Another excellent article from SHTF Plan. Who gets my vote as the best SHTF related site on the web.
I think this article serves several purposes,..provides a platform to send to some one who is on the fence about prepping at any level and also kind of motivates you to keep moving forward.
Incidentally, I'm reading a story about a family who was pretty well prepared for the collapse (caused by a pandemic) but nonetheless ended up collecting strap hangers who provided varying degrees of skills (and burdens) but had to rely on the prepper for food both stocked supplies and the ability to grow vegetables. I have always said this will happen - be it relatives or friends, even neighbors. One would have to evaluate each case on the merits of what they can provide the group and if that is not much, how do you go about actually not allowing those persons into your group? A friend denied is most likely a new enemy.
As of today it is estimated that ONLY 1% of the population actually goes to much of any effort to prepare and store up enough of what they need to survive a true calamity. This means a huge majority of the population fails, yes fails, to have much of anything if and WHEN what they need each day to live evaporates quickly.
Most people have no clue what life will be like after the grocery stores close. They simply cannot grasp the horrors that will befall those people that have not put away for tomorrow or prepared contingencies for life threatening emergencies. Instead of taking some time, effort , and money to safeguard themselves and their families, they have a wide array of reasons (excuses) for why prepping is crazy and not at all necessary.
There exist a magnitude of what are called TRUE civilization altering or world-as-we-know-it ending events that could happen. Many have already occurred throughout history, as well as within just the last decade. The fact is , it's only a matter of time before these catastrophes happen again. People who choose not to prepare for their families will be faced with life and death situations that few have ever experienced before.
Without water people will die within a few days. Without food people will die within a few weeks. Without everyday necessities people will die in hordes from varying ailments and diseases. Without what they are accustomed to on a daily basis, people will suffer and most will die. This absolutely does not have to happen to such a high percentage of the population, but sadly it will unless more people understand there is no real excuse for NOT preparing.
The following are 35 of the most common excuses and causes cited by the 99% of the population who don't prepare.
1. Oh come on, it is never going to happen, my area is safe, I am safe.
2. I am convinced that everything is recoverable and my area will get back to normal quickly.
3. No matter how horrible it is, help will eventually come, I just have to wait it out.
4. Even if something happens, there are plenty of food and supplies for everyone in my city.
5. My state government, my community, my neighbors will not abandon me and let me starve.
6. I have a 3 day supply of food, the government and others tell me that this is plenty.
7. I have lots of credit cards, I will purchase anything I need in my city or nearby cities.
8. My water faucets will have water, even if it is temporarily shut off, they will not let us go thirsty.
9. There is no room to store supplies that will never be used anyway.
10. I can't rotate supplies, everything will get old and have to be thrown away.
11. I don't have extra money to store up anything for disasters.
12. It is too much work to bother with.
13. I have absolutely no idea what to store or how much.
14. I don't need any protection after a disaster, the police, National Guard, military will protect us.
15. The power grid will come back on, until then I have LED flashlights that last forever.
16. Again and again I hear these fear mongers exaggerate the threat level, another false alarm.
17. I have a good car and family in other areas, if anything happens I will just go stay with them.
18. I work all week long and I am going to spend my extra money on fun rather than fear.
19. Survival supplies taste bad, I can't live on this for long at all.
20. If a true catastrophe occurs we are going to die anyway, besides that I don't want to live through it anyway.
21. Survival and prepping for the worst is negative, as long as I stay positive, only the positive will happen.
22. Preppers / Survivalists are radical, paranoid, conspiracy driven out of touch with reality, I don't want anything to do with them.
23. I don't know why everyone is so worried, times are better and safer now than ever in human history.
24. There is so much to prepping, I'll take my chances that nothing will happen.
25. All my investments go right into what makes me money and gives me security for the future.
26. Why bother storing up that much food and supplies, mobs will just come in and take it.
27. I have a refrigerator and a cupboard full of food, 2 cases of water, a 12 pack of toilet paper, I am all set.
28. If something happens I will just run to the grocery store and stock up before it closes.
29. If we become sick after a disaster we have good medical treatment centers that will care for us.
30. Nothing is as bad as it ever seems, stop overblowing everything as doomsday.
31. If disaster strikes everybody will band together and save the day.
32. People have become way too civilized to wage a world war and take what you have and act like savages.
33. There are food banks and emergency preparedness places nearby to me, they will take care of us.
34. FEMA , the Red Cross, and other government agencies are huge and have the whole country backing them.
35. I can always wait until tomorrow to start prepping, there is always time.
Important. To read the Fact/Answer to each response, please click on the link to SHTFPlan.com
Friday, May 31, 2013
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Just How Likely is Martial Law?
