Tag Archives: National Guard

Michael Moore calls for repeal of “ancient” and “outdated” Second Amendment

'The Wide One'

Stick to what you know Moore: Eating

Michael Moore is currently filming the documentary “Fahrenheit 11/9.” Guess who is the executive producer on this TDS movie? Harvey Weinstein.

And because Fatso is such a Constitutional and firearm expert, he’s offering his take on repealing the Second Amendment. Try not to laugh too hard…

From his Facebook post:

“My Proposal to Repeal the Second Amendment and Replace It With This:

PROPOSED 28th AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION “A well regulated State National Guard, being helpful to the safety and security of a State in times of need, along with the strictly regulated right of the people to keep and bear a limited number of non-automatic Arms for sport and hunting, with respect to the primary right of all people to be free from gun violence, this shall not be infringed.”

I, Michael Moore, along with all who support an end to this epidemic of gun violence, propose a new Amendment to our Constitution that repeals the ancient and outdated 2nd Amendment (which was written before bullets and revolvers were even invented), and replaces it with a new 28th Amendment that guarantees States can have State militias (a.k.a. State National Guards which are made up of citizen-soldiers who are called upon in times of natural disasters or other State emergencies), allows individuals to use guns for sport and gathering food, and guarantees everyone the right to be free of, and protected from, gun violence (i.e., the public’s safety comes ahead of an individual’s right to own and fire a gun).

This amendment would allow states and the federal government to pass laws that would regulate gun ownership in the following manner:

  • As over 90% of gun violence is committed by men, in order for a man to purchase a gun, he must first get a waiver from his current wife, plus his most recent ex-wife, or any woman with whom he is currently in a relationship (if he’s gay, he must get the waiver from his male spouse/partner). This law has greatly reduced most spousal/domestic gun murders in Canada.
  • All automatic and semi-automatic guns are banned.
  • No gun or clip can hold more than 6 bullets.
  • To activate a gun for it to be used, the trigger must recognize the fingerprint of its registered owner. This will eliminate most crimes committed with a gun as 80% of these crimes are done with a stolen gun.
  • One’s guns must be stored at a licensed gun club or government-regulated gun storage facility. Believing that having a gun in your home provides you with protection is an American myth. People who die from a home invasion make up a sad but minuscule .04% of all gun murders in the US. And over a third of them are killed by their own gun that the criminal has either stolen or wrestled from them.
  • To own and operate a gun one must obtain a license (like one does to operate a car). To get a license you have to complete a gun training and safety course and pass a thorough background check.
  • As nearly half of all gun deaths are suicides, mental health care must become a top national health priority and must be properly funded. And by making it more difficult to purchase a gun – and requiring its storage outside the home – easy access during a suicidal moment is denied.
  • Current restrictions placed on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), due to successful lobbying by the NRA, have prohibited them from studying the gun violence epidemic in the US. These rules need to be removed and the funding restored. Science will then be free to find out why we are ALONE among nations in killing each other at such a massive rate (hint: It’s not just the guns – it’s us as Americans).

These are a few of the regulations that can be enacted to both protect society yet not deny hunters and sportsmen their fun. This is the sane approach that meets everyone’s needs — everyone, that is, except those of the serial killer, the mass murderer, the violent ex-husband, the disgruntled employee or the disturbed and bullied teenager. We will never eliminate all murder; that’s been with us since Cain killed Abel. But we CAN join the community of enlightened nations where gun violence is that rare occurrence — as opposed to the daily tragedy we now suffer here in the United States of America. This can come to an end with the repeal of the 2nd Amendment and replacing it with the 28th Amendment.

For those who believe it will be impossible to do this, let me close by sharing with you two important facts that should give us hope:

  1. We are not a country of gun nuts. 77% of all Americans do NOT own a gun! If three-quarters of the country has decided they have no need for a gun, three-quarters of the country may also decide they have no need for an archaic amendment that allows retired accountants to own 47 assault weapons. LET’S ORGANIZE THE 77%!
  2. When President Obama tried to get Congress to pass simple, common sense gun control legislation after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, polls showed 90% of the country backed him! But the NRA beat him. LET’S ORGANIZE THE 90%!

