participant has the right
to say, "Yes" or "No" to an offer and an exchange.
Why does every person have this implied right to "Yes" or "No"
without attempted physical intimidation or use of force to make him act
against his will? This is due to the fact that the foundational American
principle is that every one of us has an inviolable individual right to
their life, liberty, and honestly acquired property.
Virtually every other philosophical and political system throughout
human history has been based on some version of the opposite. That is,
that you do not own yourself; your life and property are at the disposal
of the primitive tribe or the medieval king, or the social, national,
or racial group or "democratic" community to which you've been
designated as belonging.
That is the premise of all forms of political and economic collectivism.
You work for the group, you obey the group, and you live and die for
the group. The political authority claiming to speak and act for the
group presumes to have the right to compel your acquiescence and
obedience to the asserted needs and desires of that collective group.
Only liberal, free market capitalism as it developed in parts of the
Western world, and especially in the United States, broke free of this
age-old collectivist conception of the relationship between the
individual and others in society.
The modern ideas of individual liberty and free enterprise that began
to develop and be argued for about 350 years ago transformed the way
men lived and earned a living, and the ethical premises underlying human
association in society.
A new morality emerged under which human relationships became based
on mutual consent and voluntary agreement. Men could attempt to persuade
each other to associate and trade, but they could not be compelled and
plundered so one person could get what he wanted from another without
their consent.
For Americans, it is heralded as the fundamental principle under
which our country was based: It is held to be a self-evident truth that
all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights
among which are their individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness.
Capitalism Fosters Honesty and Good Manners
As a consequence of this principle of liberty, in the marketplace of
the free society individuals learn and practice the etiquette and
manners of respect, politeness, honesty and tolerance. This naturally
follows from the fact that if violence is ethically and legally
abolished, or at least minimized, in all human relationships, then the
only way any of us can get others to do things we would like them to do
for us is through reason, argument, and persuasion.
The reason why the shoe salesman is motivated to act with courtesy
and deference toward us when we are in his store is precisely because he
cannot force on us to buy a pair of the shoes he wants to sell. We can
walk down the mall corridor and buy those shoes from another seller
interested in winning our business, or we can just go home without
buying anything that day.
No businessman is likely to keep his market share or even stay in
business in the long run if he earns a reputation for rudeness,
deception and dishonesty in his dealings with either other businesses or
his consumer customers.
The famous Scottish economist of the 18th century, Adam Smith,
long ago explained that the motivation for respectful, polite, honest
and deferential behavior on the part of any businessman is his own self-interest.
If he doe not, he may not long remain in business, as every private
enterpriser knows who had learned to appreciate the importance of
gaining and maintaining his brand-name and personal reputation in the
eyes of all those with whom he has dealings.
Such polite, courteous, honest and deferential behavior may start out
as the self-interested conscious and intentional attempt to merely
succeed in the market pursuit of profits, when voluntary and free market
dealings and transactions become the common and everyday way in which
people associate.
But, over time, such rules of "good behavior" become habituated, a
part of the routine of regular day-in and day-out interactions, until,
finally, they are transformed into the customs and traditions expected
in any and all human encounters, whether in the marketplace or not.
Thus, the practice of self-interested good manners and respectful
tolerance fostered first in commercial buying and selling become
embedded and reinforced as the general societal rules and ways of
civilized and "polite society." And, thus, capitalist conduct makes its
contribution to a more cultured and humane civilization.
Capitalism Creates a Spirit of Humility, Not Political Arrogance
The days when your state-issued driver’s license will be a federally mandated national ID card are closer than you think – and in fact it’s already taking hold in some locations.
About 20 states are now fully in compliance with the Real ID Act of 2005, which requires that state driver’s licenses meet rigid standards set by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Persons without Real ID compliant driver’s licenses will not be able to fly on airplanes in 2016 and already are prohibited from entering some federal facilities. Instead, such people will have to bring another form of ID, such as a passport.
