While not too concerned about larger Government conspiracies I am concerned about Inflation leading into Hyper-Inflation and the good chance that this will all precipitate a economic collapse. This is much more likely to be the root cause of SHTF,...... barring any nuclear attack, super density cyber attack or flaming metorite strikes on the earth.
A total economic collapse could also be the cause of large government restrictions on the population and placing martial law into effect.
But we get closer and closer to runaway inflation with the fuel prices, and prices of foods and other commodities increasing daily, compounded by the reduction of earnings through higher taxation. On an every two week basis, my pay has been reduced $125. That's basically a $250 reduction in buying, saving, investing and ultimately prepping power each month.
Even the major news networks and Government are warning of higher food prices. While there is not a single cause for this, droughts, natural disasters, higher fuel prices and the devalued dollar are all combining to cause these higher food prices. The article below is from a USDA paid economist. I think he is vastly understating the potential of increased prices as other good sources tell us that, on average, food prices have went up 20% through 2012. Look at you own checkbook and grocery receipts and come to your own conclusion.
Higher Food Prices Coming,.....for sure. A USDA economist says Americans will be paying more at the grocery store in 2013.
"Inflation's going to pick up in 2013 over what we have seen in 2012. So we are looking ahead at a year of above normal food price inflation," says economist Ricky Volpe of USDA's Economic Research Service. Volpe says to expect food price inflation of 3% to 4% in 2013. He says the drought affecting two-thirds of the nation is partly to blame.
"The major impact of the drought in the Midwest, higher corn prices leads to higher feed prices, leads to higher animal prices, and higher prices for all animal products," Volpe says. He adds that consumers will see especially higher prices for beef. "We are still faced with historically low inventory for cattle in the U.S.," Volpe says. "So we still have supply that's low relative to demand. We have strong inflation; that's not going anywhere, and the drought is only exacerbating that." Egg and dairy prices will also be higher as drought drives up feed costs.
"So we have these higher feed prices translating into higher milk prices, which especially in the coming months and the first quarter of 2013 we expect to see this translate into a hike in overall dairy prices," Volpe says. "As the impacts of higher corn prices and higher feed prices translate throughout much of the year, we’re looking at egg prices to go up another 3% to 4% in 2013."
Fresh produce prices, which stayed low in 2012, are also expected to rise in 2013.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
How the U.S. Military Would Crush a Rebellion
This article was published on Forbes under the title, "How the U.S. Military Would Crush a Tea Party Rebellion"
I found this interesting as this country is not only more divided than ever before, but when you add the whole gun control control-registeration-possible confiscation issues AND the probable economic collapse, well,.....
A right-wing militia inspired by the Tea Party movement has taken over the city of Darlington, South Carolina, arrested the local government, and declared that the federal government should be overthrown. As the militia establishes checkpoints across I-95, other extremist groups across the nation rush to declare their support. South Carolina’s governor – a Tea Party supporter – declines to send in law enforcement to quash the militia, but quietly asks for federal intervention. The President invokes the Insurrection Act to authorize the use of federal troops, as the Pentagon prepares for war at home….
This is a drill, repeat, this is a drill. Actually, it’s a thought exercise by two authors exploring just how the U.S. military would respond to domestic insurrection. It sounds almost paranoid, except that nine days after Obama’s reelection, petitions for secession have sprouted in all 50 states, gun sales have soared for fear of what a second term means for gun owners, and white nationalist groups are elated over Obama’s victory. Add in a stagnant economy, a polarized electorate, and perhaps some disgruntled Afghanistan and Iraq veterans, and domestic strife seems improbable but not impossible.
The scenario appeared last July – before Obama’s reelection – in the respected Small Wars Journal. The article, titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future”, was written by Kevin Benson, a retired Army colonel who teaches at University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and Jennifer Weber, a history professor at University of Kansas and a Civil War historian.
Benson and Weber (the team sounds like a cigarette brand) explored how the military might domestically apply its concept of full spectrum operations, which cover everything from all-out war to counterinsurgency and nation-building. In fact, the Army’s operating concept for 2016 to 2028 considers highly likely a future where the U.S. is threatened by “radical U.S. citizens operating domestically and abroad”. The Pentagon was probably thinking of Al Qaeda sympathizers in the U.S., but radicals come in all flavors.