We can start with the upcoming midterm election. Let every candidate know: If you take NRA money, we will remove you from office.

Then do it.”

My message to Fatso: ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.

DCG

Advertisements

Seattle worker treated “like dirt” for exposing government fraud

In this photo taken May 12, 2016, Commerce Department employee C.J. Jackson poses for a photo in front of the Henry M. Jackson Federal Building where she works, in Seattle. Jackson, a federal employee who helped expose a fraud in which an Army veteran lied his way to a Purple Heart and hundreds of thousands of dollars in government benefits, was punished for supposedly violating the man's privacy. Jackson says she's spent $20,000 on legal fees to fight off the discipline. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

In this photo taken May 12, 2016, Commerce Department employee C.J. Jackson poses for a photo in front of the Henry M. Jackson Federal Building where she works, in Seattle. Jackson, a federal employee who helped expose a fraud in which an Army veteran lied his way to a Purple Heart and hundreds of thousands of dollars in government benefits, was punished for supposedly violating the man’s privacy. Jackson says she’s spent $20,000 on legal fees to fight off the discipline. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

From the Seattle Times: A federal employee in Seattle helped expose a fraud in which an Army veteran lied his way to a Purple Heart and hundreds of thousands of dollars in government benefits.

Her reward? The agency Cristina Jackson works for repeatedly tried to punish her for what it said were violations of the man’s privacy, according to an AP review of hundreds of pages of personnel and investigative records.

U.S. Commerce Department officials proposed suspending her for at least a month — even as they reached one of two settlements with the veteran. Darryl Lee Wright was paid for skipped work and legal fees he incurred complaining about a hostile work environment.

They tried to downgrade Jackson’s annual rating, then proposed a shorter suspension.

Jackson says she has racked up $20,000 in legal bills fighting the discipline. The Commerce Department, which did not respond to requests for comment, has refused to reimburse her.

“To this day I don’t understand it,” Jackson, 55, said. “What does ‘vindication’ even mean when the agency I work for doesn’t see it that way?”

Wright, 48, pleaded guilty to federal charges in February, more than six years after Jackson told her bosses that he had submitted fake National Guard orders to be paid for a week of missed work. He’s due to be sentenced in August. Through his lawyer he declined an interview request.

Darryl Lee Wright

Darryl Lee Wright

“Cristina Jackson’s willingness to come forward was critical to uncovering the truth,” Assistant U.S. Attorney David Reese Jennings said. “But for her actions, law enforcement would not have had what they needed to uncover the fraud.”

Wright joined the Economic Development Administration, a job-promoting agency within the Commerce Department, in 2008. His absences quickly mounted, and he announced he was dealing with PTSD stemming from service in Iraq.

Jackson, the office’s administrative director, oversaw his attendance records. Late in 2009, Wright asked to convert missed work into paid leave for “emergency” National Guard duty. The orders he provided were unsigned or didn’t have his name.

Jackson, who previously worked in administrative roles with the Navy and Army reserve, asked for more documentation. He told her to check with the Washington National Guard.

With permission from her boss, that’s what she did. The Guard determined Wright “purposely falsified Washington Military Department orders to defraud his civilian employer,” according to a December 2009 investigation report .

The Commerce Department began planning to fire Wright, according to a memo written by Jackson’s immediate boss.

But Wright went on the offensive. In 2010 he accused Jackson of violating the Privacy Act by informing the National Guard about his PTSD, the records show. The federal law governs disclosure of personal information kept by federal agencies.

Officials quickly reached the first settlement with Wright. They agreed to allow him to convert up to 240 hours of missed work to sick leave, paid $5,500 for his legal fees, and even required Jackson and others in the office to take a class about PTSD and other combat injuries.

After Jackson learned about that settlement, she filed a complaint with the Commerce Department’s inspector general, who in 2011 recommended Wright be disciplined “based on the gravity of his misconduct.” Those findings made their way to federal prosecutors.

