In a Wall Street Journal op-ed article dated February 17, 2010 entitled “The United States: Debtor and Leader? Why Lech Walesa is right to worry about declining American influence”, Judy Shelton discusses the perfect storm that is coming to America:

 ”As Lech Walesa, the former president of Poland who confronted Soviet repression with demands for the right to self-govern, observed recently: ‘The world has no leadership. The U.S. was the last resort and hope for all the nations. Today, we have lost that hope.’ What has changed about America’s role in the world?”

 Walesa’s answer is, “They don’t lead morally and politically any more.”  Ms. Shelton states that American voters “need to elect new representatives who recognize that America’s greatness cannot be achieved in the absence of national solvency.”

 ”It’s not only the small concessions to China over “internal” matters, or the possibility of faltering in helping our allies at critical moments, that undermine our global claim to moral leadership. It’s the longer-term vulnerability to financial extortion. It’s the perception, at home and abroad, that American values may be subjugated to financial considerations due to America’s permanent state of indebtedness.”

 China holds more than one-fifth of foreign U.S. Treasury bonds and China is now the largest creditor nation to the United States.  Just recently, China sold a significant portion of its holdings in U.S. Treasury bonds- Japan now holds the largest amount of U.S. Treasury debt- and threatens to take further action if the U.S. government further damages “trust and cooperation between our two countries”; i.e., by doing anything to hold the Chinese government accountable in regard to its deplorable human rights record.

 The big question that often goes unasked is whether the leverage that China wields in U.S. financial markets can be used in order to further military objectives if push ever comes to shove.  In a 2008 article entitled Is China Preparing for War Against America? we explored the Chinese government’s motives and global strategies:

“Hasn’t China invested a great deal of money in the U.S. economy and would they want to risk their investments?  Financial manipulation and maneuvering for control of oil are additional weapons in an asymmetrical or conventional arsenal.  It is interesting to see how much aid China has received from Japan, the U.S. and Europe over the years even as China presently increases military spending and aid to countries which have gradually entered the Chinese sphere of international influence.”

Until relatively recent times, the Western nations have pumped huge amounts of capital into the Chinese economy.  The transfer of wealth from the West to the former Soviet Union and China during and after the Nixon years is a story that has never been completely told.  At a time that U.S. military personnel were being killed by Soviet materiel in Vietnam, the Nixon and Ford Administrations were making direct loans and guaranteeing private low-interest loans to Communist China and Russia during a time of runaway inflation.  The perfect storm is now on the horizon- our money is now worth almost nothing- and the interests that worked during the Vietnam War years to manipulate the currency and the American  people are still working now!  A nation gets the leaders that they deserve.  It is also often said that Americans deserve better than we are getting.  It is time to stop flattering the American people and see some real change.

What role will armed citizens play?

What will you do if you hear someone yelling “Allahu Akbar“ or just acting suspiciously.  Are you aware of your surroundings as you go about your daily activities .  Have you checked your First Aid supplies and stored some extra ammunition- just in case?

Many sources have been telling us that our schools will be attacked as happened in Russia.  The parents heard their sons and daughters screaming…these guys have no interest in getting away or getting out alive.  They are more interested in causing so much anguish that some Americans will retaliate by attacking innocent Islamic people, thus radicalizing American Muslims.  There is a great deal of evidence from terrorist chat rooms and interrogations that the goal will be to commit atrocities on young children at school.

You might consider carrying an unloaded shotgun and extra ammunition in the trunk of your vehicle.  But make sure that you only defend yourself and others.  Anyone that  retaliates by attacking innocent people is part of the problem and should be treated as a criminal by the courts.  Vigilantes are not really different from terrorists.

A terrorist attack may include guys armed with AKs and the police are going to be busy protecting communication centers, power grids, city hall.  For the first few hours, the people that are prepared mentally may be all the public has to protect neighborhoods, schools, churches, etc.  Expect snipers or additional explosions immediately following an initial terrorist event.  This means that parents and media gathered around a school where children are being held may be in at just as much risk as the children being held hostage.

There won’t be enough LEOs to protect homes and businesses.  And some of your neighbors who won’t work and have not prepared might loot if they see the opportunity.  Trouble never makes an appointment… be prepared.