“Having a Real ID-compliant card is optional,” Kevin Malone of the Nevada Motor Vehicles Department told The Las Vegas Review Journal. “But eventually, you’re going to need one if you use your driver’s license as an ID when you fly.”
Nevada residents will need such a card because their state’s current driver’s license is not in compliance with Real ID. Residents of Idaho using a license as an ID are already barred from the Idaho National Laboratory, a nuclear research facility, TV station KTVB 7 reported.
Critics have warned that law that mandated the ID is open to abuse. That’s because in its list of locations where an acceptable driver’s license is required, the law’s text says it “includes but is not limited to” federal buildings, aircraft and nuclear plants “and any other purposes” that the Department of Homeland Security secretary requires. In essence, DHS could require the use of the ID just about anywhere.
Learn How To Become Invisible In Today’s Surveillance State! Additionally, as more and more states place RFID chips in their licenses – such chips are not required under the law but four states already have them – the tracking of citizens becomes even easier.
“A national ID can be used in times of crisis for really, really horrible things,” Jim Harper of The Cato Institute told Off The Grid Radio.
(Listen to Off The Grid Radio’s in-depth interview with Harper about the Real ID Act here.)
Story continues below the video:
What is Real ID?
Real ID was a federal law passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush in 2005. The ID behind it was to make it harder for terrorists and criminals to get driver’s licenses in the United States. It:
Sets standards for driver’s licenses and other ID cards issued by state governments.
Requires states to ask driver’s license applicants and persons renewing their licenses for proof of citizenship or legal residence in the USA.
Makes driver’s licenses more difficult to forge.
Requires states to share all driver’s license data with other states.
Mandates digital photos for use with facial recognition software.
The Associated Press reported that only 460,000 of the 5.4 million driver’s licenses issued by the state of Washington meet Real ID’s standards.
“Nobody has ever done this before … so enforcing this law is going to be a major challenge,” Brian Zimmer, the president of the Coalition for a Secure Driver’s License, told USA Today.
Zimmer helped write the Real ID Act as a congressional staffer, but since then the law has been a tough sell to states. Around 17 state legislatures passed laws trying to ban compliance with real ID.
“Years of study have shown that this does not do much for security,” Harper told Off The Grid Radio. “Should we spend as a society millions of dollars, should we threaten our own liberties … just so we can cause a minor inconvenience to a future terrorist? I don’t think we should.”
The ACLU opposes it.
“It is impossible to imagine DHS keeping the citizens of any of those states off of airplanes,” ACLU attorney Chris Calabrese told USA Today. “I don’t see that most of these states are going to have a whole lot more incentive than they have ever had to do this, which is to say, none.”
Project Inspired By: My 5 year old son. He pulled a piece of PVC pipe
out of the garbage and asked if we could make a project with it. A
blowgun was the first idea that came to mind, and quickly snowballed
into a really awesome project idea!
WARNING: Blow guns should
not be pointed at people, animals, or any living thing. Projectiles
shot at high velocity may cause deep wounds leading to infection, and/or
may cause loss of vision if hit in the eye. They can also break glass
and cause damage to property. This project should only be attempted
with adequate knowledge, training, and adult supervision. Use caution
and common sense. Use of this video content is at your own risk.
Project History & More Info:
This is an original project idea which came right out of the blue a couple of weeks ago, but is among my favorites already!
The
blow gun is so simple and cheap to make, anyone can do it, and the best
part is it looks completely legit, and can fire with amazing precision.
When
my 5 year old son pulled a piece of plastic pipe out of the garbage and
asked if we could do a project I immediately thought of making a blow
dart gun. But to make it safer for indoor use, I tried using paper for
ammunition. I rolled up a post-it note, and shoved the tip of a crayon
inside to add some weight.
When we shot the dart, it flew over
100 feet away at high velocity, making me realize there is a real
project here waiting to be developed.
I spent the next 5 days evolving different prototypes, and experimenting with different types of homemade ammunition.