In a 2014 indictment, they alleged an audacious scam stemming from a single lie: that Wright was injured in Kirkuk, Iraq, on Aug. 30, 2005. Wright, then a first lieutenant with the Idaho National Guard, was near a battalion headquarters building when two rockets landed about 100 yards away, he and others in his unit wrote. Their reports referenced no casualties. “As far as anyone on our team getting hurt, no, that didn’t happen,” then-Capt. Mark Moeckli said last month.

But in 2010, Wright successfully applied for a Purple Heart. In his paperwork, he claimed he “was violently thrown and knocked unconscious from the percussion of the rockets’ impact.”

Wright also claimed Social Security disability benefits, insisting he was frequently bedridden. Social Security paid his sister to be his live-in caregiver, though she performed no such service. By May 2013, the siblings were bringing in benefits totaling $10,000 per month, prosecutors said.

Meanwhile, Wright was employed by the Commerce Department until 2012, coaching high school basketball in the Seattle suburb of Woodinville, and serving on the planning commission in Snoqualmie, the city east of Seattle.

Jackson’s direct boss, A. Leonard Smith, defended her. In 2011, when he learned a human resources investigator proposed suspending Jackson for at least a month, he wrote a blistering memo, calling the investigation of her “severely deficient.” He noted that the Privacy Act typically does not bar the release of information gleaned outside agency files and that Wright had spoken freely about his purported medical condition.

“It is an egregious mistake to penalize an employee who has done nothing in this case other than what is expected of her position,” Smith wrote. The 30-day suspension was never imposed.

“They were false charges with regard to C.J., if you want my opinion,” said Bettye Atkinson, Wright’s former supervisor, who retired after 40 years at the Commerce Department. “A lot of this was handled out of the D.C. office and they didn’t listen to us in the regional office.”

The department did eventually propose firing Wright. In response, his attorney blamed Wright’s actions on war injuries and recommended in 2012 the department allow him to pursue a disability retirement instead. A settlement that year resulted in his departure from the agency.

But Jackson’s troubles continued. Even after receiving Smith’s memo, Thomas Guevara, the Economic Development Administration’s deputy assistant secretary for regional affairs, docked her annual rating for 2011 and in early 2012 proposed suspending her for two days. Guevara declined to answer questions from the AP.

Jackson’s lawyer, Saphronia Young, helped have Jackson’s excellent annual rating re-instated, but the proposed two-day suspension has not been withdrawn, Young said. “She went from being this highly regarded, stellar employee with an unblemished record to being treated like dirt,” Young said. “It’s just not fair.”

DCG

Black Friday Shopping Starts Early In Ferguson

This had to be the stupidest decision and reaction ever. From time of announcement to police response.

 

Yup Abe, we know how you feel.

 By Bill Mauldin

Yup Abe, we know how you feel.

Is Anyone surprised? 

I’m done caring and trying to help. True colors were shown tonight,

Anyone else kinda wonder where the so called “Police,  Fire” National Guard” were? All I saw was looting and burning, Law enforcement was ineffectual  at best, complicit at least.

Weep with me as America burns. Oh and while where at it let’s brush up on our

“Rules For A Gunfight”

Anonymous
1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap – life is expensive.
3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you’re probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on “pucker factor” than the inherent accuracy of the gun. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. “All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket.”
10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
11. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. Have a plan.
13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won’t work.
14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
16. Don’t drop your guard.
17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them.)
19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than “4″.
25. You can’t miss fast enough to win.

~Steve~

Heavily-armored DHS vehicles seen on road

Remember these posts on FOTM?:

Now we can add these Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) armored vehicles.

FOTM’s Hardnox received this as an email, but the same information is also in Mac Slavo’s article of Sept. 13, 2012, on PrisonPlanet.com. Here’s the email:

Seen On The Road Last Week

What could they need equipment like this for here in the US? They are hitting the road! Caravans of National Guard equipment but with new never-before-seen equipment in the caravans.