How likely is Martial Law? Ten fold more likely than it was at the beginning of the century, that's how likely. Thanks to Long Island Press and Steve for forwarding this to us.
The manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspects offered the nation a window into the stunning military-style capabilities of our local law enforcement agencies. For the past 30 years, police departments throughout the United States have benefitted from the government’s largesse in the form of military weaponry and training, incentives offered in the ongoing “War on Drugs.” For the average citizen watching events such as the intense pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers on television, it would be difficult to discern between fully outfitted police SWAT teams and the military.
UrbanMan's Note: Didn't we see US Army HMMWV's with Military Police logos patrolling the Boston streets during the lock down? Likely they were from Fort Devens. I wonder what their authority was?
The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule: Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.
Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”
A defense official who declined to be named takes a different view of the rule, claiming, “The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy.” Moreover, he insists the Pentagon doesn’t “want to get involved in civilian law enforcement. It’s one of those red lines that the military hasn’t signed up for.” Nevertheless, he says, “every person in the military swears an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States to defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
One of the more disturbing aspects of the new procedures that govern military command on the ground in the event of a civil disturbance relates to authority. Not only does it fail to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders.” According to the defense official, a commander is defined as follows: “Somebody who’s in the position of command, has the title commander. And most of the time they are centrally selected by a board, they’ve gone through additional schooling to exercise command authority.”
As it is written, this “commander” has the same power to authorize military force as the president in the event the president is somehow unable to access a telephone. (The rule doesn’t address the statutory chain of authority that already exists in the event a sitting president is unavailable.) In doing so, this commander must exercise judgment in determining what constitutes, “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”
UrbanMan's Note: The title "commander", in my opinion would mean a Company Commander at the lowest level. That means a Captain, likely in is mid's 20's having the unilateral power to execute military operations in a civilian environment. This is very concerning.
“These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” says Afran. “It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.”
Afran also expresses apprehension over the government’s authority “to engage temporarily in activities necessary to quell large-scale disturbances.”
“Governments never like to give up power when they get it,” says Afran. “They still think after twelve years they can get intelligence out of people in Guantanamo. Temporary is in the eye of the beholder. That’s why in statutes we have definitions. All of these statutes have one thing in common and that is that they have no definitions. How long is temporary? There’s none here. The definitions are absurdly broad.”
The U.S. military is prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs except where provided under Article IV of the Constitution in cases of domestic violence that threaten the government of a state or the application of federal law. This provision was further clarified both by the Insurrection Act of 1807 and a post-Reconstruction law known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (PCA). The Insurrection Act specifies the circumstances under which the president may convene the armed forces to suppress an insurrection against any state or the federal government. Furthermore, where an individual state is concerned, consent of the governor must be obtained prior to the deployment of troops. The PCA—passed in response to federal troops that enforced local laws and oversaw elections during Reconstruction—made unauthorized employment of federal troops a punishable offense, thereby giving teeth to the Insurrection Act.
Together, these laws limit executive authority over domestic military action. Yet Monday’s official regulatory changes issued unilaterally by the Department of Defense is a game-changer. The stated purpose of the updated rule is “support in Accordance With the Posse Comitatus Act,” but in reality it undermines the Insurrection Act and PCA in significant and alarming ways. The most substantial change is the notion of “civil disturbance” as one of the few “domestic emergencies” that would allow for the deployment of military assets on American soil.
To wit, the relatively few instances that federal troops have been deployed for domestic support have produced a wide range of results. Situations have included responding to natural disasters and protecting demonstrators during the Civil Rights era to, disastrously, the Kent State student massacre and the 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee.
Michael German, senior policy counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), noted in a 2009 Daily Kos article that, “there is no doubt that the military is very good at many things. But recent history shows that restraint in their new-found domestic role is not one of them.”
At the time German was referring to the military’s expanded surveillance techniques and hostile interventions related to border control and the War on Drugs. And in fact, many have argued that these actions have already upended the PCA in a significant way. Even before this most recent rule change, the ACLU was vocal in its opposition to the Department of Defense (DoD) request to expand domestic military authority “in the event of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high yield explosive (CBRNE) incidents.” The ACLU’s position is that civilian agencies are more than equipped to handle such emergencies since 9/11. (ACLU spokespersons in Washington D.C. declined, however, to be interviewed for this story.)
But while outcomes of military interventions have varied, the protocol by which the president works cooperatively with state governments has remained the same. The president is only allowed to deploy troops to a state upon request of its governor. Even then, the military—specifically the National Guard—is there to provide support for local law enforcement and is prohibited from engaging in any activities that are outside of this scope, such as the power to arrest.