I
let my kids try shooting darts made with nails, but their lungs weren't
powerful enough to get the darts to stick into targets, so we use
marshmallows instead. The pipe is the perfect width for
mini-marshmallows and can still shoot them fast enough to hurt a little,
but still safe enough for indoor use.
The blow guns can be customized with different color schemes in a way that's so simple it's nearly mind blowing.
The sheriff of Fulton County, New York, Thomas Lorey, made a presentation to some Second Amendment supporters on Friday, January 16. The next day seven minutes of it was posted on YouTube.
He told them that Fulton County has been targeted by New York’s state capital, Albany, for a “pilot program” to see if those owning handguns in his county would desire to renew their permits to possess them early, for a small fee of $15. (In New York, one must have a permit to even own a handgun.) He was very against renewing the permits early, or renewing them at all, for that matter. He explained:
"I want to set the record straight. Fulton County is one of the pilot counties.… They are going to send out 500 invitations to my county and that’s all they are … invitations. I’m asking everyone that gets those invitations to throw them in the trash because that is where they belong."
Mike Piccone, the Guns & Gear editor for the conservative blog The Daily Caller, gave a bit of background to the circumstances:
New York has two types of handgun permits. One type is a permit to carry, which is rarely approved. The second is a permit to possess a handgun. [Emphasis added.] Regarding the permit to possess … the sheriff is telling his audience to allow their permit paperwork to expire.
Sheriff Lorey is a member of Oath Keepers, a fact that he had emblazoned on his shirt, which is the organization established in March 2009 by Steward Rhodes to remind elected government officials exactly who their bosses really are — the people — and to stand by their oaths to defend the Constitution. It has placed itself directly athwart state and federal attempts to override precious rights. Lorey's spiel was a call to abide by the Second Amendment of the Constitution by refusing to ask for a permit for the right to own a gun for self-defense. In his speech, Sheriff Lorey directly challenged the powers that be:
Don’t do it. Let’s have everybody’s permit expire the same day and [let’s see] what they are going to do about it.
At least two issues are a stake in this teapot tempest that Lorey hopes to start.
The first issue is the right to carry guaranteed under the terms of the Second Amendment. That right precedes and supersedes the Constitution (1787), the State of New York (1788), or the establishment of Fulton County or its Sheriff’s Department (in 1838).
And it is a right that would be considered worth protecting in Fulton County, a rural county with a population of barely 50,000 located about 40 miles northwest of Albany. It is doubtful that politicians in Albany know where it is, or even care. But local residents do, and their worldview is vastly different from their big-city overseers. Piccone grew up in Fulton County and remembered the only time he was ever stopped by the police, which was, ironically enough, when he was carrying a gun down Main Street: I was walking home from a hunt with my Ithaca 37 [shotgun]. [A police] officer pulled over and asked if I was coming or going to hunt. When I told him I was walking home he responded with, “Oh, OK. I get off in 30 minutes and was just wondering if you wanted to go out.”
The second issue is the power of a local sheriff to call for such an act of defiance. Constitutional scholar Jeff Wright, in his book The Citizen’s Last Stand, explains how the power of the sovereign citizen rightly flows upward:
The People are endowed with rights regardless of origin; The People created the entity of the State; The separate States then created a Federal government … to serve as an agent of the States, in a subservient role, to accomplish a small number of specifically enumerated tasks known as “delegated powers”;
Each state then created counties or parishes as political subdivisions which were chartered to allow for the election of officials … including the office of County Sheriff….
Thus authority flows upwards from the Sovereign Citizens through the Counties to the States to the Federal Government. It does not flow downwards to the citizens. [Emphasis in original.]
In all cases, the States and the Federal Government are ultimately subservient to the People.
Sheriff Richard Mack, who is on the board of Oath Keepers, explained how the proper governmental balance is being switched on its head:
The greatest threat we face today is not terrorists. It is our federal government.… One of the best and easiest solutions is to depend on local officials, especially the sheriff, to stand against federal intervention and federal criminality.