We need men and women, armed with hand guns and proper training, including First Aid, that know how to work with professional First Responders in our communities. CERT classes are a good way to work on this. Civilian Police Academy programs are also a good choice. We now hear that some Washington cities include firearms training in their civilian training programs.  The government will rarely take the initiative to train you because “thinking outside the box” is the province of a few individuals- individuals that may lack the patience to wade through the bureaucratic gauntlets. And even the best military officers and LEOs normally listen to other credible leaders, usually only from within their own command.

http://firearmslawyer.net/blog/index…009/11/12/p119

Should there be five-day waiting periods in order to obtain background checks for unregistered journalists?  I was recently surprised to find that another amateur journalist labeled my Firearms Lawyer column as the “screaming mimi equivalent to the vile, contempatable (sic) and ignorant Glen Beck”. 

I confess that I often listen to Glen Beck, a self-professed recovering alcoholic that has, nevertheless, managed to disrupt the body politic by driving self-professed Communist and Green Jobs czar, Van Jones, out of federal employment and into the ranks of well-funded tax-exempt left-wing think tanks.

 I am alarmed that one of my colleagues would refer to me as “contempatable”.  The time has come to stop irresponsible hate speech once and for all; i.e., the kind of speech engaged in by people like Glen Beck.

Cass Sunstein is the Obama administration’s administrator of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).  Sunstein, in a groundbreaking book, DEMOCRACY AND THE PROBLEM OF FREE SPEECH, has called for a “New Deal” for public speech.  In the face of America’s traditional “marketplace of ideas” Sunstein has courageously redefined the First Amendment.

 In Sunstein’s conception of democracy, society would mandate free media time for political candidates, federal guidelines for the coverage of public issues, and curtailment of the ability of the wealthy to buy access to the media. Such proposals “would bring about significant changes in the legal treatment currently given to many free speech issues.”

 Unlicensed bloggers and laptop-toting cowboy “journalists” have little knowledge of complex societal problems.  While simplistically trumpeting their First Amendment “right” to demand vigilante-style opposition to progressive reform, such irresponsible citizen journalists ignore the fact that only those with extensive journalistic or legal experience should be able to criticize public policy initiatives like health care reform, proposed legislation to prevent gun violence and other common sense public initiatives proposed for the good of all.

 I propose that we consider registering pens and paper.  Some will accuse me of being opposed to the First Amendment.  Law enforcement officials like Mr. Sunstein need reasonable procedures, however, to track irresponsible reporting.  Don’t we require licenses for people to drive cars?  

 Fully automatic military-style rifles are already severely restricted under federal law- many states already prohibit them completely; other states even prohibit sex toys and vibrators.  Yet we have no way of keeping word processors away from the hands of criminals, children, the mentally defective and followers of despicable demagogues like Glen Beck that can spit out hundreds of misguided messages in a minute.  Stolen laptops presently are sold on the black market and even end up in the hands of terrorists and the Mexican cartels.

 The United Nations reports that there are countries like Venezuela, China and Iran that struggle in vain to block their own citizens from viewing counter-revolutionary messages in cyberspace that interfere with legitimate government policies.  The First Amendment was drafted in a different time under radically different circumstances than society faces today.  We did not even see the advent of the telegraph until the 1800s.  Mass communications with the potential to mislead millions of people did not exist until recently.

 Neanderthal “Tea Baggers” lacking a responsible value system may even take articles written by untrained “civilians” and then use their words and information against the very reforms that our government struggles to impose for the good of all of us!  Before we allow marginally trained hobbyists to introduce amateur journalistic bravado into public discussions, we need to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis.  We must weigh the cost of preventing unfiltered information to enter the airwaves and cyberspace against the unthinkable cost of allowing global programs impacting climate change to be sabotaged. 

Can we afford to relegate civilization to the influences of those with a primitive mindset and risk international catastrophes just because of an outmoded prejudice that encourages anyone to have access to such weapons of mass communication at any time and any place?  I believe in the First Amendment but I also believe in common sense and evolving community standards.  Unfortunately, the contemptible ”journalistic” attack against me by an amateur that cannot even spell  correctly (the attack that caused me to ponder the danger of unregulated media) should be the first message to be identified as aiding and abetting terrorist activity and banned from all publicly viewed news outlets.  Such views belong only on “FAUX”  news where those of us that can spell will not be subjected to such ignorant bigotry!

According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, Ciudad Juárez is ground zero in Mexico’s war against drug cartels.