Take a close look at what is painted on the side of the Black Humvees.

The Humvees are fully armored — the same standard used by our military.

They are gearing up and now have enforcement vehicles and are training with the National Guard, FEMA and Police.

This armored caravan includes the mammoth GLS vehicle, the largest vehicle on the trailer. You don’t get anymore armored than the GLS, a serious piece of equipment that has never been used inside the United States until now.

Reportedly, DHS has 2,500 of these monsters.

~End of email~

Add to all this the purchase of ammunition (including lethal hollow-point bullets) and high-powered rifles by federal government agencies. See my posts:

The ducks seem to be lining up. See also:

Update:

FOTM’s Wild Bill Alaska found this info on those GLS vehicles:

The GLS is an acronym for GESELLSCHAFT FUR LOGISTISCHEN SERVICE, the German supplier of these vehicles. These are heavily armored vehicles designed to survive IED attacks. Read more about them, here.

~Eowyn

US Army targets Tea Party movement as extremists in 2016 civil war scenario

The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), established on July 1, 1973, is the official command component that is responsible for training and developing the United States Army.

TRADOC’s sleeve patch or insignia

Headquartered at Fort Eustis, Virginia. TRADOC is charged with overseeing training of Army forces, the development of operational doctrine, and the development and procurement of new weapons systems. TRADOC operates 33 schools and centers at 16 Army installations for our soldiers, other-service personnel, international soldiers and civilians.

The official mission statement for TRADOC states:

“TRADOC develops the Army’s Soldiers and Civilian leaders and designs, develops and integrates capabilities, concepts and doctrine in order to build a campaign-capable, expeditionary Army in support of joint warfighting capability through Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN).”

Those “concepts and doctrines” include the envisioning of likely future scenarios in which the United States may find ourselves and how the US Army will conduct its operations. That is why TRADOC’s Pamphlet 525-3-1, Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028, issued on August 19, 2010, is of importance and concern. Why? Because the document envisions a civil war breaking out in America in 2016 — a war instigated by “political reactionaries” — “an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement.”

I tried to access the PDF of Operating Concept 2016-2028 (henceforth referred to as OC), but was told “Access Denied.” Therefore, we must depend on Kevin Benson and Jennifer Weber’s account of OC in Small Wars Journal. (Kevin Benson, Ph.D., is a retired Army colonel; Weber is an associate professor of history with a specialty in the American civil war, at the University of Kansas.)

UPDATE (Aug. 17): Thanks to reader Kevin McDonald, you can read OC (Army Operating Concept 2016-2028) for yourself by going here, or if that link is scrubbed, I’ve saved the document to FOTM’s media library: TRADOC Op Con 2016-2028!

No authorship is given for the 65-page OC, but the document bears the imprimatur and official approval of the United States Army. It begins with a “Foreword” by Martin E. Dempsey, General, U.S. Army, Commanding; followed by a brief explanation of the meaning of the Army’s “operating concept” by John E. Sterling, Jr., Lieutenant General, U. S. Army, Commanding General/Chief of Staff.

OC first lays out the rationale for the deployment of the U.S. military inside America’s borders. Benson and Weber write:

“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 […] to defend the republic at home.  In this paper, we posit a scenario in which a group of political reactionaries take over a strategically positioned town and have the tacit support of not only local law enforcement but also state government officials, right up to the governor.  Under present law, which initially stemmed from bad feelings about Reconstruction, the military’s domestic role is highly circumscribed.  In the situation we lay out below, even though the governor refuses to seek federal help to quell the uprising (the usual channel for military assistance), the Constitution allows the president broad leeway in times of insurrection. Citing the precedents of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and Dwight D. Eisenhower sending troops to Little Rock in 1957, the president mobilizes the military and the Department of Homeland Security, to regain control of the city.  This scenario requires us to consider how domestic intelligence is gathered and shared, the role of local law enforcement (to the extent that it supports the operation), the scope and limits of the Insurrection Act–for example maintaining a military chain of command but in support of the Attorney General as the Department of Justice is the Lead Federal Agency (LFA) under the conditions of the Act–and the roles of the local, national, and international media. […]

The Insurrection Act does not need to be changed for the 21st century.  Because it is broadly written, the law allows the flexibility needed to address a range of threats to the Republic. 