Eric Freedman, a constitutional law professor from Hofstra University, also calls the ruling “an unauthorized power grab.” According to Freedman, “The Department of Defense does not have the authority to grant itself by regulation any more authority than Congress has granted it by statute.” Yet that’s precisely what it did. This wasn’t, however, the Pentagon’s first attempt to expand its authority domestically in the last decade.
Déjà vu
During the Bush Administration, Congress passed the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill that included language similar in scope to the current regulatory change. It specifically amended the Insurrection Act to expand the president’s ability to deploy troops domestically under certain conditions including health epidemics, natural disasters and terrorist activities, though it stopped short of including civil disturbances. But the following year this language was repealed under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 via a bill authored by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) who cited the “useful friction” between the Insurrection and Posse Comitatus Acts in limiting executive authority.
According to the DoD, the repeal of this language had more to do with procedure and that it was never supposed to amend the Insurrection Act. “When it was actually passed,” says the defense official, “Congress elected to amend the Insurrection Act and put things in the Insurrection Act that were not insurrection, like the support for disasters and emergencies and endemic influenza. Our intent,” he says, “was to give the president and the secretary access to the reserve components. It includes the National Guard and, rightfully so, the governors were pretty upset because they were not consulted.”
Senator Leahy’s office did not have a statement as of press time, but a spokesperson said the senator had made an inquiry with the DoD in response to our questions. The defense official confirmed that he was indeed being called in to discuss the senator’s concerns in a meeting scheduled for today. But he downplayed any concern, saying, “Congress at any time can say ‘we don’t like your interpretation of that law and how you’ve interpreted it in making policy’—and so they can call us to the Hill and ask us to justify why we’re doing something.”
Last year, Bruce Afran and another civil liberties attorney Carl Mayer filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration on behalf of a group of journalists and activists lead by former New York Times journalist Chris Hedges. They filed suit over the inclusion of a bill in the NDAA 2012 that, according to the plaintiffs, expanded executive authority over domestic affairs by unilaterally granting the executive branch to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without due process. The case has garnered international attention and invited vigorous defense from the Obama Administration. Even Afran goes so far as to say this current rule change is, “another NDAA. It’s even worse, to be honest.”
For Hedges and the other plaintiffs, including Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, the government’s ever-expanding authority over civilian affairs has a “chilling effect” on First Amendment activities such as free speech and the right to assemble. First District Court Judge Katherine Forrest agreed with the plaintiffs and handed Hedges et al a resounding victory prompting the Department of Justice to immediately file an injunction and an appeal. The appellate court is expected to rule on the matter within the next few months.
Another of the plaintiffs in the Hedges suit is Alexa O’Brien, a journalist and organizer who joined the lawsuit after she discovered a Wikileaks cable showing government officials attempting to link her efforts to terrorist activities. For activists such as O’Brien, the new DoD regulatory change is frightening because it creates, “an environment of fear when people cannot associate with one another.” Like Afran and Freedman, she too calls the move, “another grab for power under the rubric of the war on terror, to the detriment of citizens.”
“This is a complete erosion of the rule of law,” says O’Brien. Knowing these sweeping powers were granted under a rule change and not by Congress is even more harrowing to activists. “That anything can be made legal,” says O’Brien, “is fundamentally antithetical to good governance.” As far as what might qualify as a civil disturbance, Afran notes, “In the Sixties all of the Vietnam protests would meet this description. We saw Kent State. This would legalize Kent State.” But the focus on the DoD regulatory change obscures the creeping militarization that has already occurred in police departments across the nation. Even prior to the NDAA lawsuit, journalist Chris Hedges was critical of domestic law enforcement agencies saying, “The widening use of militarized police units effectively nullifies the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.”
This de facto nullification isn’t lost on the DoD.
The DoD official even referred to the Boston bombing suspects manhunt saying, “Like most major police departments, if you didn’t know they were a police department you would think they were the military.” According to this official there has purposely been a “large transfer of technology so that the military doesn’t have to get involved.” Moreover, he says the military has learned from past events, such as the siege at Waco, where ATF officials mishandled military equipment. “We have transferred the technology so we don’t have to loan it,” he states.
But if the transfer of military training and technology has been so thorough, it boggles the imagination as to what kind of disturbance would be so overwhelming that it would require the suspension of centuries-old law and precedent to grant military complete authority on the ground. The DoD official admits not being able to “envision that happening,” adding, “but I’m not a Hollywood screenwriter.”