Benson and Weber boldly argue that “if we face a period of persistent global conflict as outlined in successive National Security Strategy documents, then Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.” They also argue that preparations for such a scenario must begin now, including proper equipment for the U.S. military as well as liaison between federal and state authorities. Actually, the issue is really the conduct of operations against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, but Benson and Weber (who declined to speak with the War Games blog) depict a convoluted situation where the military intervenes in South Carolina using techniques honed by hunting Taliban, while still trying to remain within the law.
Make no mistake, this isn’t the Pentagon providing military support to hurricane victims, or even sending troops to support local authorities as during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. This is a war. There will be casualties. Refugees from the fighting must be housed and fed. But it’s a strange kind of war. Thus U.S. forces begin, as any combat forces would, by attempting to collect intelligence on enemy forces – but then have to erase the intel within 90 days after operations are completed, in order not to run afoul of federal privacy laws. They will be eavesdropping on “enemy” communications, but only with a court order. They must depend on local law enforcement for information on the rebels, but the local cops may be rebel sympathizers. There will be “information/influence operations designed to present a picture of the federal response and the inevitable defeat of the insurrection.”
Curiously, the authors don’t really delve the fundamental issue of American soldiers firing on American civilians, except to note that troops would have to comply with standing rules on force, which require graduated levels of violence. Civil support in South Carolina makes counterinsurgency in Kabul look like a picnic.
Predictably, the Small Wars Journal article drew fire from outraged conservative newspapers and protestors. The critics missed the point. This wasn’t really aimed at the far right, except that insofar as there are heavily armed groups in America that dispute the authority of the federal government, they do tend be right-wing. Yet this scenario could just as easily be applied to radical left violence like the 1999 Battle of Seattle riots.
Benson and Weber present a scenario that is somewhat artificial. For example, American law enforcement has become militarized after 9/11. Who needs to call in Army troops when your local police force has armored vehicles, grenade launchers and automatic weapons? One has to wonder if a militia would be so formidable that the state National Guard couldn’t handle it. But then the premise of Benson and Weber’s scenario is that local authorities might not be able to trust local forces to fight rebels, or that local voters might punish politicians who try to do so.
The old gun lobby line that a pack of civilians with hunting rifles will stop a tyrannical federal government is silly. This isn’t 1776, the U.S. military is a tad better equipped than King George’s redcoats, and if the U.S. Army decides to crush an insurrection, it will do so. But it is also true that the nature of warfare is changing, as the spread of high-tech weapons has the Pentagon worried that even weak states can field missiles that make sending in the Marines a bloody operation. If Hamas and Hezbollah can obtain anti-tank missiles, why not a Michigan militia or a Los Angeles street gang? If drug cartels deploy heavy weapons on the Mexico-U.S. border, then perhaps only the U.S. military has the firepower to stop them.
However, the real question is this: under what circumstances should federal troops conduct military operations against American citizens on American soil? Is this scenario likely enough that the U.S. military prepare for such operations, or should we worry that preparation will inevitably lead to action? Note the part about American soil, because American supporters of Al Qaeda are already being killed on foreign soil. Laws like the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus are designed to tightly restrict using the military against the American people. But if there were a rebellion, I wonder if the President would stand on legalities. Lincoln is remembered for winning the Civil War, not suspending habeus corpus.
I found this interesting as this country is not only more divided than ever before, but when you add the whole gun control control-registeration-possible confiscation issues AND the probable economic collapse, well,.....
A right-wing militia inspired by the Tea Party movement has taken over the city of Darlington, South Carolina, arrested the local government, and declared that the federal government should be overthrown. As the militia establishes checkpoints across I-95, other extremist groups across the nation rush to declare their support. South Carolina’s governor – a Tea Party supporter – declines to send in law enforcement to quash the militia, but quietly asks for federal intervention. The President invokes the Insurrection Act to authorize the use of federal troops, as the Pentagon prepares for war at home….
This is a drill, repeat, this is a drill. Actually, it’s a thought exercise by two authors exploring just how the U.S. military would respond to domestic insurrection. It sounds almost paranoid, except that nine days after Obama’s reelection, petitions for secession have sprouted in all 50 states, gun sales have soared for fear of what a second term means for gun owners, and white nationalist groups are elated over Obama’s victory. Add in a stagnant economy, a polarized electorate, and perhaps some disgruntled Afghanistan and Iraq veterans, and domestic strife seems improbable but not impossible.