What we must consider in the design of homeland defense or security exercises is translating the Act into action. The Army Operating Concept describes Homeland Defense as the protection of ‘U.S. sovereignty, territory, domestic population, and critical defense infrastructure against external threats and aggression, or other threats as directed by the president’ (OC, p. 27).”

And now, read OC’s “Scenario 2016” envisioned by the U.S. Army:

The Scenario (2016) 

The Great Recession of the early twenty-first century lasts far longer than anyone anticipated.  After a change in control of the White House and Congress in 2012, the governing party cuts off all funding that had been dedicated to boosting the economy or toward relief.  The United States economy has flatlined, much like Japan’s in the 1990s, for the better part of a decade.  By 2016, the economy shows signs of reawakening, but the middle and lower-middle classes have yet to experience much in the way of job growth or pay raises.  Unemployment continues to hover perilously close to double digits, small businesses cannot meet bankers’ terms to borrow money, and taxes on the middle class remain relatively high.  A high-profile and vocal minority has directed the public’s fear and frustration at nonwhites and immigrants.  After almost ten years of race-baiting and immigrant-bashing by right-wing demagogues, nearly one in five Americans reports being vehemently opposed to immigration, legal or illegal, and even U.S.-born nonwhites have become occasional targets for mobs of angry whites.

In May 2016 an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the “tea party” movement takes over the government of Darlington, South Carolina, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council, and placing the mayor under house arrest.  Activists remove the chief of police and either disarm local police and county sheriff departments or discourage them from interfering.  In truth, this is hardly necessary.  Many law enforcement officials already are sympathetic to the tea party’s agenda, know many of the people involved, and have made clear they will not challenge the takeover.  The militia members are organized and have a relatively well thought-out plan of action.

With Darlington under their control, militia members quickly move beyond the city limits to establish “check points” – in reality, something more like choke points — on major transportation lines.  Traffic on I-95, the East Coast’s main north-south artery; I-20; and commercial and passenger rail lines are stopped and searched, allegedly for “illegal aliens.”  Citizens who complain are immediately detained.  Activists also collect “tolls” from drivers, ostensibly to maintain public schools and various city and county programs, but evidence suggests the money is actually going toward quickly increasing stores of heavy weapons and ammunition.  They also take over the town web site and use social media sites to get their message out unrestricted. 

When the leaders of the group hold a press conference to announce their goals, they invoke the Declaration of Independence and argue that the current form of the federal government is not deriving its “just powers from the consent of the governed” but is actually “destructive to these ends.”  Therefore, they say, the people can alter or abolish the existing government and replace it with another that, in the words of the Declaration, “shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”  While mainstream politicians and citizens react with alarm, the “tea party” insurrectionists in South Carolina enjoy a groundswell of support from other tea party groups, militias, racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, anti-immigrant associations such as the Minutemen, and other right-wing groups.  At the press conference the masked militia members’ uniforms sport a unit seal with a man wearing a tricorn hat and carrying a musket over the motto “Today’s Minutemen.”  When a reporter asked the leaders who are the “red coats” the spokesman answered, “I don’t know who the redcoats are…it could be federal troops.” Experts warn that while these groups heretofore have been considered weak and marginal, the rapid coalescence among them poses a genuine national threat.

The mayor of Darlington calls the governor and his congressman.  He cannot act to counter the efforts of the local tea party because he is confined to his home and under guard.  The governor, who ran on a platform that professed sympathy with tea party goals, is reluctant to confront the militia directly.  He refuses to call out the National Guard.  He has the State Police monitor the roadblocks and checkpoints on the interstate and state roads but does not order the authorities to take further action.  In public the governor calls for calm and proposes talks with the local tea party to resolve issues.  Privately, he sends word through aides asking the federal government to act to restore order.  Due to his previous stance and the appearance of being “pro” tea party goals the governor has little political room to maneuver.