Afran, for one, isn’t buying the logic. For him, the distinction is simple.
“Remember, the police operate under civilian control,” he says. “They are used to thinking in a civilian way so the comparison that they may have some assault weapons doesn’t change this in any way. And they can be removed from power. You can’t remove the military from power.”
Despite protestations from figures such as Afran and O’Brien and past admonitions from groups like the ACLU, for the first time in our history the military has granted itself authority to quell a civil disturbance. Changing this rule now requires congressional or judicial intervention.
“This is where journalism comes in,” says Freedman. “Calling attention to an unauthorized power grab in the hope that it embarrasses the administration.” Afran is considering amending his NDAA complaint currently in front of the court to include this regulatory change. As we witnessed during the Boston bombing manhunt, it’s already difficult to discern between military and police. In the future it might be impossible, because there may be no difference.
UrbanMan's Note: There is a large potential for a confrontation between local National Guard and Reserve units and the Active duty military deployed to the communities that the NG and Reserve live in. More likely if the Active Duty military is perceived as being heavy handed or ends up killing a few civilians. The government's first recourse is to recognize ths potential and to activate then deployed National Guard and Reserve unit's far away from their home communities and states.
The manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspects offered the nation a window into the stunning military-style capabilities of our local law enforcement agencies. For the past 30 years, police departments throughout the United States have benefitted from the government’s largesse in the form of military weaponry and training, incentives offered in the ongoing “War on Drugs.” For the average citizen watching events such as the intense pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers on television, it would be difficult to discern between fully outfitted police SWAT teams and the military.
UrbanMan's Note: Didn't we see US Army HMMWV's with Military Police logos patrolling the Boston streets during the lock down? Likely they were from Fort Devens. I wonder what their authority was?
The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule: Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.
Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”
A defense official who declined to be named takes a different view of the rule, claiming, “The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy.” Moreover, he insists the Pentagon doesn’t “want to get involved in civilian law enforcement. It’s one of those red lines that the military hasn’t signed up for.” Nevertheless, he says, “every person in the military swears an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States to defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
One of the more disturbing aspects of the new procedures that govern military command on the ground in the event of a civil disturbance relates to authority. Not only does it fail to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders.” According to the defense official, a commander is defined as follows: “Somebody who’s in the position of command, has the title commander. And most of the time they are centrally selected by a board, they’ve gone through additional schooling to exercise command authority.”
As it is written, this “commander” has the same power to authorize military force as the president in the event the president is somehow unable to access a telephone. (The rule doesn’t address the statutory chain of authority that already exists in the event a sitting president is unavailable.) In doing so, this commander must exercise judgment in determining what constitutes, “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”
UrbanMan's Note: The title "commander", in my opinion would mean a Company Commander at the lowest level. That means a Captain, likely in is mid's 20's having the unilateral power to execute military operations in a civilian environment. This is very concerning.
“These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” says Afran. “It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.”
Afran also expresses apprehension over the government’s authority “to engage temporarily in activities necessary to quell large-scale disturbances.”
“Governments never like to give up power when they get it,” says Afran. “They still think after twelve years they can get intelligence out of people in Guantanamo. Temporary is in the eye of the beholder. That’s why in statutes we have definitions. All of these statutes have one thing in common and that is that they have no definitions. How long is temporary? There’s none here. The definitions are absurdly broad.”
The U.S. military is prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs except where provided under Article IV of the Constitution in cases of domestic violence that threaten the government of a state or the application of federal law. This provision was further clarified both by the Insurrection Act of 1807 and a post-Reconstruction law known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (PCA). The Insurrection Act specifies the circumstances under which the president may convene the armed forces to suppress an insurrection against any state or the federal government. Furthermore, where an individual state is concerned, consent of the governor must be obtained prior to the deployment of troops. The PCA—passed in response to federal troops that enforced local laws and oversaw elections during Reconstruction—made unauthorized employment of federal troops a punishable offense, thereby giving teeth to the Insurrection Act.
Together, these laws limit executive authority over domestic military action. Yet Monday’s official regulatory changes issued unilaterally by the Department of Defense is a game-changer. The stated purpose of the updated rule is “support in Accordance With the Posse Comitatus Act,” but in reality it undermines the Insurrection Act and PCA in significant and alarming ways. The most substantial change is the notion of “civil disturbance” as one of the few “domestic emergencies” that would allow for the deployment of military assets on American soil.
To wit, the relatively few instances that federal troops have been deployed for domestic support have produced a wide range of results. Situations have included responding to natural disasters and protecting demonstrators during the Civil Rights era to, disastrously, the Kent State student massacre and the 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee.
