Thursday, December 18, 2008

More on the Ohio Food Raid

That family that was subjected to a heavy-handed SWAT team raid in OH has filed a complaint about the incident, I hope results are seen but we shall see:

Thursday, December 18, 2008YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Armed officers raid home, hold mom, kids for 6 hours

Health department cops allege licensing issues over food co-op

Posted: December 17, 2008 11:20 pm

Jacqueline and John StowersAn Ohio family whose members have
served their friends and neighbors with food cooperative services involving bulk
and discount supplies has been targeted in a raid by armed law enforcement
officers wearing black fatigues who forcibly rounded up the mom and 10 children
and held them for six hours.The raid prompted a complaint filed today on behalf
of the family by the Center for Constitutional Law at the Buckeye Institute. It
alleges authorities "made a haphazard unannounced entry into the property with
guns drawn, as other officers surrounded the property, with guns drawn," then
"confiscated the family's personal food supply, personal computers, and personal
cell phones."The complaint names the Ohio Department of Agriculture, the Lorain
County General Health District and the state's attorney general. A spokeswoman
at the Department of Agriculture said its officers were at the scene in an
advisory role. A spokeswoman at the county health agency refused to comment
except to explain it was a "licensing" issue regarding the family's Manna
Storehouse.An prosecutor assigned to handle the case declined to respond to WND
requests for a comment.It's not the first such case of authorities invading a
home over issues involving the operations of food co-ops. WND reported several
months ago when authorities in Pennsylvania demanded $4,000 in fines from a
farmer who provided raw milk to friends and neighbors.That case also was
highlighted by a SWAT team-like raid on Mark Nolt's farm, when government agents
confiscated tens of thousands of dollars worth of his products as well as pieces
of machinery he used for his milk handling and sales.John and Jacqueline
Stowers, whose Ohio home was raided, explained their work in providing
affordable, healthy foods to friends and neighbors in a video posted both on
YouTube and on the Buckeye Institute's website.

More at:

Senator Leahy responded to my email recently as well. I'm not surprised he isn't saying too much on it right now, but at least it's being brought to people's attention. The sort of thugs behind the raid tend to prefer secrecy.

Dear Mr. XXX:

Thank you for contacting me about the recent
events at the Manna Storehouse in Ohio. I appreciate you sharing your concerns
with me.

The Lorain County Sheriff's Office executed the search
warrant with the county Health Department and the Ohio Department of
Agriculture. According to local government sources, the Manna Storehouse is
under investigation to determine whether it is operating a retail food business
without a license. However, since all the facts have yet to come out about this
case, I hesitate to comment further.

Regarding the nomination of
the next Secretary of Agriculture, please know that I will consider each nominee
brought before the Senate very carefully. I trust that the next Secretary of
Agriculture will make more decisions and policy choices that take into account
the many connections between agriculture and public health, agriculture and
energy and climate change, agriculture and education, and of course the
importance of organic and sustainable agriculture.

Thank you again
for contacting me. Please keep in touch.

Subscribe to Senator
Patrick Leahy's periodic newsletter at the following address:
PATRICK LEAHY United States Senator

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Gun Confiscation in Wisconsin

Only open carry is legal in Wisconsin. Concealed carry is illegal there. Open carry is a right of people in WI but the police there generally do not like it. There are many instances of the police illegally arresting people and confiscating their guns, who dare to open carry. Visit and go to their forums for many examples in the WI forum. Frequently they attempt to charge people who carry with "disorderly conduct" which does not apply to open carry (but it costs money to fight in court, obviously).

One man was recently open carrying on his own property in WI, planting trees. Wisely, he took the advice of other gun rights supporters and recorded what took place. He will be battling the bogus charges. Hopefully he will file suit under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and make those thugs pay for their violations of his rights.