The Department of Homeland Security responds to the governor’s request by asking for defense support to civil law enforcement.  After the Department of Justice states that the conditions in Darlington and surrounding areas meet the conditions necessary to invoke the Insurrection Act, the President invokes it.

(From Title 10 US Code the President may use the militia or Armed Forces to:

§ 331 – Suppress an insurrection against a State government at the request of the Legislature or, if not in session, the Governor.

§ 332 – Suppress unlawful obstruction or rebellion against the U.S.

§ 333 – Suppress insurrection or domestic violence if it (1) hinders the execution of the laws to the extent that a part or class of citizens are deprived of Constitutional rights and the State is unable or refuses to protect those rights or (2) obstructs the execution of any Federal law or impedes the course of justice under Federal laws.)

By proclamation he calls on the insurrectionists to disperse peacefully within 15 days.  There is no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.  The President appoints the Attorney General and the Department of Justice as the lead federal agency to deal with the crisis.  The President calls the South Carolina National Guard to federal service.  The Joint Staff in Washington, D.C., alerts U.S. Northern Command, the headquarters responsible for the defense of North America, to begin crisis action planning.  Northern Command in turn alerts U.S. Army North/Fifth U.S. Army for operations as a Joint Task Force headquarters.  Army units at Fort Bragg, N.C.; Fort Stewart, Ga.; and Marines at Camp Lejuene, N.C. go on alert.  The full range of media, national and international, is on scene.

Read the rest of this most disturbing article, “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future,” by clicking here.

Now, the pieces finally are coming together as to why:

  • There are persistent rumors that the Obama administration is preparing for civil war (see here and here).
  • Supposedly civilian federal agencies (from DHS to the Dept. of Education to, good grief, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Agency) have been buying ammunition.
  • The Department of Homeland Security, in a recent report and a 2008 secret memo, identifies Americans who love liberty, are “fiercely nationalistic” and “anti-global,” pro-life, pro-Second Amendment gun rights, Christian, and military veterans, to be “domestic terrorists.”
  • FBI Director Robert Mueller told a Congressional committee hearing that he’s unsure whether the U.S. government has the right to assassinate U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.
  • Both parties in both houses of Congress passed a bill, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which authorizes the President and the military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, without charge or trial.
  • There really are FEMA camps in every state of continental United States, ranging in size from 301 to 2,000 persons for up to 30 days of detention.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would be deemed “domestic terrorists” by our government. I weep….

H/t FOTM’s Anon & Hardnox.

~Eowyn

National Guard ask police for names of gunowners and military vets

Two days ago, I received a very troubling phone call from a trusted friend. The friend does not want his name and that of his state to be made public. I will call my friend X and his state Y.

Here is what X told me:

Last Saturday, August 4, 2012, X got a phone call from a good friend, Z, who is a cop in a small town in Y.

Z said that both he and a cop in another neighboring town were paid a visit by two men, driving in separate unmarked Humvees, who identified themselves as members of the National Guard.

The two National Guardsmen (NGs) said they were “doing a survey” and asked the cops for those residents of their respective towns who:

  • own lots of firearms;
  • are long-distance shooters;
  • are military veterans.

The cops told the NGs that, it being a Saturday, they should come back on Monday when the police chiefs are at the stations. But the NGs said they are asking precisely the rank-and-file police officers; in other words, the NGs’ intent was to bypass the brass, i.e., the chain of command.

After the two NGs left, cop Z followed their vehicles and saw the NGs drive around town, making GPS readings.

Cop Z told my friend X that:

  • The National Guard is working under the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS).
  • Obama and Eric Holder, known for their antipathy toward the Second Amendment and private gun ownership, found a legal loophole that allows the federal government to ask the questions the two NGs had asked the cops. And so Obama issued a presidential directive empowering such agencies as the FBI, U.S. Marshalls, BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms), and the National Guard to gather this information to compile a data base.