After gunmen blasted away at a taxi and killed two men and a woman, the army and police were unable to obtain information from any of the witnesses:

Capt. Velásquez scrambled to the site of the killings, where the gunmen had already vanished. He and his men yelled questions at dozens of eyewitnesses: How many killers were there, what kind of car did they drive? “Not one person said a word. Not even what direction they had gone,” says Capt. Velásquez, 42. “Executions here happen at any time, at any place. That terrifies the population. They don’t trust anybody. And they don’t talk.”

Mexico’s powerful drug cartels and affiliated gangs are battling for control of the city and President Felipe Calderón has sent 7,000 soldiers and 2,000 federal police to stop the urban warfare.  The residents of Mexican war zones like Juarez are helpless as murder rates soar in Mexico, a nation where all guns are illegal:  

In 2008, 1,600 people were killed in drug-related hits. This year, more than 2,500 have died. By some estimates, Juárez’s approximately 165 deaths per 100,000 residents make it the murder capital of the world. That compares with 48 violent deaths per 100,000 residents of Baghdad.

In the Philippines, possession of guns is much more highly regulated than in the U.S.  Nevertheless, well-armed rebel groups, bandits, politicians and ordinary people obtain all kinds of weapons, including home-made military style weapons that are often just as effective as those possessed by police and military personnel anywhere in the world.

Last November, a Maguindanao politician’s son, Andal Ampatuan, Jr., allegedly participated in a massacre in Ampatuan township.  Local gunmen, allegedly including six officers and the Maguindanao provincial police chief and his deputy, diverted vehicles containing journalists and the wife, two sisters, an aunt and several supporters of Ampatuan’s rival.  The Ampatuan clan has previously provided heavy political support to Philippine President Arroyo.

Ampatuan’s political opponent, Vice Mayor Esmael Mangudadatu of Maguindanao’s Buluan township, sent several female family members along in the convoy in the belief they would not be harmed.  The Ampatuan henchmen allegedly forced the convoy to a secluded location where fifty-seven were hacked, raped and shot, then buried in a brave that had been prepared with earth moving equipment in advance.  At least thirty journalists were among the dead.

The point of these anecdotes is to show that an armed citizenry is always in a more powerful position when armed.  Keeping and bearing arms makes citizens disciplined, vigilant and alert to danger whether it is from domestic political factions, criminal organizations or foreign enemies.

 Mexico’s government has waged war with the drug cartels by militarily occupying many areas within Mexico:

 Mr. Calderón’s war on drug gangs has defined his presidency so far. Within months of his 2006 inauguration, he dispatched the army to states where drug-related violence was on the rise, calling powerful drug cartels a threat to national security. Three years later, some 45,000 troops—about a quarter of the army—patrol areas ranging from Ciudad Juárez to Mr. Calderón’s home state of Michoacán.

Jorge Tello, Mexico’s National Security adviser, stated that Mexico has done more to fight drugs and violence in Ciudad Juárez than any other place in Mexico. Many residents of Ciudad Juárez are demanding an end to the military occupation. Soldiers cover their faces with black balaclavas in order to conceal their identities from the narcotistas.  The government deploys .50 caliber machine guns during patrols.  The local Juárez Cartel, the Aztecas  and a cadre of corrupt cops and ex-cops called La Linea oppose gangs acting on behalf of Joaquin Guzman that aim to take over the drug trade in Juarez; i.e., the Artistic Assassins and the Mexicles.  The gangs simply observe the timing of the patrols and then change the time and locations of their attacks accordingly.

The drug gangs have diversified and extortion has provided a new motivation to increase the body counts:

The extortion wave has spread to funeral homes. Last month, an assassin and his driver parked in front of the Funeraria del Refugio, a squat, yellow building on a crowded street. The killer walked in, interrupting a funeral, and locked mourners in the bathroom, yelling that he had come to collect a protection payment. He then executed the funeral home’s manager, police and eyewitnesses say. The next day, the men returned and burned down the funeral home.

Former soldiers, known as “Zetas,” are the Gulf Cartel’s enforcers.  They decapitate rivals and law enforcement officers.  Another deserter from the Mexican army is Manuel Aponte.  A former lieutenant in the army, he deserted in 2004 and is now a top lieutenant for Joaquin Guzman, the cartel leader.

The UN is allegedly involved with joint military operations in the eastern Congo that have resulted in the deaths of  1,400 civilians.  The United Nations urgently needs “a new approach to protect civilians,” according to a Human Rights Watch report.

The presence of about 19,000 United Nations peacekeepers has not only failed to protect women and children from rape, torture and murder but actually may have aided and abetted the slaughter, according to a number of reports including the New York Times.