Calls to Sheriff Lorey were not returned in time to be included here, but one wonders when and if such defiance will be challenged by New York’s Governor Cuomo and his enforcers against the precious right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, or if Lorey’s defiance will be allowed to stand, giving it more credence and more encouragement to others of the same mindset. After all, Fulton County is off the map, miles away from Albany. It’s small, and actions by its sheriff can be safely ignored, for the time being. But Lorey has raised overarching and profound issues that deserve to see the light of day. One waits hopefully in anticipation.
A graduate of an Ivy League school and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. via TNA
Praise the Lord for creating West Virginia even if it was a Yankee stronghold in the 19th century.
A bill introduced in the West Virginia House of Delegates this week would block unconstitutional foreign deployments of the state’s national guard troops, effectively restoring the Founders’ framework for state-federal balance on the Guard.
House Bill 2168 (HB2168), the Defend the Guard Act, was introduced by Del. Pat McGeehan (R-Hancock, 1), a former Air Force intelligence officer who did tours in Afghanistan and the Middle East, and cosponsored by ten other delegates. If passed, the bill would block the federal government from deploying West Virginia Guard troops overseas unless there is a declaration of war from Congress, as required by the Constitution.
“This bill essentially says, ‘If you don’t follow the highest law of the land, then we will withhold our Guard troops.’ The language and intent of the Constitution is so clear on this one issue,” McGeehan told the Wheeling News-Register.
Guard troops have played significant roles in all modern overseas conflicts, with over 650,000 deployed since 2001. More specifically, West Virginia National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo and elsewhere.
Since none of these missions have been accompanied by a Constitutional declaration of war, the Defend the Guard Act would have prohibited the deployments. Such declarations have only happened five times in U.S. history, with the last being in World War II.
BACKGROUND
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.” In the Dick Act of 1903, Congress organized the militia into today’s National Guard, limiting the part of the militia that could be called into federal service rather than the entire body of people. Thus, today’s National Guard is governed by the “militia clauses” of the Constitution, and this view is confirmed by the National Guard itself.
Clause 15 delegates to the Congress the power to provide for “calling forth the militia” in three situations only: 1) to execute the laws of the union, 2) to suppress insurrections, and 3) to repel invasions.
During state ratifying conventions, proponents of the Constitution, including James Madison and Edmund Randolph, repeatedly assured the people that this power to call forth the militia into federal service would be limited to those very specific situations, and not for general purposes, like helping victims of a disease outbreak or engaging in “kinetic military actions.”
“Defending one side or the other in a Middle East civil war doesn’t qualify as ‘repelling an invasion,’” said Mike Maharrey, national communications director for the Tenth Amendment Center. “The Founders didn’t trust presidents on war, and one way they insisted on balancing that power was by keeping a strong military force at home, in the states.”
RETURNING TO THE CONSTITUTION
It is this limited Constitutional structure that advocates of the Defend the Guard Act seek to restore. That is, use of the Guard for the three expressly-delegated purposes in the Constitution, and at other times to remain where the Guard belongs, at home, supporting and protecting their home state.
“For decades, the power of war has long been abused by this supreme executive, and unfortunately our men and women in uniform have been sent off into harm’s way over and over,” said McGeehan. “If the U.S. Congress is unwilling to reclaim its constitutional obligation, then the states themselves must act to correct the erosion of constitutional law.”
Maharrey agreed. “While getting this bill passed isn’t going to be easy, it certainly is, as Daniel Webster once noted, one of the reasons state governments even exist.”
Referenced by Maharrey was an 1814 speech on the floor of Congress where Webster urged similar actions to McGeehan’s Defend the Guard Act. He said, “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.”
NEXT UP
HB2168 has been assigned to the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee. It will need to pass by a majority vote before being sent to the House Judiciary Committee. Should it pass that stage, the full House will have an opportunity to consider whether to send the bill over to the state Senate.
ACTION STEPS
In West Virginia, support this bill by following all the action steps at THIS LINK
All other states, contact your state rep and senator, urging them to introduce legislation similar to HB2168. Find their contact info here.