So I went looking on the web. This is what I found:

1. I found NOTHING about the National Guard going around asking cops for information on owners of firearms and military vets, in Y or any other state.

2. The U.S. National Guard is considered to be a reserve military force and, as such, is under the Dept. of Defense, not Homeland Security. The agencies that are under DHS are Customs and Border Protection, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Secret Service, and the Office of Inspector General. (See DHS’s organizational chart).

3. I cannot find a presidential directive that specifically orders federal agencies like the National Guard to conduct a firearms survey by asking cops in towns across America. But that is not to say that such a presidential directive doesn’t exist. Here’s why:

I discovered and opened a can of worms about which I’d never even known until now. The “can of worms” is something called Presidential Directives. This is what Wikipedia says:

Presidential Directives … are a form of an executive order issued by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the National Security Council. The directives articulate the executive’s national security policy and carry the “full force and effect of law”.

Since many of the Presidential Directives pertain to the national security of the United States, many were or are secret (“classified“).

Presidents have issued such directives under various names.

Under President George W. Bush (2001-2009), they were called National Security Presidential Directives (NSPD) and Homeland Security Presidential Directives.

Under Barack Obama (2009- ), they are called NSPD, Presidential Study Directives (to initiate policy review procedures), and Presidential Policy Directives (to promulgate Presidential decisions on national security matters).

Regarding the secrecy of presidential directives, Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy stated in February 2008 that:

“Of the 54 National Security Presidential Directives issued by the (George W.) Bush Administration to date, the titles of only about half have been publicly identified. There is descriptive material or actual text in the public domain for only about a third. In other words, there are dozens of undisclosed Presidential directives that define U.S. national security policy and task government agencies, but whose substance is unknown either to the public or, as a rule, to Congress.”

For the list of known Homeland Security Presidential Directives of George W. Bush, click here.

As for Obama’s Presidential Policy Directives (PPD), you can see from the table below that:

  • The titles of most of his Directives are unknown.
  • Of those Directives with titles, the contents (texts) of only 4 Directives (Nos. 1, 2, 8, 14) are made public.
  • The list of Obama’s Presidential Policy Directives hasn’t been updated since February 28, 2012, which means there must be more subsequent Directives for which we don’t even have a number!

Number

Presidential Policy Directive
Title

Date

PPD 1 Organization of the National Security Council System 02/13/09
PPD 2 Implementation of the National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats (National Strategy) 11/23/09
PPD 3
PPD 4 National Space Policy (Fact Sheet) 06/28/10
PPD 5
PPD 6 Global Development (Fact Sheet) 09/22/10
PPD 7 National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) 01/26/11
PPD 8 National Preparedness 03/30/11
PPD 9
PPD 10
PPD 11
PPD 12
PPD 13
PPD 14 Procedures Implementing Section 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Fact Sheet) 02/28/12

To conclude, given:

  • The known fact that the POS in the White House and his attorney general Eric Holder want nothing more than to limit private gun ownership;
  • The fact that Presidential Directives carry “the full force and effect of law,” but are so secretive that the substance of many of these Directives is unknown to, not just the American people, but “as a rule” to Congress as well;

Then I see no reason to doubt the account of the two cops of a visit by two mysterious National Guardsmen.

We live in perilous times. The Establishment Media are not doing their job, so it is left to the alternative New Media. Our weapon is truth. Please help this post to go viral by publishing this to your Facebook page and e-mailing it to your family, friends, and acquaintances.

~Eowyn

Should Michael Haley Resign?

Haley defends military husband’s Facebook post

Army Times: The head of South Carolina’s National Guard said Tuesday he will conduct an internal review of the Guard’s policy on social media use after Gov. Nikki Haley’s husband used Facebook to call members of the state Senate cowards for not voting on a bill favored by his wife.

Maj. Gen. Robert Livingston said he spoke with Michael Haley about the matter, and Michael Haley told the general he intended to express himself as a private citizen, not as a member of the Guard.  Michael Haley is an officer the South Carolina Army National Guard.