12th 2008Weapons Confiscation in Wisconsin
(copied from
received email
If someone disagreed with you about an article or
story you
published and then complained to the police who came into your
business and
arrested you for disorderly conduct, would that incident be
if the police arrested you for disorderly conduct while you were
any other constitutionally protected right because someone did not
want you
to exercise your right? Would you want to tell the people of Wisconsin
fragile it is to exercise their rights?Once arrested, do you think an
employer or all your friends and neighbors would understand or would some of
them want to maintain more distance with you? Unfortunately, being arrested
the same thing as being found guilty to many people in the court of
opinion. The police don’t arrest innocent people just for exercising
constitutionally protected right after all. That would be outrageous.Or do
they?Please come (or send a reporter) to the West Allis City Courthouse on
Tuesday December 16th at 8 am when this question will be answered in
August 22, Brad Krause was planting trees in his yard, at least
until police
stormed his residence and arrested him. It turns out they
received a call from a
man who said he didn't appreciate that Brad carried a
gun, and wanted something
done about it.The West Allis police department
sent two squads to investigate,
and found Brad in his yard, minding his own
business planting trees. From behind
him, police rushed him, yelling, "Don't
move!" while bearing down on him with
their weapons drawn. They shortly
discovered Brad had no criminal record and was
lawfully openly carrying on
his own property, but instead of releasing him and
returning his weapon,
they tried to figure out how to arrest him. A call to the
lieutenant provided the answer: claim his action of carrying a
weapon is
disorderly conduct, and haul him down to the station. His firearm was
away from him without a receipt, and it has not been returned. The police
have effectively banned his exercise of his right by disarming him.The fact
that Wis. Stat. § 941.23 does not ban or prohibit the lawful carrying of
firearms by citizens. By enacting the law, the legislature intended to force
citizens to openly carry their firearms while in public, which is what Mr.
Krause was lawfully doing (additionally, he was on his own property).Mr.
is self employed as a property manager and this action by the City of
West Allis
has cost him long term business relationships. The police had him
standing in
handcuffs on his own property for 45 minutes with squad cars
parked in front of
his residence while they tried to figure out a way to
arrest him. Fortunately,
Mr. Krause had taken a friends advice and he had a
voice recorder with him and
the entire incident was recorded and it has been
transcribed.Civil rights are
very important – all of them – which is why
they are protected from governmental
actions just like this. The media would
be all over this story if a voter had
been wrongly arrested while waiting in
line to vote, or a worshipper had been
arrested while attempting to enter
their place of worship, or a reporter was
arrested while writing an article.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has said an
otherwise reasonable exercise of
police power cannot be invoked in a way that
"eviscerates," "destroys,"
"frustrates," or "nullifies" the constitutional right
to bear arms, yet that
is exactly what is being done by law enforcement
departments all over
Wisconsin today. In Wisconsin, constitutional rights do not
expand the
police power; they restrict the police power. See Buse v. Smith, 74
Wis. 2d
550, 564, 247 N.W.2d 141 (1976); see also Robert Dowlut & Janet A.
Knoop, State Constitutions and The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 7 Okla. City
L. Rev 177, 185 (1982) (describing the general application of this
principle).That is why this is such an important matter and I am asking for
to publically expose this unlawful use of police
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Below is important background information:1)
There is no state statute prohibiting an openly carried firearm in
Wisconsin. To
the contrary, Wis. Stat. § 941.23 was enacted by the
legislature to force the
open carry of firearms.2) Excerpts from State of
Wisconsin v. Munir A. Hamdan -
(emphasis added - footnotes can be found on
the link below): ) -
or download the PDF file here on JPFO.¶41 Article I, Section 25 does not
establish an unfettered right to bear arms. Clearly, the State retains the
to impose reasonable regulations on weapons, including a general
prohibition on
the carrying of concealed weapons. However, the State may not
apply these
regulations in situations that functionally disallow the
exercise of the rights
conferred under Article I, Section 25.The State must
be especially vigilant in
circumstances where a person's need to exercise
the right is the most
pronounced. If the State applies reasonable laws in
circumstances that
unreasonably impair the right to keep and bear arms, the
State's police power
must yield in those circumstances to the exercise of
the right. The prohibition
of conduct that is indispensable to the right to
keep (possess) or bear (carry)
arms for lawful purposes will not be
sustained.¶68 If the constitutional right
to keep and bear arms for security
is to mean anything, it must, as a general
matter, permit a person to
possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to
maintain the security of his
private residence or privately operated business,
and to safely move and
store weapons within these premises.¶71 In circumstances
where the State's
interest in restricting the right to keep and bear arms is
minimal and the
private interest in exercising the right is substantial, an
individual needs
a way to exercise the right without violating the law. We hold,
in these
circumstances, that regulations limiting a constitutional right to keep
bear arms must leave some realistic alternative means to exercise the
right.¶72 For instance, in order to keep and bear arms for the purpose of
securing one's own property, a weapon must be kept somewhere and may need to
handled or moved, all within the weapon owner's property. During these
the firearm will be either visible or concealed. The State ** argues
that even
under the strictest enforcement of the CCW statute, a person
lawfully in
possession of a firearm will always retain the ability to keep
the firearm in
the open——holding the weapon in the open, keeping the weapon
in a visible
holster, displaying the weapon on the wall,32 or otherwise
placing the weapon in
plain view.** Jim Doyle was the Attorney General whose
office argued that open
carry was lawful.¶119 To determine whether Wis.
Stat. § 941.23 is constitutional
on the facts of this case we must ask two
questions. The first question is
whether the regulation on concealed weapons
is a reasonable exercise of the
police power, namely, does the statute
promote public safety, health, or welfare
and bear a reasonable relation to
accomplishing those purposes.56 The second
question iswhether the reasonable
exercise of the state's police power
eviscerates the constitutional right to
bear arms.¶120 No one disputes that the
prohibition on carrying a concealed
weapon is a reasonable exercise of the
State's police power.57Wisconsin
Stat. § 941.23 promotes public safety. The
primary justification for the
prohibition on carrying concealed weapons is that
it protects the public by
preventing an individual from having a deadly weapon
on hand of which the
public (including a law enforcement officer) is unaware,
which may be used
in the sudden heat of passion.58 The public is safer, the
argument goes, if
it is able to take notice of those people who are carrying
weapons and
proceed accordingly. Indeed, in a case similar to the present case,
State v.
Mata, 199 Wis. 2d 315, 321, 544 N.W.2d 578 (Ct. App. 1996), the court
appeals concluded that a persuasive argument can be made that "a tavern
owner's display of a handgun may deter crime while concealment of the gun
probably would not."59¶121 Moreover, by making it a misdemeanor to carry a
concealed weapon, Wis. Stat. § 941.23 bears a reasonable and substantial
relationship to the end of promoting public safety. Criminalizing conduct
stigmatizes conduct and deters people from doing it, a conclusion the
opinion agrees with as well.60 (However, the practice of
criminalizing lawful
conduct effectively creates an unlawful ban)¶122 The
second question in the
present case is whether the reasonable exercise of
the State's police power
eviscerates the constitutional right to bear
arms.61 As the majority opinion
explains, an otherwise reasonable exercise
of police power cannot be invoked in
a way that "eviscerates," "destroys,"
"frustrates," or "nullifies" the
constitutional right to bear arms.62 Short
of that, however, as the majority
opinion further explains, the right to
bear arms is not absolute and is subject
to reasonable regulation.63¶123 In
order to determine whether a statute
eviscerates a constitutional right or
merely reasonably regulates a
constitutional right we must examine the
"degree" to which the regulation
frustrates the purpose of the
constitutional right .64 For example, in City of
Seattle v. Montana, 919
P.2d 1218 (Wash.1996), the Washington Supreme Court
upheld a city ordinance
regulating the carrying and possession of "dangerous
knives" in the face of
a constitutional amendment granting the right to bear
arms. The court
reasoned that the police power was reasonably exercised to
"promote public
safety and good order," and that the city did not enact a
prohibition on possession and carrying knives" but merely "regulated
carrying, transport, and use of knives."65 Therefore, the statute was
constitutional.66¶124 Wisconsin Stat. § 941.23 is similarly constitutional
applied to the defendant because it does not eliminate the right of an
owner of
a privately operated business to bear arms for security or defense
but simply
limits the manner in which he or she may exercise the right to
bear arms. That
is, § 941.23 does not prevent anyone from carrying a firearm
for security,
defense, hunting, recreation, or other lawful purposes.
Rather, it limits the
manner of carrying weapons, by requiring that a weapon
that is on a person or
within a person's reach not be concealed.67 The gist
of the offense is the
concealment. Thus, nothing about Wis. Stat. § 941.23
comes close to
eviscerating, destroying, frustrating, or nullifying the
right to bear arms in
Wisconsin for the defendant here or any other person.
The right to bear arms "is
not impaired by requiring individuals to carry
weapons openly."68¶129 Second,
and more importantly, the majority's dubious
conclusions are irrelevant. The
statute is presumed constitutional and the
burden on the challenger is heavy. By
enacting the statute the legislature
has determined that public safety is
advanced when owners of privately
operated businesses, like all other
individuals, are required to carry their
guns openly. Although the majority
opinion has set forth counterarguments to
the legislature's determination that
concealed weapons are hazardous to
public safety, neither the majority opinion
nor the challenger has carried
the heavy burden of demonstrating that the
legislative determination is
unconstitutional because the degree to which it
restricts the right to bear
arms for owners of privately operated businesses
eviscerates the
constitutional right.3) State Statute (66.092) 1995 Wisconsin
Act 75,
section 2: says;…no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or
adopt a
resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer,
ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing,
permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm,
including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or
is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state
This is Wisconsin case law defining what behavioral elements
Disorderly Conduct (no mention of a firearm):State v Douglas D
2001 WI 47, para
15.243 WIS 2d, 204,626N.W, 2d 725. Para. 15"The State must
prove two elements to
convict a defendant under this statute (947.01)"
First, it must prove that the
defendant engaged in violent, abusive,
indecent, profane, boisterous,
unnecessarily loud, or similar disorderly
conduct. Second, it must prove that
the defendant's conduct occurred under
circumstances where such conduct tends to
cause or provoke a disturbance".
Emphasis addedI hope to see you on the 16th in
West Allis. If the date
should be moved for any reason, I will let you
know.Thank you.Gene
GermanMinnesota DPS Certified Firearms InstructorUtah BCI
Certified Firearms
InstructorAACFI Wisconsin State Director