Human Rights Watch researchers describe “girls being summarily killed after being raped, and other victims being tied together before their throats were slit”.

 Many governments are working under the auspices of UN programs to disarm citizens.  Even some Western Washington politicians seem to look to a nebulous UN agenda in their attempts to violate state gun laws, ban assault weapons and create sanctuaries for illegal aliens.

In some under-developed countries, governments have virtually declared war on their own people in efforts to ban guns. Uganda is one example of extreme violence perpetrated by the Ugandan government against selected tribes that hold onto their guns as protection in the midst of appalling ethnic conflict that is all too often enmeshed with governmental policies.

Many of the worst human rights violators around the world sit on UN committees that condone violence against Israelis or those of other ethnic and national origins. You could almost say that the world has become a mirror image of Chicago in the days of Al Capone- or today for that matter! The dictators around the globe are like the aldermen that receive favors for keeping their neighborhoods in line. Every now and then, we hear about genocides (sometimes after the UN disarms the victims as it did in Rwanda) that remind us of the Valentine’s Day massacre, when gangsters dressed like cops gunned down Capone’s Irish rivals on the North Side.  The best antidote to the tyranny of crime-related violence or political gangsters is a disciplined, trained and well-armed citizenry.

Greetings Friends,

 I am moved as I watch the Memorial Service occurring at the Tacoma Dome.  We cannot, however, indulge our emotions for very long.  We are in the middle of a long, brutal war and many do not even realize the nature of the warfare.  We have been trying to get Federal Way and surrounding communities motivated to hold an event honoring First Responders.  Read the following Mirror article:

 http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/fwm/opinion/73150282.html

What are your ideas for getting this organized?  Maybe you could discuss the proposed event with leaders at your local church?  One of the goals is to get churches focused on issues of emergency preparedness.  Many are already involved but not all.  We already have some community leaders like Ray Gross willing to serve on a committee.  We need volunteers to serve on the planning committees. 

We will form a steering committee as soon as possible.  Right now everyone is still in shock, grief and mourning from the Parkland shootings that occurred the day after the above referenced article was published in the Mirror.

 As we mourn, we should look at the slayings of the four officers as a call to action.  Keep in mind that an American from Chicago has now been identified as having helped to surveil the sites where the attacks took place in Mumbai, India.  The Mumbai attacks were, to a large extent, aimed at Indian security forces.  

 The Mumbai strategy was extremelysuccessful from the terrorists’ viewpoint and it is only a matter of time before similar attacks happen in the USA.  Even though Clemmons was to some extent a lone-wolf (or at least not afilliated with an organized terror network), he was still a terrorist.  An Islamicist organization even went to the Parkland site of the ambush and proclaimed that Maurice Clemmons is a fallen hero! 

Although Clemmons’ alleged commitment to radical Islam has not been substantiated, there is some evidence he may have converted in prison.  Additionally, frustration with the politicians expends energy uselessly unless we get motivated to organize ourselves to react before, during and after natural and man-made emergencies.

 The proposed community event will not only honor responders- it may help save lives by raising awareness pertaining to important emergency preparedness issues.  So help us to get the planned event organized! 

 We need a large facility; we are waiting to hear whether Christian Faith Center wants to provide the venue for honoring the men and women that stand at the walls of the city for just such a time as this.  They are very busy right now hosting the overflow from today’s Memorial Service. Be strong and of good courage.  You and I know this is a war!  Every war is different than the last one. 

All wars have spiritual, mental, physical and political components to varying degrees.  The spiritual, political and economic aspects of the present war have been a long time in the making. 

 Now we need to wake people up- starting with our own community!  The event we are proposing is more important than all the letter-writing you and I can ever do (but writing to your lelected officials is important!).  One reason that holding the event honoring the watchmen (and women) that stand guard is because there is some risk that multiple-officer slayings like the one in Parkland could cause a disconnect between “civilians” and police & military. 

 In honoring emergency responders, everyone should remember that we are all in the battle.  Anyone that is not preserving and protecting is on the side of chaos; we should be committed to protecting each other whether we wear a gun, a badge, a uniform or work at home or in a factory. 

Protecting our communities is often just encouraging our neighbors to store some extra food and water for an emergency.  Or participating in CERT training.  We all have abilities and moral persuasion.  

Your communities need you!  We hope to have an area outside the main event for governmental agencies, non-profits and for-profit businesses to educate folks about emergency preparedness issues.  The goal is to give organizations that contribute to the event an opportunity to reach out to the community.  We need to consider law enforcement, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, utility workers, chaplains, members of the armed forces, FBI and others at the federal, state and county level in our planning.  