Sen. Jake Knotts, a Lexington Republican who has often clashed with Gov. Haley, called late Tuesday for Michael Haley to resign his commission if he can’t abstain from “contentious partisan issues.”

In speeches, Gov. Nikki Haley frequently talks about her husband’s military service and says she is proud that he puts on his uniform daily when he goes to work.  At a news conference, the governor defended her husband, saying he made the posting while away from the family and attending two weeks of military training in Texas.  “He is a person. He is a citizen. He has the right to get frustrated,” Haley said, responding to calls that Michael Haley apologize for the posting.

Michael Haley’s post came Thursday after the Senate failed to vote on a bill backed by his wife that would restructure portions of the state government.  “It amazes me that in a week that we have heroes who have died fighting for our freedoms, we have cowards who are afraid to take a vote in the senate,” Michael Haley wrote.

Earlier that day, the Guard announced that three South Carolina soldiers had been killed in an attack by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan.

“We reviewed the posting,” Livingston said in a telephone interview. “It was not a partisan expression and he did not express himself as a member of the military.”

Livingston said he wants to ensure that every citizen, including Michael Haley, maintains his freedom of speech.  But the general noted that Michael Haley has a unique role serving as the governor’s spouse, as well as a lieutenant in the National Guard.  “I think he is very conscious of the stir this has caused,” Livingston said.

Livingston said the military has had to grapple with an “evolving” approach to social media, and the situation offers a chance for review.  “We will conduct an internal review and do a wash on the policy that all our people have to deal with” on social media, Livingston said. “We will use this as an opportunity to make sure all our people don’t step over the line.”

Livingston said he hoped the contretemps does not take away from the heroism displayed by the three members of the Guard who gave their lives in Afghanistan.  “We have three real heroes who have fallen. I don’t want us to lose sight of the tremendous sacrifice that they, and their families, are making,” he said.

Knotts suggested that Michael Haley’s action violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity.

“Michael Haley should be ashamed of himself for invoking the memory of dead soldiers just to make a partisan political point,” he said in a statement. “As a commissioned officer in the South Carolina National Guard, Mr. Haley should know that he is not permitted to engage in partisan rhetoric.”

Knotts said that if Michael Haley wants to be involved in politics, he should resign from the military.  “I’m concerned when a person uses his uniform or position in the military for political purposes,” Knotts said. He said the Facebook post was “an insult to the families and to the Senate as a whole.”  He said Michael Haley should offer apologies to both the soldiers’ families and to the Senate.

On Monday Sumter Sen. Phil Leventis said on the floor of the Senate that Michael Haley’s comment amounted to politics at its worst. He said he didn’t think the three soldiers died for a new South Carolina Department of Administration.  “I found it difficult that Mr. Haley implied that he knew what those three wanted. They died as Americans. They didn’t die as Republicans or Democrats,” said Leventis, a Democrat who retired as a brigadier general in the South Carolina Air National Guard after 30 years in uniform.

After he spoke, Republican colleague Sen. Chip Campsen of Charleston rose to say Leventis was no coward, and had 21 combat flights in the Iraq war to his credit.  Leventis said in a telephone interview Tuesday that he believed Michael Haley “stepped way out of line” by using the soldiers’ deaths to make a point about a local political issue.

In April, a Marine Corps sergeant in San Diego was discharged for criticizing President Obama on Facebook.  The military has had a policy since the Civil War limiting the free speech of service members, including criticism of the commander in chief.

Pentagon directives say military personnel in uniform cannot sponsor a political club; participate in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or against a political party, candidate or cause; or speak at any event promoting a political movement.

Federal employees engage in partisan political activity all the time (some federal employees, such as the President, are exempt from the Hatch Act).  What do you think goes on in DC on a daily basis?

Michael Haley is in a sticky situation – in the National Guard and married to a politician.  Should he be able to voice his opinion while not in uniform?  How can he not be a vocal supporter for his wife?

DCG