Monday, December 8, 2008

Nuns and Others Wrongly Listed as Terrorists, Posse Comitatus Dead, Let's Revive the Militia Movement

I have given this much thought recently as I have followed the growing assault on freedom, and I have concluded the following: the militia movement must be revived, but with some important corrections. Most of the 1990's militias took a one pronged approach (arm themselves, train, etc.), forgetting that it takes more than that to have a successful revolution. Afterall, the Revolution of 1800 (Jefferson's election, defeat of the Federalists), took place without use of arms. There needs to be efforts at a second such revolution. I was hoping Ron Paul would be elected and we'd have precisely that, but obviously, there's work to do before that will happen. Those of us who value our freedom must band together, we must be willing to defend that freedom against illegal actions (note the keyword, any militia must be defensive, not offensive, do not give the shrill far-leftists like Morris Dees fuel to burn us at the stake with, though he'll be waving a flaming torch at us regardless of the truth). At the same time, we must wage an intellectual war against the enemies of freedom. We must render them contemptible in the public eye. We must work at every level to awaken people to the assault on their liberty that has been aking place and is quickening in pace. We must get freedom-loving individuals into office. Ron Paul's campaign threw a spark, now we must bring the fire to life. We must remember that while militias were important to our Revolution, equally important were the efforts of great thinkers such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and others. Let us learn from the past, when we re-build the militia movement. As always the left-wing media, quoting the nonsense from the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League, will attempt to crucify us as a bunch of White Nationalist, terrorist, gun-nuts, KKK bigots planning a race war. Nothing can be farther from the truth. In fact, some people may remember that J.J. Johnson was an important figure in the movement in the 1990's, here he is testifying before some senators:

The ADL and SPLC attempt to paint everyone who values their Second Amendment rights, everyone who is willing to defend the Constitution, anyone who does not kiss the government's feet, with the same brush they paint the KKK and other such bigots. However, in doing so, they are proving themselves to be bigots. Morris Dees, while he did some good things years ago, is merely enriching himself now by targeting the right. For instance, Rutland, Vermont is listed on his site as a KKK stronghold. Anyone who's lived in Rutland knows that's total garbage. He abuses the legal system with ridiculous suits against people he dislikes (now, let me say I don't particularly like some of the people he targets myself, but in a free country, everyone has the right to their opinions, no matter how wrong they are), milks the gullible for donations, and those whom he is supposedly fighting on the behalf of get crumbs thrown at them out of the massive settlements. However, enough about that shrill fool who can't even take a bit of questioning from a college student Now on to some information I have come across that is very important and at the same time, very frightening.

There is a new federal rule proposed that effectively renders Posee Comitatus dead:

[Federal Register: December 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 234)][Proposed
Rules][Page 73896-73900]From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
======================Proposed RulesFederal
______________________This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to
the public ofthe proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of
thesenotices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate inthe
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
======================[[Page 73896]]DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSEOffice of the
Secretary[DoD-2008-OS-0085; RIN 0790-AI34]32 CFR Part 185Defense Support of
Civil Authorities (DSCA)AGENCY: Department of Defense.ACTION: Proposed
This proposed rule establishes policy and assignsresponsibilities for DSCA,
supplements regulations regarding militarysupport for civilian law enforcement,
and sets forth policy guidancefor the execution and oversight of DSCA when
requested by civilauthorities and approved by the appropriate DoD authority, or
asdirected by the President, within the United States, including theDistrict of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. VirginIslands, Guam,
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern MarianaIslands, and any
territory or possession of the United States or anypolitical subdivision
thereof. Legislative changes over the years havemade the existing guidance
outdated and inconsistent with current lawand the current organizational
structure of the Department of Defense.This proposed rule will allow civil
authorities access to the correctprocedures when they are seeking assistance
from the Department byestablishing updated policy guidance and assigning the
correctresponsibilities within the Department for the Defense for support
ofcivil authorities in response to requests for assistance for
domesticemergencies, designated law enforcement support, special events,
andother domestic activities. Interested persons are invited to submitcomments
on this proposed rule that will be considered prior topromulgation of the final
rule.DATES: Comments must be received by February 2, 2009.ADDRESSES: You may
submit comments, identified by docket number and orRIN number and title, by any
of the following methods:Federal Rulemaking Portal: the instructions for
submitting comments.Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160Defense
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160.Instructions: All submissions received must
include the agency nameand docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN)
for thisFederal Register document. The general policy for comments and
othersubmissions from members of the public is to make these
submissionsavailable for public viewing on the Internet at as they
are received without change, including anypersonal identifiers or contact
information.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Chavez,
703-697-5415.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review''It has been certified that 32 CFR part 185 does not:(1)
Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more oradversely affect
in a material way the economy; a section of theeconomy; productivity;
competition; jobs; the environment; publichealth or safety; or State, local, or
tribal governments orcommunities;(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with anaction taken or planned by another Agency;(3) Materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,user fees, or loan programs, or the
rights and obligations ofrecipients thereof; or(4) Raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legalmandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth inthis Executive Order.Sec. 202, Pub. L. 104-4, ``Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act''It has been certified that 32 CFR part 185 does not contain
aFederal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local andtribal
governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100million or more in
any 1 year.Public Law 96-354, ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (5 U.S.C. 601)It
has been certified that 32 CFR part 185 is not subject to theRegulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, ifpromulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial numberof small entities. This rule
establishes policy and assignsresponsibilities within DoD for DSCA, supplements
regulations regardingmilitary support for civilian law enforcement, and sets
forth policyguidance for the execution and oversight of DSCA when requested
bycivil authorities and approved by the appropriate DoD authority, or asdirected
by the President. Therefore, it is not expected that smallentities will be
affected because there will be no economicallysignificant regulatory
requirements placed upon them.Public Law 96-511, ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35)It has been certified that 32 CFR part 185 does not
imposereporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork ReductionAct
of 1995.Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''It has been certified that 32 CFR
part 185 does not have federalismimplications, as set forth in Executive Order
13132. This rule does nothave substantial direct effects on:(1) The States;(2)
The relationship between the National Government and theStates; or(3) The
distribution of power and responsibilities among thevarious levels of
Government.List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 185Armed forces, Civil
defense.Accordingly, the Department of Defense proposes to revise 32 CFRpart 185
(DSCA)Sec.185.1 Purpose.185.2 Applicability and scope.185.3 Definitions.185.4
Policy.185.5 Responsibilities.Authority: 50 U.S.C. 2251, as amended; E.O. 12148,
3 CFR 1979Comp. p. 412.Sec. 185.1 Purpose.This part:[[Page 73897]](a)
Establishes policy and assigns responsibilities for DefenseSupport of Civil
Authorities (DSCA) which is also referred to as civilsupport.(b) Supplements the
regulations required by section 375 of title10, United States Code (U.S.C.),
regarding military support forcivilian law enforcement.(c) Sets forth policy
guidance for the execution and oversight ofDSCA when requested by civil
authorities and approved by theappropriate DoD authority, or as directed by the
President, within theUnited States, including the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth ofPuerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
theCommonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any territory orpossession
of the United States or any political subdivision thereof.Sec. 185.2
Applicability and scope.This part:(a) Applies to the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the MilitaryDepartments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff,the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the
InspectorGeneral of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the
DoDField Activities, and all other organizational entities within theDepartment
of Defense (hereafter referred to collectively as the ``DoDComponents'').(b)
Applies to the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the Air NationalGuard (ANG) in
title 32 status.(c) Applies to all DSCA (except the specific forms of DSCA
listedin paragraph (d) of this section), including:(1) Military community
affairs programs or innovative readinesstraining (formerly called
``civil-military cooperative actionprograms'') (see DoD Directive
Available by downloading at
Mutual or automatic aid (see chapter 15A of title 42 U.S.C.).(3) DoD fire and
emergency services programs (see DoD
Available by downloading at
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) activities as theDepartment of
Defense Coordinating and Primary Agency for the NationalResponse Framework,
Emergency Support Function 3, Public Worksand Engineering.(5) Activities
performed by the Civil Air Patrol in support ofcivil authorities when approved
by the Air Force as auxiliary missions.(6) Support provided by the National
Guard, in a federally fundedtitle 32 status to local, State, tribal, and/or
Federal civil agencieswhen employed by a Governor, or provided under Emergency
ManagementAssistance Compacts when that support involves use of
personneloperating under the provisions of title 32 U.S.C.(7) Special Events in
accordance with DoD Directive 2000.15 \3\and/or applicable
Available by downloading at
Does not apply to the following activities conducted in supportof civil
authorities:(1) Support in response to foreign disasters provided in
accordancewith DoD Directive
Available by downloading at
Joint investigations conducted by the Inspector General of theDepartment of
Defense, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, andthe military criminal
investigative organizations with civil lawenforcement agencies on matters within
their respective jurisdictionsusing their own forces and equipment.(3) Detail of
DoD personnel to duty outside the Department ofDefense in accordance with DoD
Available by downloading at
Support provided by State Defense Forces and National Guardactivities not
covered by paragraph (c)(6) of this section.(5) Counternarcotics operations.(6)
Support provided by the United States Army Corps of Engineerswhen accomplishing
missions and responsibilities under Pub. L. 84-99,as amended.(7) Intelligence
assistance provided by DoD intelligence andcounterintelligence components (see
DoD Directive 5240.01,\6\ ExecutiveOrders 12333 and 13388, DoD 5240.1-R,\7\ and
other applicable laws
Available by downloading at\7\
Available by downloading at
Military community relations programs and activitiesadministered by the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs(see DoD Directive 5410.18 \8\
and DoD Instruction 5410.19
Available by downloading at\9\
Available by downloading at
Sensitive support in accordance with DoD Directive
Document is classified and copies maybe requested bycontacting USD(I),
185.3 Definitions.Civil Authorities. See Joint Publication
Available by downloading at
Disturbances. See Joint Publication 1-02.Civil Support. See Joint Publication
1-02. Also known as DefenseSupport of Civil Authorities (DSCA).Defense Domestic
Crisis Manager. The DoD official responsible foroverseeing, advising, and making
recommendations to the Secretary ofDefense on the use of resources and DoD
personnel needed to prevent orrespond to a potential or actual domestic crisis.
The AssistantSecretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas'
SecurityAffairs (ASD(HD&ASA)) serves as the Defense Domestic Crisis
Manager.Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA). Support provided byU.S.
Federal military forces, National Guard forces performing dutyunder title 32,
U.S.C., DoD civilians, DoD contract personnel, and DoDcomponent assets, in
response to requests for assistance from civilauthorities for special events,
domestic emergencies, designated lawenforcement support, and other domestic
activities. Support provided byNational Guard forces performing duty under title
32, U.S.C., isconsidered DSCA but is conducted as a State-directed action. Also
knownas Civil Support (CS).Imminently Serious Conditions. Emergency conditions
in which, inthe judgment of a military commander or responsible DoD
civilianofficial, immediate and possibly serious danger threatens the publicand
prompt action is needed to save lives, to safeguard public healthor safety, or
to prevent or mitigate great property or environmentaldamage. Under these
conditions, timely prior authority from higherheadquarters to provide DSCA may
not be possible before action isnecessary for effective response.Responsible DoD
Civilian. For purposes of DSCA, the head of a DoDComponent (or designee) or
other DoD civilian official or NationalGuard Federal technician who have
authority[[Page 73898]]over DoD assets that may be used for a DSCA
response.Special Event. An international or domestic event, contest,activity, or
meeting, which by its very nature, or by specificstatutory or regulatory
authority, may require security, safety, and/orother logistical support or
assistance fro the Department of Defense.Sec. 185.4 Policy.It is DoD policy
that:(a) This part shall be implemented consistent with nationalsecurity
objectives and military readiness.(b) Unless expressly stated otherwise, the
provisions of this partshould not be construed to rescind any existing
authorities of theHeads of DoD Components, commanders, and/or responsible DoD
civiliansto provide DSCA in accordance with existing laws, Department of
Defenseissuances, and Secretary of Defense approved orders.(c) DSCA is initiated
by a request for DoD assistance from acivilian agency or is ordered by the
President or Secretary of Defense.(d) All requests for DSCA shall be written and
include a commitmentto reimburse the Department of Defense. Waivers or