The scenario appeared last July – before Obama’s reelection – in the respected Small Wars Journal. The article, titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future”, was written by Kevin Benson, a retired Army colonel who teaches at University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and Jennifer Weber, a history professor at University of Kansas and a Civil War historian.
Benson and Weber (the team sounds like a cigarette brand) explored how the military might domestically apply its concept of full spectrum operations, which cover everything from all-out war to counterinsurgency and nation-building. In fact, the Army’s operating concept for 2016 to 2028 considers highly likely a future where the U.S. is threatened by “radical U.S. citizens operating domestically and abroad”. The Pentagon was probably thinking of Al Qaeda sympathizers in the U.S., but radicals come in all flavors.
Benson and Weber boldly argue that “if we face a period of persistent global conflict as outlined in successive National Security Strategy documents, then Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.” They also argue that preparations for such a scenario must begin now, including proper equipment for the U.S. military as well as liaison between federal and state authorities. Actually, the issue is really the conduct of operations against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, but Benson and Weber (who declined to speak with the War Games blog) depict a convoluted situation where the military intervenes in South Carolina using techniques honed by hunting Taliban, while still trying to remain within the law.
Make no mistake, this isn’t the Pentagon providing military support to hurricane victims, or even sending troops to support local authorities as during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. This is a war. There will be casualties. Refugees from the fighting must be housed and fed. But it’s a strange kind of war. Thus U.S. forces begin, as any combat forces would, by attempting to collect intelligence on enemy forces – but then have to erase the intel within 90 days after operations are completed, in order not to run afoul of federal privacy laws. They will be eavesdropping on “enemy” communications, but only with a court order. They must depend on local law enforcement for information on the rebels, but the local cops may be rebel sympathizers. There will be “information/influence operations designed to present a picture of the federal response and the inevitable defeat of the insurrection.”
Curiously, the authors don’t really delve the fundamental issue of American soldiers firing on American civilians, except to note that troops would have to comply with standing rules on force, which require graduated levels of violence. Civil support in South Carolina makes counterinsurgency in Kabul look like a picnic.
Predictably, the Small Wars Journal article drew fire from outraged conservative newspapers and protestors. The critics missed the point. This wasn’t really aimed at the far right, except that insofar as there are heavily armed groups in America that dispute the authority of the federal government, they do tend be right-wing. Yet this scenario could just as easily be applied to radical left violence like the 1999 Battle of Seattle riots.
Benson and Weber present a scenario that is somewhat artificial. For example, American law enforcement has become militarized after 9/11. Who needs to call in Army troops when your local police force has armored vehicles, grenade launchers and automatic weapons? One has to wonder if a militia would be so formidable that the state National Guard couldn’t handle it. But then the premise of Benson and Weber’s scenario is that local authorities might not be able to trust local forces to fight rebels, or that local voters might punish politicians who try to do so.
The old gun lobby line that a pack of civilians with hunting rifles will stop a tyrannical federal government is silly. This isn’t 1776, the U.S. military is a tad better equipped than King George’s redcoats, and if the U.S. Army decides to crush an insurrection, it will do so. But it is also true that the nature of warfare is changing, as the spread of high-tech weapons has the Pentagon worried that even weak states can field missiles that make sending in the Marines a bloody operation. If Hamas and Hezbollah can obtain anti-tank missiles, why not a Michigan militia or a Los Angeles street gang? If drug cartels deploy heavy weapons on the Mexico-U.S. border, then perhaps only the U.S. military has the firepower to stop them.
However, the real question is this: under what circumstances should federal troops conduct military operations against American citizens on American soil? Is this scenario likely enough that the U.S. military prepare for such operations, or should we worry that preparation will inevitably lead to action? Note the part about American soil, because American supporters of Al Qaeda are already being killed on foreign soil. Laws like the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus are designed to tightly restrict using the military against the American people. But if there were a rebellion, I wonder if the President would stand on legalities. Lincoln is remembered for winning the Civil War, not suspending habeus corpus.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Some Believe Martial Law is Coming
This is the verbiage published with the video: Just remember what has been done by the Federal government already and you have a pretty good idea of what they intend to do with us. This video is a stark reminder of how far we have fallen since "911." Be prepared to defend yourself and your loved ones. Please.
If you watched the above video, then there would be a link to another recomended video that claims that DHS is preparing for a "massive civil war" within the U.S. While my DHS sources tell me they know nothing about any planned civil war response, UrbanSurvivalSkills.com is posting this video because survival preppers are all about planning and preparing for all contingencies including the worst case as far fetched as they may be.