Michael German, senior policy counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), noted in a 2009 Daily Kos article that, “there is no doubt that the military is very good at many things. But recent history shows that restraint in their new-found domestic role is not one of them.”
At the time German was referring to the military’s expanded surveillance techniques and hostile interventions related to border control and the War on Drugs. And in fact, many have argued that these actions have already upended the PCA in a significant way. Even before this most recent rule change, the ACLU was vocal in its opposition to the Department of Defense (DoD) request to expand domestic military authority “in the event of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high yield explosive (CBRNE) incidents.” The ACLU’s position is that civilian agencies are more than equipped to handle such emergencies since 9/11. (ACLU spokespersons in Washington D.C. declined, however, to be interviewed for this story.)
But while outcomes of military interventions have varied, the protocol by which the president works cooperatively with state governments has remained the same. The president is only allowed to deploy troops to a state upon request of its governor. Even then, the military—specifically the National Guard—is there to provide support for local law enforcement and is prohibited from engaging in any activities that are outside of this scope, such as the power to arrest.
Eric Freedman, a constitutional law professor from Hofstra University, also calls the ruling “an unauthorized power grab.” According to Freedman, “The Department of Defense does not have the authority to grant itself by regulation any more authority than Congress has granted it by statute.” Yet that’s precisely what it did. This wasn’t, however, the Pentagon’s first attempt to expand its authority domestically in the last decade.
Déjà vu
During the Bush Administration, Congress passed the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill that included language similar in scope to the current regulatory change. It specifically amended the Insurrection Act to expand the president’s ability to deploy troops domestically under certain conditions including health epidemics, natural disasters and terrorist activities, though it stopped short of including civil disturbances. But the following year this language was repealed under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 via a bill authored by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) who cited the “useful friction” between the Insurrection and Posse Comitatus Acts in limiting executive authority.
According to the DoD, the repeal of this language had more to do with procedure and that it was never supposed to amend the Insurrection Act. “When it was actually passed,” says the defense official, “Congress elected to amend the Insurrection Act and put things in the Insurrection Act that were not insurrection, like the support for disasters and emergencies and endemic influenza. Our intent,” he says, “was to give the president and the secretary access to the reserve components. It includes the National Guard and, rightfully so, the governors were pretty upset because they were not consulted.”
Senator Leahy’s office did not have a statement as of press time, but a spokesperson said the senator had made an inquiry with the DoD in response to our questions. The defense official confirmed that he was indeed being called in to discuss the senator’s concerns in a meeting scheduled for today. But he downplayed any concern, saying, “Congress at any time can say ‘we don’t like your interpretation of that law and how you’ve interpreted it in making policy’—and so they can call us to the Hill and ask us to justify why we’re doing something.”
Last year, Bruce Afran and another civil liberties attorney Carl Mayer filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration on behalf of a group of journalists and activists lead by former New York Times journalist Chris Hedges. They filed suit over the inclusion of a bill in the NDAA 2012 that, according to the plaintiffs, expanded executive authority over domestic affairs by unilaterally granting the executive branch to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without due process. The case has garnered international attention and invited vigorous defense from the Obama Administration. Even Afran goes so far as to say this current rule change is, “another NDAA. It’s even worse, to be honest.”
For Hedges and the other plaintiffs, including Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, the government’s ever-expanding authority over civilian affairs has a “chilling effect” on First Amendment activities such as free speech and the right to assemble. First District Court Judge Katherine Forrest agreed with the plaintiffs and handed Hedges et al a resounding victory prompting the Department of Justice to immediately file an injunction and an appeal. The appellate court is expected to rule on the matter within the next few months.
Another of the plaintiffs in the Hedges suit is Alexa O’Brien, a journalist and organizer who joined the lawsuit after she discovered a Wikileaks cable showing government officials attempting to link her efforts to terrorist activities. For activists such as O’Brien, the new DoD regulatory change is frightening because it creates, “an environment of fear when people cannot associate with one another.” Like Afran and Freedman, she too calls the move, “another grab for power under the rubric of the war on terror, to the detriment of citizens.”
“This is a complete erosion of the rule of law,” says O’Brien. Knowing these sweeping powers were granted under a rule change and not by Congress is even more harrowing to activists. “That anything can be made legal,” says O’Brien, “is fundamentally antithetical to good governance.” As far as what might qualify as a civil disturbance, Afran notes, “In the Sixties all of the Vietnam protests would meet this description. We saw Kent State. This would legalize Kent State.” But the focus on the DoD regulatory change obscures the creeping militarization that has already occurred in police departments across the nation. Even prior to the NDAA lawsuit, journalist Chris Hedges was critical of domestic law enforcement agencies saying, “The widening use of militarized police units effectively nullifies the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.”