exceptions toreimbursement must be consistent with the law and/or DoD policies.
Forassistance provided under paragraph (g) of this section, civilauthorities
shall be informed that oral requests for assistance in anemergency must be
followed by a written request at the earliestavailable opportunity.(e) All
requests for assistance from civil authorities shall beevaluated for legality,
lethality, risk, cost (including the source offunding and the effect on the DoD
budget), appropriateness, and effecton readiness.(f) DSCA plans shall be
compatible with the National ResponseFramework; the National Incident Management
System; all contingencyplans for operations in the locations listed in Sec.
185.1(c) of thispart; and any other national plans (approved by the President
orSecretary of Defense) or DoD issuances governing DSCA operations.(g)
Commanders, (including National Guard Commanders), heads of DoDComponents and/or
responsible DoD civilian officials may provideImmediate Response to a request
for assistance from a civilianauthority, under imminently serious conditions.
This Immediate ResponseAuthority is exercised when time does not permit approval
from higherheadquarters. Responsible DoD civilian officials may employ
theresources under their control, subject to any supplemental directionprovided
by higher headquarters, and provide those resources to savelives, to safeguard
public health or safety, or to prevent or mitigategreat property or
environmental damage.(1) The DoD official directing a response under Immediate
ResponseAuthority shall immediately notify the National Military Command
Center(NMCC), through the chain of command, of the details of the
response.National Guard officials shall inform the NMCC through the
NationalGuard Bureau. The NMCC will inform appropriate DoD components.(2)
Immediate Response Authority ends when the necessity givingrise to the response
is no longer present (e.g., when there aresufficient resources available from
State, local, and other Federalagencies to respond adequately), when the
initiating DoD or NationalGuard official or a higher authority directs an end to
the response, orwhen an appropriate authority approves a request from another
Federaldepartment or agency based on other authorities. The DoD or NationalGuard
official directing a response under Immediate Response Authorityshall reassess
whether there remains a necessity for DoD to respondunder this authority as soon
as practicable but, if immediate responseactivities have not yet ended, not
later than 72 hours after resourceshave been employed.(3) Support provided under
Immediate Response Authority should beprovided on a cost-reimbursable basis
where appropriate or legallyrequired but will not be delayed or denied based on
the inability orunwillingness of the requester to make a commitment to reimburse
theDepartment of Defense.(h) Federal military forces shall not be used to quell
civildisturbances or perform civilian law enforcement functions (e.g.,search,
seizure, arrest, and surveillance) unless specificallyauthorized by the
President or the Secretary of Defense in accordancewith applicable law (e.g.,
chapter 15 of title 10, U.S.C.).(i) Only the Secretary of Defense, or a
designated representative,may approve requests from civil authorities for
defense assistanceduring civil disturbances; defense response to chemical,
biological,radiological, nuclear, and/or high yield explosive events;
defenseassets when there is a potential for lethality (unless
otherwiseauthorized in law or DoD policy); and potentially lethal support
ofcivilian law enforcement agencies. Lethal support includes: loans ofarms;
vessels, or aircraft; or ammunition. It also includes: allrequests for
assistance under section 382 of title 10 and section 831of title 18, U.S.C.; all
support to counterterrorism operations; andall support to law enforcement when
there is a potential forconfrontation between law enforcement and specifically
identifiedcivilian individuals or groups.(j) Only the Secretary of Defense, or a
designated representative,may authorize DoD Components to procure and maintain
supplies,materiel, and/or equipment exclusively for providing DSCA.(k)
Programming and budgeting for DSCA shall be in accordance withexisting laws,
Department of Defense issuances, and Secretary ofDefense authorization.(l)
Federal military forces employed for DSCA activities shallremain under Federal
military command and control at all times.(m) Special event support to
non-governmental organizations is aDSCA activity.Sec. 185.5 Responsibilities.(a)
The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)) shallfacilitate the
coordination of DoD policy governing DSCA with FederalDepartments and Agencies,
State agencies, and the DoD Components, asrequired.(b) The Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Homeland Defense andAmericas' Security Affairs (ASD(HD&ASA)),
under the authority,direction, and control of the USD(P) exercising policy
oversight ofhomeland defense activities of the Department of Defense and
performingother duties as directed by the Secretary of Defense shall:(1) Serve
as the principal civilian advisor to the Secretary ofDefense and the USD(P) on
DSCA.(2) Serve as the Defense Domestic Crisis Manager in accordance withDoD
Available by downloading at
Serve as approval authority for requests for assistance fromcivil authorities
sent to the Secretary of Defense, except for thoseitems retained in section
185.4(h) and (i) of this part, or delegatedto other officials. Such matters
shall be coordinated with the Chairmanof the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In the
absence of the ASD(HD&ASA), thePrincipal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defenseand Americas' Security Affairs may exercise the
authority of theASD(HD&ASA) to approve such requests. This authority may not
be furtherdelegated. The[[Page 73899]]Secretary of Defense shall be notified
immediately of the use of thisauthority.(4) Develop, coordinate, and oversee the
implementation of DoDpolicy for DSCA and shall:(i) Through the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff as itpertains to DSCA matters, monitor the activation,
deployment, andemployment of Federal military forces (including Reserve
Componentforces), the National Guard, DoD civilian personnel, and allfacilities,
equipment, fiscal accounts, supplies, and services ownedby, controlled by, or
under the jurisdiction of a DoD Component inresponse to requests for DSCA and
for Department of Defense support tospecial events; and provide oversight of
DSCA training, exercises, andresources.(ii) In coordination with the General
Counsel of the Department ofDefense, develop policies and procedures for DSCA
support to civil lawenforcement authorities; coordinate long-range policies and
proceduresthat govern the provision of non-emergency support to civilian
lawenforcement agencies; promote Department of Defense cooperation withpublic
safety agencies; and ensure that assistance is in compliancewith applicable law,
Presidential Directives, Executive orders, andDepartment of Defense policy.(iii)
Ensure that information relating to all aspects of DSCAreceives the broadest
possible dissemination utilizing all approvedmedia as appropriate and in
accordance with Department of DefenseDirective
Available by downloading at
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations andLow Intensity
Conflict and Interdependent Capabilities, under theauthority, direction, and
control of the USD(P), shall support planningby the Defense Domestic Crisis
Manager during DSCA operations, asrequired.(d) The Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller)/Chief FinancialOfficer shall establish policies and procedures to
ensure timelyreimbursement to the Department of Defense for reimbursable
DSCAactivities.(e) The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness(USD(P&R)) shall:(1) Assist the ASD(HD&ASA) by providing
recommendations, guidance,and support for all domestic crisis situations or
emergencies that mayrequire health or medical-related DSCA, including situations
involvingcoordination with the components of the National Disaster
MedicalSystem.(2) Assist the ASD(HD&ASA) by providing recommendations,
guidance,and support on the use of the Reserve Components to perform
DSCAmissions.(3) Identify, monitor, and oversee the development of
integratedDSCA training capabilities and the integration of these
trainingcapabilities into exercises and training to build and sustain
DSCAreadiness.(f) The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs,
underthe authority, direction, and control of USD(P&R), shall assist
theASD(HD&ASA) by providing recommendations, guidance, and support on theuse
of the Reserve Components to perform DSCA missions.(g) The Secretaries of the
Military Departments shall:(1) Support DSCA operations as directed and in
accordance with thisDirective, and shall ensure the readiness of the Military
Departmentsto execute plans for DSCA.(2) Ensure compliance with financial
management guidance related tosupport provided for DSCA operations, including
guidance related totracking costs and seeking reimbursement.(h) The Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall:(1) Advise the Secretary of Defense on the
effects of requests forDSCA on national security and military readiness.(2)
Identify and coordinate available resources for DSCA requestsand release related
execute and deployment orders when approved by theSecretary of Defense.(3)
Incorporate DSCA into joint training and exercise programs inconsultation with
the Department of Homeland Security, otherappropriate Federal Departments and
Agencies, and the National GuardBureau.(i) The Commanders of Combatant Commands
with DSCA responsibilitiesin accordance with the Unified Command Plan shall:(1)
Through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, plan andexecute DSCA
operations in their areas of responsibility in accordancewith this Directive,
and in accordance with their authorities assignedby the Unified Command Plan and
the Forces for Unified CommandsMemorandum.(2) Incorporate DSCA into joint
training and exercise programs inconsultation with the Department of Homeland
Security, otherappropriate Federal Departments and Agencies, and the National
GuardBureau.(3) Advocate for validated DSCA requests for domestic
operationsthrough the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, subject to
section185.4(j) and (k) of this part, and the Planning, Programming,Budgeting,
and Execution (PPBE) process.(4) Provide the Secretary of Defense an
implementation plan forensuring DSCA support is emphasized in command
assessments.(j) The Chief, National Guard Bureau, under the authority,direction,
and control of the Secretary of Defense through theSecretaries of the Army and
the Air, shall:(1) Serve as the channel of communication on all matters
pertainingto National Guard DSCA activities between the Secretary of Defense
andthe Heads of the DoD Components (including the Secretary of the Armyand the
Secretary of the Air Force) and the States. Direct liaisonbetween both entities
should occur only in an emergency when time doesnot permit compliance with this
Directive. In each such instance, theChief, NGB, should be informed of the
communication.(2) Annually assess the readiness of the National Guard of
theStates to conduct DSCA activities and report on this assessment to
theSecretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force,the
USD(P&R), the ASD(HD&ASA), the ASD(RA), the Chairman of the JointChiefs
of Staff, and appropriate Combatant Commanders.(3) Participate in the Joint
Staff capability-based planning andassessments, the Joint Capabilities
Integration and Development System,and the DoD PPBE assessment for all actions
pertaining to NationalGuard capabilities required for DSCA.(4) Facilitate and
deconflict the planning and use of NationalGuard forces among the States to
ensure that adequate and balancedforces are available and responsive for DSCA
missions, consistent withnational security objectives and priorities.(k) The
Heads of the DoD Components, in addition to theresponsibilities in paragraphs
(g), (h), (i), and (j) of this section,as applicable, shall:(1) Ensure that any
DSCA-related Department of Defense issuances,concept plans, interagency
agreements, and memorandums of understandingor agreement with external agencies
are in full compliance with thisDirective.(2) Ensure compliance with financial
management guidance related tosupport provided for DSCA operations, including
guidance related totracking costs and seeking reimbursement.[[Page 73900]]Dated:
November 26, 2008.Patricia L. Toppings,OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.[FR Doc. E8-28706 Filed 12-3-08; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE

In case anyone reading this supports all the "anti-terror" laws, read the following and see how easy it is for non-violent, non-dangerous people to become classified as terrorists by some idiot cop:,0,1237214.story

Spying on pacifists, environmentalists and nunsAn undercover Maryland
Police trooper infiltrated nonviolent groups and labeled dozens of
people as
terrorists.By Bob DroginDecember 7, 2008Reporting from Takoma
Park, Md. — To
friends in the protest movement, Lucy was an eager
20-something who attended
their events and sent encouraging e-mails to
support their causes.Only one thing
seemed strange."At one demonstration, I
remember her showing up with a laptop
computer and typing away," said Mike
Stark, who helped lead the
anti-death-penalty march in Baltimore that day.
"We all thought that was
odd."Not really. The woman was an undercover
Maryland State Police trooper who
between 2005 and 2007 infiltrated more
than two dozen rallies and meetings of
nonviolent groups.Maryland officials
now concede that, based on information
gathered by "Lucy" and others, state
police wrongly listed at least 53 Americans
as terrorists in a criminal
intelligence database -- and shared some information
about them with half a
dozen state and federal agencies, including the National
Agency.Among those labeled as terrorists: two Catholic nuns, a former
Democratic congressional candidate, a lifelong pacifist and a registered
lobbyist. One suspect's file warned that she was "involved in puppet making
allows anarchists to utilize her property for meetings.""There wasn't a
scintilla of illegal activity" going on, said David Rocah, an attorney for
American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a lawsuit and in July
obtained the
first surveillance files. State police have released other
heavily redacted
documents.Investigators, the files show, targeted groups
that advocated against
abortion, global warming, nuclear arms, military
recruiting in high schools and
biodefense research, among other issues."It
was unconscionable conduct," said
Democratic state Sen. Brian Frosh, who is
backing legislation to ban similar
spying in Maryland unless the police
superintendent can document a "reasonable,
articulable suspicion" of
criminal activity.