Verbiage leading into the below video: In a riveting interview on TruNews Radio, private investigator Doug Hagmann said high-level, reliable sources told him the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is preparing for "massive civil war" in America.
"We have problems . . . The federal government is preparing for civil uprising," he added, "so every time you hear about troop movements, every time you hear about movements of military equipment, the militarization of the police, the buying of the ammunition, all of this is . . . they (DHS) are preparing for a massive uprising."
Hagmann goes on to say that his sources tell him the concerns of the DHS stem from a collapse of the U.S. dollar and the hyperinflation a collapse in the value of the world's primary reserve currency implies to a nation of 311 million Americans, who, for the significant portion of the population, is armed.
Hagmann, and Host Rick Wiles share their concerns that even our Congressmen, and Senators are afraid to stand up to Barack Obama, and the emerging Police State out of fear "for the safety of their own familes, and Grandchildren as Chicago Style Mob Rule has overtaken the Executive Branch.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
The Best Survival Firearms Battery for SHTF
I received this questions from Rick, via e-mail: "What do you think the best survival gun inventory is? Can you give me a minimum and maximum list? You can use this question for your website. I really like the army skills stories."
UrbanMan replies: Rick, I'll give you my opinion, but there are so many variables involved. Some of them would be your financial capabilities; existing firearms skills and/or ability to get good training; laws within your locality; and extent of your survival family and their abilities.
Regarding your family survival team or other larger group, for instance I have a friend who has a wife and two daughters over 21 years old living with him as they work part time and go to school. The ability of him to train his wife and daughters is limited by money for ammunition and time,...or basically the wife/daughter's buy in to needing the training. So while he has an M-4 variant, a couple shotguns, and several handguns, he has bought several of the cheaper .22 LR rifles and pistols in order to accomplish some sort of training and to ensure that each family member has a gun. I think he bought Savage semi-auto .22 LR rifles and I know he bought Browning Buckmark pistols to this end.
Minimum Survival Firearms Battery. This would be for one person. If there were a number of people in a survvial grouping, such as a family, then you wouldn't really need to replicate this per person. One thought is to have firearms suitable for every inteded use,..e.g...security and protection; hunting both birds and small game and potentially larger game; and training as well. Some people I know collect cheaper guns, including the not so recognizable calibered guns, for barter/trading purposes. Other are dead set against this. But I can tell you that well into a totally SHTF situation, ammunition will be at least be a viable and valuable commodity.
This is what I would consider an individual minimum battery:
Primary Long Gun: A magazine fed rifle or carbine, in .308 Winchester or .223 (5.56). Good choice here are the M-16/M-4 variants or M-14/M-1A variants. An alternative selection would be a Kalashnikov variant in 7.62 x39mm or .223 Remington. A suitable supply of magazines (think 12 as a minimum), ammunition and cleaning kit/supplies would be necessary as well. I would not feel under gunned if all I had in this category was a Ruger Mini-14. A lesser suitable long gun for this category would be an SKS in 7.62x39mm but only because the ability to re-load quickly is reduced.
Primary Handgun: A semi-automatic pistol in 9x19mm parabellum or .40 caliber would be my choice. Again extra magazines, ammunition and cleaning supplies are necessary. Although a revolver in .357 magnum or any of the excellent M1911 clones are good choices as well.
Shotgun: There are so many uses for a decent shotgun. Think 12 gauge. You can use to hunt birds with bird shotshells, hunt bigger game with slugs; stop vehicles with slugs and nothing protects the home better in a last ditch effort at close range, maybe 15 yards or so, than a 12 gauge repeating shotgun shooting buckshot. A pump shotgun, also called a slide action, is generally better - more reliable, but teaching brand new shooters to operate a pump shotgun effectively is a chore. I have found that in some cases, a double barrel shotgun is more suitable to people who are only going to shoot (train) once or twice in their lifetimes. Make sure you have a suitable ammunition supply in birdshot, buckshot and slugs. I generally have most of my students use #4 buckshot.
Ideal SHTF Survival Firearms Battery:
This is like saying "what is the ideal amount of money to have in your bank account". In other words, where do you quit procuring firearms? I think the addition of a .22 LR rifle and a .22 LR handgun are great choices and maybe the next choices after the minimum battery is bought. A scoped rifle calibered bolt or semi-automatic rifle would be a good tool to have and huge advantage in some situations.