This de facto nullification isn’t lost on the DoD.
The DoD official even referred to the Boston bombing suspects manhunt saying, “Like most major police departments, if you didn’t know they were a police department you would think they were the military.” According to this official there has purposely been a “large transfer of technology so that the military doesn’t have to get involved.” Moreover, he says the military has learned from past events, such as the siege at Waco, where ATF officials mishandled military equipment. “We have transferred the technology so we don’t have to loan it,” he states.
But if the transfer of military training and technology has been so thorough, it boggles the imagination as to what kind of disturbance would be so overwhelming that it would require the suspension of centuries-old law and precedent to grant military complete authority on the ground. The DoD official admits not being able to “envision that happening,” adding, “but I’m not a Hollywood screenwriter.”
Afran, for one, isn’t buying the logic. For him, the distinction is simple.
“Remember, the police operate under civilian control,” he says. “They are used to thinking in a civilian way so the comparison that they may have some assault weapons doesn’t change this in any way. And they can be removed from power. You can’t remove the military from power.”
Despite protestations from figures such as Afran and O’Brien and past admonitions from groups like the ACLU, for the first time in our history the military has granted itself authority to quell a civil disturbance. Changing this rule now requires congressional or judicial intervention.
“This is where journalism comes in,” says Freedman. “Calling attention to an unauthorized power grab in the hope that it embarrasses the administration.” Afran is considering amending his NDAA complaint currently in front of the court to include this regulatory change. As we witnessed during the Boston bombing manhunt, it’s already difficult to discern between military and police. In the future it might be impossible, because there may be no difference.
UrbanMan's Note: There is a large potential for a confrontation between local National Guard and Reserve units and the Active duty military deployed to the communities that the NG and Reserve live in. More likely if the Active Duty military is perceived as being heavy handed or ends up killing a few civilians. The government's first recourse is to recognize ths potential and to activate then deployed National Guard and Reserve unit's far away from their home communities and states.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Ammunition Reloading a Necessary Survival Skill?
Justin wrote to us to ask" "I have a nine millimeter handgun, a 38 special revolver and a 30-06 deer rifle with a scope as my SHTF weapons. I realize that this is not really adequate but I can't afford anything else right now. My questions are - How much ammunition for each would you consider a adequate ammo stockpile? I have a hard time finding ammunition and in the crunch I think it will be harder to find so should I learn to reload? Looking around it appears that I can start reloading my own ammunition for the guns I have for about a $100. Sincerely Justin."
UrbanMan's reply: Justin, I know where you are coming from. I visited Wal-Mart a couple days ago and the only center fire ammunition they had on hand was 4 boxes of 6.8mm SPC and several boxes of .270. Knowing how to reload ammunition is a good skill. It requires tools, material and above all knowledge. I'll address these things first, then talk about where this skill fits in the survivalist's preparation for the collapse arsenal.
The basic reloading process is using a series of dies to re-move the spent primer and re-size the case; bell or expand the case mouth (to accept a bullet); seat a new primer; place a powder charge in the case; then seat and crimp a new bullet.
Reloading tools: These range from Lyman 310 hand tools and dies (around $120) - think of a pair of pliers with a die that will do one of the reloading functions a single case at a time. Another hand tool would be the Lee Loader (around $50) - this is what I first learned on. You will need a plastic mallet for the Lee Loader.
Both of these hand tools are compact and very useable. There are many videos on You Tube showing the basic process. A handy tool to have with any of these hand tools is an auto-primer tool where you can prime around 20 empty cases a minute. The picture at left is the Lyman 310 hand tool and a set of dies.
Buffalo Arms has Lyman 310 tools, visit them here.
You can step up to a single stage press that also does one case at a time albeit faster for around $225 counting a set of dies. The Daddy of re-loading is the progressive press with a turret that moves around with each pull of the lever and does all the functions - you just insert an empty case, pull the lever, ensure you have powder, primers and bullets filled up in their respective hoppers.
I don't think anyone makes them better than Dillon Precision. I own two of their smaller presses. You can pay anywhere from $300 to $2,000 for their re-loading presses. The picture at right is the basic Dillon Press. Agfain all good equipment and Dillon offers much more on their website, including a subscription to their monthly catalog/newsletter.
Visit their website here - Dillon Precision.