Sunday, December 7, 2008

More on the Food Raid in Ohio

More on the raid by those thugs in Ohio:

When officers from the Lorain County Sheriff’s Office in Ohio arrived last
Monday at the Manna Storehouse
food cooperative in LaGrange with weapons drawn and trained on Katie Stowers and
her children, along with her in-laws, there was one member of the family
Katie’s husband, Chad, is a U.S. Navy Seabee, helping in
construction projects in the midst of combat in Iraq. He’s been there, separated
from his family, for the last five months, supposedly protecting our rights from
abuse—the sort of abuse that appears to be taking place on an ever-more-frequent
basis at farms and food outlets around the country.
I should point out that
Katie didn’t broadcast the information about her husband to me—I inquired about
it after she had to interrupt our telephone conversation to take a call from
Chad in Iraq. Presumably, she was updating him about the raid he missed, in
which sheriff’s deputies, together with food inspectors from the Lorain County
Health Department and the Ohio Department of Agriculture, herded the family into
a home living room, and kept them under the guard of armed officers for about
seven hours, while they executed a search warrant, taking food, cell phones,
three computers, and business records. I asked Lorain if she was aware of the
irony of her husband putting his life on the line in Iraq, while she was being
held at gunpoint in her home by American law enforcement officials, and she
said, “It occurred to me.”
The reason for the heavy-handed treatment? That’s
not certain, since Lorain County officials won’t comment, except to say they are
conducting “an investigation.” Katie Stowers says the only reason she’s aware of
is a possible disagreement over whether the cooperative should be licensed as a
retail establishment. A year ago, county health department officials arrived
wanting to do an inspection, which the Stowers refused to allow, pending receipt
of a written explanation. “We sent them a letter, asking why. We never received
a response”...until Monday.
Manna Storehouse describes itself as a “natural
food co-op” that has been supplying members with beef, turkey, dairy products
(including pasteurized and unhomogenized milk; photo above from its web site),
and other products, for the last nine years. The Stowers family’s experience
last Monday has been described on a few web sites, including this
Katie Stowers said the account is pretty much accurate. She says the
officials showed up with a warrant, but that they didn’t identify themselves or
say why they were there. “We don’t know who it was.”
The raid appears to have
been launched under the auspices of the Lorain County Health Department, which
sent food inspectors. It involved the Ohio Department of Agriculture, which had
two employees there “in a supportive role,” according to a Lorain County Health
Department employee, Joyce Davis. And then there were the armed guys from the
sheriff’s office. The health department referred me to the Lorrain County
prosecutor, Dennis Will, for more information, but he didn’t return my
It’s getting so that such heavyhanded raids on peaceful farmers and
natural food distributors, which have long been exceptions in this country, are
getting to be the rule. We’ve seen them in the cases of Gary
Oaks in Cincinnati,
Richard Hebron in Michigan, Mark Nolt in Pennsylvania, Nature’s
Juice Co-op in Illinois
. And as we saw in the Meadowsweet Dairy case, judges
don't seem to care any more about abuses of search warrants and questionable
seizures of goods. (For background on cases I alluded without links, there are
multiple postings, accessible via the search function.)
I suspect the Lorain
County officials figured this was just another case of weirdo foodies, and
neglected to consider that even weirdo foodie family members fight for their
country in faroff lands.

Contact info. for officials in Lorain County, let's flood them with messages:

This kind of garbage has got to stop. It must not be tolerated.

Saturday, December 6, 2008

HS Precision's Unacceptable Response, And a Rule Change in National Parks

HS Precision posted a response on their website to the controversy:

To Our Valued Customers: H-S Precision has received comments relating to
individual testimonials in our 2008 catalog. All of the testimonials focused on
the quality, accuracy and customer service provided by H-S Precision.The
management of H-S Precision did not intend to offend anyone or create any type
of controversy. We are revising our 2009 catalog and removing all product
testimonials. Sincerely, The Management of H-S Precision

This is truly pathetic. It was not that they used endorsements in general, it's a matter of whose endorsement they printed. They printed a murderer's endorsement. A person who murdered in a blatant example of excessive force enforcing an unconstitutional law imposing a $200 tax (which the accused, Randy Weaver, did not actually break, as the jury correctly saw). They refuse to acknowledge that they did anything wrong in using Horiuchi's endorsement. In fact, they have not responded to anyone's emails, letters, or phone calls to them about this. If someone calls them to say anything, they say they'll call back if you leave your number. They don't call back. One person I know has been waiting all week for them to call him back, and they haven't. Perhaps they think they can survive on only federal contracts, they clearly do not care about civilian sales judging from their attitude. So I say to them: the boycott is still on! I hope Remington drops them as a supplier like a rock.