As it's becoming apparent our country is being overrun, it's time for state governors to adorn a mantel of responsibility for the safety of their citizens. Order home the national guards from foreign deployment, establish operational relationships as well with their respective State Defense Force. Expel federal troops, ICE, Homeland, and nuisance agencies from state sovereign land.
Nullification is the people's tool - use it!
Afterall, if the federal government is incapable, or criminally deliberate in disrupting our society, culture, sovereignty and economics, let the people participate in their own defense!
The Georgia State Defense Force’s rich heritage dates
back to England. Under the direction of General James Edward Oglethorpe,
Sergeants of the Guard trained future colonists in militia tactics. Georgia
settlers arriving in 1733 became members of General Oglethorpe’s militia.
These militia forces later joined General George Washington to secure
American Independence.
The volunteer militia remained in continuous service throughout the 1700’s
and 1800’s. During the War Between the States Georgia responded with over
100 volunteer regiments, battalions, and batteries. This volunteer
commitment was second only in number to the State of Virginia.
During World War II, the 8,000 members of the volunteer militia force
guarded war plants, critical communications facilities, utilities,
reservoirs, and transportation facilities. Although not officially
disorganized until 1951, the Georgia State Guard began its retirement in
July 1946. The Georgia State Defense Force was re-authorized in 1973.
Today, the Georgia State Defense Force is authorized under the Official Code
of Georgia, Title 38. The Georgia Department of Defense is comprised of the
Army National Guard, the Air Guard and the State Defense Force, all of whom
serve under the direction of the Adjutant General of Georgia. Source
State Defense Force
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about defense forces of individual states of the United States of America. For defense forces of states countries and nations, see military.
State defense forces: army units highlighted in red, naval units in blue, those with both in green, inactive in purple.
State defense forces (SDF) (also known as state guards, state military reserves, or state militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are partially regulated by the National Guard Bureau but they are not a part of the Army National Guard of the United States.[1] State defense forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state.
State defense forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities (all state National Guard personnel can be federalized under the National Defense Act of 1933 with the creation of the National Guard of the United States).[2] The federal government recognizes state defense forces under 32 U.S.C.§ 109 which provides that state defense forces as a whole may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces of the United States, thus preserving their separation from the National Guard. However, under the same law, individual members serving in the state defense force are not exempt from service in the armed forces (i.e., they are not excluded from the draft). Under 32 USC § 109(e), "A person may not become a member of a defense force . . . if he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces."
Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces, and 22 states, plus Puerto Rico, have active SDFs with different levels of activity, support, and strength. State defense forces generally operate with emergency management and homeland security missions. Most SDFs are organized as army units, but air and naval units also exist.[3][4]
Origins
From its founding until the early 1900s, the United States maintained only a minimal army and relied on state militias to supply the majority of its troops.[5] As a result of the Spanish-American War, Congress was called upon to reform and regulate the training and qualification of state militias. In 1903, with passage of the Dick Act, the predecessor to the modern-day National Guard was formed. It required the states to divide their militias into two sections. The law recommended the title "National Guard" for the first section, known as the organized militia, and "Reserve Militia" for all others.[6]
During World War I, Congress authorized the states to maintain Home Guards, which were reserve forces outside the National Guards being deployed by the Federal Government. The Secretary of War was authorized to furnish these units with rifles, ammunition, and supplies.[7]
In 1933, Congress finalized the split between the National Guard and the traditional state militias by mandating that all federally funded soldiers take a dual enlistment/commission and thus enter both the state National Guard and the newly created National Guard of the United States, a federal reserve force. In 1940, with the onset of World War II and as a result of its federalizing the National Guard, Congress amended the National Defense Act of 1916, and authorized the states to maintain "military forces other than National Guard."[8] This law authorized the War Department to train and arm the new military forces that would come to be known as State Guards. Many states took advantage of this law and maintained distinct state military forces throughout the war to defend their own territories, shorelines, and airspaces.