There are a host of "make life easier" accessories for reloading. You could spend several hundred dollars on these if you were so inclined - things like powder scales, case trimmers, primer pocket cleaners, tumblers to clean brass, lube pads, etc.
Reloading Material: You need primers, powder and bullets to reload ammunition. This makes you dependent upon some manufacturer, distribution network and vendor. I have not reloaded any ammunition for years now, but my friends that still do tell me that reloading supplies are hard to come by. Storage of re-loading components is a little bit stricter than manufactured ammunition. Reloading components will be much harder to come by after a collapse and then you may not be bartering for material that has been stored correctly. It make be rotten like the jar of mayo in your Grandma's frig.
Sure you can learn how to make your own primer mix, powder mix and cast your own bullets, but I'd rather sit on a pungi stick than do this. And the results, meaning the ammunition - not the pungi stick,.... are probably going to be less than adequate.
Knowledge. The reloading learning curve is straight up. The more you reload the more problems you'll be exposed to and the more you will learn. I think it is easy to teach someone how to reload on a basic tool and make them safe about. One of the biggest risks is the wrong measurement of powder. This is where scales come in and you would need a reloading book that lists the caliber, bullet weight and powder you are going to be using. Again, YouTube publishes many re-loading videos for your understanding and training. I would begin here to see the process.
How Much Ammunition to Stockpile? Short answer is as much as you need and as much as you can afford. Sorry I can't give you answer based on numbers, but I will say that for my "obsolete or non-main rifles", such as .30-40 Krag, .30-30's, .30 carbine, and several others, I have between 300 to 1,200 rounds put away. If you can buy one box, 20 rounds, of .30-06 each paycheck, then you may minimize the pain and soon have a good stockpile.
For your main "battle rifle or carbine" I would start at well over a thousand rounds. However, your .30-06 deer rifle, while a great caliber is not a battle rifle. I would highly consider a magazine fed rifle or carbine,....AR-15/M-16/M-4 family, AK or SKS series - something like this.
Bottom Line. Yes, I think reloading is worth learning and having some hand tools to do so. But it would be behind other priorities of having adequate SHTF firearms, stocked ammunition, food, water, necessary survival gear and a host of other things.
Thanks for your question Justin - it was a good one. Be safe and prepare well.
UrbanMan's reply: Justin, I know where you are coming from. I visited Wal-Mart a couple days ago and the only center fire ammunition they had on hand was 4 boxes of 6.8mm SPC and several boxes of .270. Knowing how to reload ammunition is a good skill. It requires tools, material and above all knowledge. I'll address these things first, then talk about where this skill fits in the survivalist's preparation for the collapse arsenal.
The basic reloading process is using a series of dies to re-move the spent primer and re-size the case; bell or expand the case mouth (to accept a bullet); seat a new primer; place a powder charge in the case; then seat and crimp a new bullet.
Reloading tools: These range from Lyman 310 hand tools and dies (around $120) - think of a pair of pliers with a die that will do one of the reloading functions a single case at a time. Another hand tool would be the Lee Loader (around $50) - this is what I first learned on. You will need a plastic mallet for the Lee Loader.
Both of these hand tools are compact and very useable. There are many videos on You Tube showing the basic process. A handy tool to have with any of these hand tools is an auto-primer tool where you can prime around 20 empty cases a minute. The picture at left is the Lyman 310 hand tool and a set of dies.
Buffalo Arms has Lyman 310 tools, visit them here.
You can step up to a single stage press that also does one case at a time albeit faster for around $225 counting a set of dies. The Daddy of re-loading is the progressive press with a turret that moves around with each pull of the lever and does all the functions - you just insert an empty case, pull the lever, ensure you have powder, primers and bullets filled up in their respective hoppers.
I don't think anyone makes them better than Dillon Precision. I own two of their smaller presses. You can pay anywhere from $300 to $2,000 for their re-loading presses. The picture at right is the basic Dillon Press. Agfain all good equipment and Dillon offers much more on their website, including a subscription to their monthly catalog/newsletter.
Visit their website here - Dillon Precision.
There are a host of "make life easier" accessories for reloading. You could spend several hundred dollars on these if you were so inclined - things like powder scales, case trimmers, primer pocket cleaners, tumblers to clean brass, lube pads, etc.
Reloading Material: You need primers, powder and bullets to reload ammunition. This makes you dependent upon some manufacturer, distribution network and vendor. I have not reloaded any ammunition for years now, but my friends that still do tell me that reloading supplies are hard to come by. Storage of re-loading components is a little bit stricter than manufactured ammunition. Reloading components will be much harder to come by after a collapse and then you may not be bartering for material that has been stored correctly. It make be rotten like the jar of mayo in your Grandma's frig.