Now for some good news (for a change): the rule prohibiting the carrying of loaded firearms in National Parks has been changed, effective in 30 days. Concealed carry of firearms, in accordance with state laws, will be allowed. However a warning: the federal law prohibiting carrying of firearms into federal-owned buildings is still in effect so don't take a gun inside any federal owned building in a National Park until we can get that eliminated. Unfortunately open carry will not be allowed at this point, making it somewhat impractical to carry a long gun (though not impossible), but it's a big leap in the right direction. Here is a PDF file containing the new rules and some other information pertaining to it:

Friday, December 5, 2008

Contact info. for OH DA

Email addresses to contact the OH Agriculture Department, let's send them a message about this:

The Advancing Police State: Swat Team Food Raid in Rural Ohio

In rural Ohio, a family that runs a food coop was raided by a SWAT team under orders from the Department of Agriculture.

From what I've been able to gather they are accused of violating a rather minor law, at most they could have been subject to a small fine. Nothing justifying the gestapo-tactics and abuse of their rights that took place. Take note of the following:

Many items were taken that were not listed on the search warrant. The
family was not permitted a phone call, and they were not told what crime they
were being charged with. They were not read their rights. Over ten thousand
dollars worth of food was taken, including the family’s personal stock of food
for the coming year. All of their computers, and all of their cell phones were
taken, as well as phone and contact records. The food cooperative was virtually
shut down. There was no rational explanation, nor justification, for this
extreme violation of Constitutional rights.

Notice that? Their own personal food stores for the following year taken...

More details are at:

It seems the following is what started this:

The issue appears to be the discovery of a bit of non-institutional beef in an
Oberlin College food service freezer a year ago that was tracked down by a
county sanitation official to Manna Storehouse. Oberlin College’s student food
coop is widely known for its strident ideological stance about eating organic
foods. It seems that the Oberlin student food cooperative had joined the Manna
Storehouse food cooperative in order to buy organic foods in bulk from the
national organic food distributor United, which services buying clubs across the
nation. The sanitation official, James Boddy, evidently contacted the Ohio
Department of Agriculture. After the first contact by state ODA officials, Manna
Storehouse reportedly wrote them a letter requesting assistance and guidelines
for complying with the law. This letter was never answered. Rather, the ODA
agent tried several times to infiltrate the coop, as described above. When his
attempts failed, the SWAT team showed up!

Remember that whomever controls the food controls the people. The government, in bed with industrial agriculture giants like Monsanto (monsatan may be more accurate a description of that company), wants absolute control over our food. NAIS should have woken us up to this fact if nothing else did.

Take note also of the following: the Ohio Department of Agriculture agent involved and behind this thuggery is Bill Lesho. Obama is planning to appoint him as head of the USDA!

We are headed down a very dark road in this country.

Monday, December 1, 2008

Citigroup Internal Memo Warns of Possible War and Civil Disorder

So, a Citigroup internal memo (it was supposed to remain secret but was leaked), predicts possible civil disorder, collapse, wars, etc., worldwide because of the economic situation:

"The bank said the damage caused by the financial excesses of the last quarter
century was forcing the world's authorities to take steps that had never been
tried before.
This gamble was likely to end in one of two extreme ways: with
either a resurgence of inflation; or a downward spiral into depression, civil
disorder, and possibly wars. Both outcomes will cause a rush for gold.
are throwing the kitchen sink at this," said Tom Fitzpatrick, the bank's chief
technical strategist.
"The world is not going back to normal after the
magnitude of what they have done. When the dust settles this will either work,
and the money they have pushed into the system will feed though into an
inflation shock.
"Or it will not work because too much damage has already
been done, and we will see continued financial deterioration, causing further
economic deterioration, with the risk of a feedback loop. We don't think this is
the more likely outcome, but as each week and month passes, there is a growing
danger of vicious circle as confidence erodes," he said.
"This will lead to
political instability. We are already seeing countries on the periphery of
Europe under severe stress. Some leaders are now at record levels of
unpopularity. There is a risk of domestic unrest, starting with strikes because
people are feeling disenfranchised."
"What happens if there is a meltdown in
a country like Pakistan, which is a nuclear power. People react when they have
their backs to the wall. We're already seeing doubts emerge about the sovereign
debts of developed AAA-rated countries, which is not something you can ignore,"
he said."

While I have been laughed at over this by some people, my statements that we are headed towards possibly both a world war and a civil war, are becoming less unrealistic all the time. One topic I have not written about before here but have been following with interest, is the building up of troops domestically. The official line is that it's in case of a terrorist attack, but, it does not take a leap of logic to think that perhaps the government fears civil war, rebellion, etc.:

"The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside
the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a
nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon

And, on that note, I found it fascinating that South Carolina declared a tax-free holiday on guns, in support of the Second Amendment in light of the elections:

"The tax break applies to handguns, rifles and shotguns, but not to ammunition
or antique or collectible handguns. Though Gov. Mark Sanford vetoed the bill
creating the tax holiday, his veto was overwhelmingly overturned in both
legislative chambers. Former Sen. Catherine Ceips of Beaufort and Reps. Bill
Herbkersman of Bluffton, Richard Chalk of Hilton Head Island and Shannon
Erickson of Beaufort all voted for the holiday. Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer
said the governor would “rather have tax relief applied in a broad-based fashion
over the entire year than a particular holiday for a particular item.” Though
the legislature defended it as an expression of support for gun rights, the
holiday comes as the state is facing steep revenue declines. Florida and
Maryland have scaled back sales tax holidays due to sharp drops in revenues. The
state Board of Economic Advisors estimates the upcoming sales tax holiday will
result in about $15,000 in consumer savings and lost revenue. Herbkersman said
$15,000 in lost revenue is well worth helping out gun buyers."

South Carolina encouraging citizens to buy has an uncanny resemblance to the South arming itself in the 1850's.