I like the saying "One is none, and Two is One", meaning have backups. Just like planning contingencies, secondary guns including hide out guns are a good idea. Having guns to cover most major calibers maybe something to consider.
Okay, having run my pie hole on the above, remember the first rule of a gunfight and that is to have a gun. I am sure that there are people armed only with a bolt or lever action rifle and maybe an old revolver,....or maybe an M-1 Garand and nothing else, who consider thmesles good to go entering into a collapse. There is another saying, "beware of the man who only has one gun" - meaning he is probably pretty good with it.
Hope this helps Rick. Good luck and Good Prepping. Cheers.
UrbanMan replies: Rick, I'll give you my opinion, but there are so many variables involved. Some of them would be your financial capabilities; existing firearms skills and/or ability to get good training; laws within your locality; and extent of your survival family and their abilities.
Regarding your family survival team or other larger group, for instance I have a friend who has a wife and two daughters over 21 years old living with him as they work part time and go to school. The ability of him to train his wife and daughters is limited by money for ammunition and time,...or basically the wife/daughter's buy in to needing the training. So while he has an M-4 variant, a couple shotguns, and several handguns, he has bought several of the cheaper .22 LR rifles and pistols in order to accomplish some sort of training and to ensure that each family member has a gun. I think he bought Savage semi-auto .22 LR rifles and I know he bought Browning Buckmark pistols to this end.
Minimum Survival Firearms Battery. This would be for one person. If there were a number of people in a survvial grouping, such as a family, then you wouldn't really need to replicate this per person. One thought is to have firearms suitable for every inteded use,..e.g...security and protection; hunting both birds and small game and potentially larger game; and training as well. Some people I know collect cheaper guns, including the not so recognizable calibered guns, for barter/trading purposes. Other are dead set against this. But I can tell you that well into a totally SHTF situation, ammunition will be at least be a viable and valuable commodity.
This is what I would consider an individual minimum battery:
Primary Long Gun: A magazine fed rifle or carbine, in .308 Winchester or .223 (5.56). Good choice here are the M-16/M-4 variants or M-14/M-1A variants. An alternative selection would be a Kalashnikov variant in 7.62 x39mm or .223 Remington. A suitable supply of magazines (think 12 as a minimum), ammunition and cleaning kit/supplies would be necessary as well. I would not feel under gunned if all I had in this category was a Ruger Mini-14. A lesser suitable long gun for this category would be an SKS in 7.62x39mm but only because the ability to re-load quickly is reduced.
Primary Handgun: A semi-automatic pistol in 9x19mm parabellum or .40 caliber would be my choice. Again extra magazines, ammunition and cleaning supplies are necessary. Although a revolver in .357 magnum or any of the excellent M1911 clones are good choices as well.
Shotgun: There are so many uses for a decent shotgun. Think 12 gauge. You can use to hunt birds with bird shotshells, hunt bigger game with slugs; stop vehicles with slugs and nothing protects the home better in a last ditch effort at close range, maybe 15 yards or so, than a 12 gauge repeating shotgun shooting buckshot. A pump shotgun, also called a slide action, is generally better - more reliable, but teaching brand new shooters to operate a pump shotgun effectively is a chore. I have found that in some cases, a double barrel shotgun is more suitable to people who are only going to shoot (train) once or twice in their lifetimes. Make sure you have a suitable ammunition supply in birdshot, buckshot and slugs. I generally have most of my students use #4 buckshot.
Ideal SHTF Survival Firearms Battery:
This is like saying "what is the ideal amount of money to have in your bank account". In other words, where do you quit procuring firearms? I think the addition of a .22 LR rifle and a .22 LR handgun are great choices and maybe the next choices after the minimum battery is bought. A scoped rifle calibered bolt or semi-automatic rifle would be a good tool to have and huge advantage in some situations.
I like the saying "One is none, and Two is One", meaning have backups. Just like planning contingencies, secondary guns including hide out guns are a good idea. Having guns to cover most major calibers maybe something to consider.
Okay, having run my pie hole on the above, remember the first rule of a gunfight and that is to have a gun. I am sure that there are people armed only with a bolt or lever action rifle and maybe an old revolver,....or maybe an M-1 Garand and nothing else, who consider thmesles good to go entering into a collapse. There is another saying, "beware of the man who only has one gun" - meaning he is probably pretty good with it.
Hope this helps Rick. Good luck and Good Prepping. Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