Sure you can learn how to make your own primer mix, powder mix and cast your own bullets, but I'd rather sit on a pungi stick than do this. And the results, meaning the ammunition - not the pungi stick,.... are probably going to be less than adequate.
Knowledge. The reloading learning curve is straight up. The more you reload the more problems you'll be exposed to and the more you will learn. I think it is easy to teach someone how to reload on a basic tool and make them safe about. One of the biggest risks is the wrong measurement of powder. This is where scales come in and you would need a reloading book that lists the caliber, bullet weight and powder you are going to be using. Again, YouTube publishes many re-loading videos for your understanding and training. I would begin here to see the process.
How Much Ammunition to Stockpile? Short answer is as much as you need and as much as you can afford. Sorry I can't give you answer based on numbers, but I will say that for my "obsolete or non-main rifles", such as .30-40 Krag, .30-30's, .30 carbine, and several others, I have between 300 to 1,200 rounds put away. If you can buy one box, 20 rounds, of .30-06 each paycheck, then you may minimize the pain and soon have a good stockpile.
For your main "battle rifle or carbine" I would start at well over a thousand rounds. However, your .30-06 deer rifle, while a great caliber is not a battle rifle. I would highly consider a magazine fed rifle or carbine,....AR-15/M-16/M-4 family, AK or SKS series - something like this.
Bottom Line. Yes, I think reloading is worth learning and having some hand tools to do so. But it would be behind other priorities of having adequate SHTF firearms, stocked ammunition, food, water, necessary survival gear and a host of other things.
Thanks for your question Justin - it was a good one. Be safe and prepare well.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
The Threat of Prisons to Survivalists
Without guards around to keep order and surveillance on prisoners, inmates left to their own devices and powered by the need to survive will, on a large scale, defeat mechanical locks and barriers and access the outside world.
With any collapse of the electrical grid, which powers most prison locks and access systems, obstacles to prisoners freedom will largely cease to work making it much, much easier for inamtes to escape.
This threat of prisons suddenly dispersing their inmates and the supporting network of gangs is a discussion I recently had with friends of mine located about half way across the country. We discussed counter-measures include the following:
1. Know where the nearest prisons (and jails) are. Not just within a 20 miles radius but a much larger radius say 500 miles or even more depending upon the other factors. Know what type of prisoners these facilities hold,...white collar criminals, hard core felons, federal high value criminals, etc. This is important because understanding the potential threat helps prepare you.
2. Are there natural routes or lines of communication such as interstate highway, state highways, farm to market roads, and/or other natural channelization which would drive escaping inmates to your area? You should have already did a terrain analysis on potential refugee routes - this is same type of study.
3. Depending upon the stage of the collapse upon the prisoner release/escape and the amount of news they have received relating to the economic conditions, security situation and depth of the collapse, a percentage of the inmates may not be driven into the larger population centers. I wouldn't. Would you? Wouldn't you look for safer suburbs or rural areas where the ratio of law enforcement is much less and the potential rivalry for food and other material is less?
4. I have written before about the potential danger from organized gangs - because of their organized structure and greater chance,....... much greater chance of having absolutely no hesitation to kill. Some of these inmates will naturally bind together as well. Some are already organized in prison as gangs, be it the Mexican Mafia, White Supremists,Neo-Nazis or Black militants. They won't be so well equipped, weapons wise, but that would be overcome with a half day on the outside. Transportation as well would not be an issue - they wil simply kill those weaker than themselves for anything they want.
Again, you cannot talk about inmates in prisons without talking about street gangs. Each state should be producing a yearly Gang report. You may want to see if you can locate one on the web. The stats will amaze you, and should probably scare you as well.
Perhaps California and Texas have the largest gang and prison populations. I could not get California's data before I wanted to post this, but the statistics from Texas are that more than 50% of the prison population are serving a sentence for a violent crime: including homicide - 14%; robbery - 25%; and, assault - 12%.
The four biggest violent gangs number almost 25,000 in Texas. These are the scum bags counted as full time gang bangers, AND the number of gang bangers in the more than 2,000 gangs in this state number more than 100,000.
According to a organized crime investigator buddy of mine, each gang has some sort of association with the violent Mexican Drug Cartels. The cartels partner with and utilize U.S. based street gangs because of their citizenship status and knowledge of local, state and federal law enforcement personnel and tactics.
You can count on the street gangs with their level of organization, weaponry and odd familal type loyalty will certainly assist in breaking their members out of prison if/when the collapse drives the institutional security away. Be prepared.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