Please forward this message to First Responder agencies, local churches, activists, etc. 

 Yours truly,

 Mark S. Knapp, Attorney

The Washington Times recently ran the following editorial:

Last week’s slaughter at Fort Hood Army base in Texas was no different (than massacres in “gun-free” zones like Columbine and Virginia Tech)- except that one man bears responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and women charged with defending America were deliberately left defenseless when a terrorist opened fire.

Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.

After talking to veterans and reviewing some forums on such matters, it seemed that the assertions in the Washington Times article (and a recent Fox news report) may not bear up under scrutiny. For example:

“I spent 23 years in the military under about 6 presidents and I can’t recall anyone walking around US bases (been through many of them on my way here and there) armed unless they were MPs or DOD cops, or troops about to deploy (in which case they would be on their way somewhere, and ,,, the live ammo would still be in the crates until they reached wherever it was they were going to use it). I don’t recall anyone strutting around with side arms just for the hell of it.”

We have finally located Army Regulation 90-114, the 1993 regulation which limits carrying of weapons for law enforcement and security personnel within military installations. Despite the Clinton administration’s limitations upon MP’s and other LEOs on base, the regulation nevertheless provides for law enforcement personnel to carry weapons to:

(1) Conduct law enforcement activities including cases or investigations of espionage, sabotage, and other serious crimes in which DA programs, personnel, or property are involved and investigations conducted in hazardous areas or under hazardous circumstances.

(2) Protect classified information, systems, or equipment.

(3) Protect the President of the United States, high ranking Government officials, DOD personnel, or foreign dignitaries.

(4) Protect DOD assets and personnel.

(5) Guard prisoners.

d. DA military and civilian personnel may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection when the responsible intelligence center identifies a credible and specific threat against DA personnel in that regional area. Firearms will not be issued indiscriminately for
that purpose. Before individuals are authorized to carry a firearm for personal protection under this regulation, the authorizing official must evaluate—

(1) The probability of the threat in a particular location.

(2) The adequacy of support by DA or DOD protective personnel.

(3) The adequacy of protection by U.S. or host nation authorities.

(4) The effectiveness of other means to avoid personal attacks.

Thus, officers of field grade rank or higher, or civilian equivalent of GS-12 or above may authorize the carrying of firearms and the Secretary of the Army has authority to authorize carrying for personal protection within the continental United States. And yes! It is hard to believe that we don’t trust soldiers with guns on an Army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan:

“In states where legal concealed carry is an accepted practice, American service members need to be allowed to carry a gun for self-defense – on post and off – because the global war on terror has changed the risk level they live with each and every day.

The global war on terror has changed the way America fights our wars and has changed the risk level our service members are forced to endure. Letting soldiers have the same rights afforded to civilians when it comes to carrying a concealed handgun is a reform that is well past due.”

See also How Many Died Because of Ban?

The Washington Times article refers to research showing that when folks are armed the damage caused in active shooter situations will be more limited. This is because a “major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the time that elapses between the launch of an attack and when someone – soldier, civilian or law enforcement – arrives on the scene with a gun to end the attack.”

The article goes on to claim that all the public shootings in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.

A 23 year old Islamic convert killed one soldier and wounded another outside a recruiting center in a jihad attack in Little Rock, Arkansas:

A 23-year-old man upset about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan opened fire from his truck at two soldiers standing outside a military recruiting station here on Monday morning, killing one private and wounding another, the police said. According to the New York Times (June 1, 2009):

The gunman, identified by the police as Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad of Little Rock, fled the scene and was arrested minutes later a short distance from the recruiting station, in a bustling suburban shopping center. The police confiscated a Russian-made SKS semiautomatic rifle, a .22-caliber rifle and a handgun from his black pickup truck.

The NYT article goes on to explain that bomb threats and vandalism against recruiting offices are not uncommon. For example, in 2008, a bomb exploded at a military recruitment center in Times Square. Thus, our troops are in as much risk at home as they are on foreign battlefields.

Rather than blame it on President Clinton, we should focus on enabling soldiers and sailors to carry weapons openly on base (and openly or concealed off base as permitted by local and state laws; i.e., with a Concealed Pistol License where and when required. It even makes sense to provide some special training that will qualify personnel to carry on base. By arming more qualified personnel (on and off base), the military will advance the objective of keeping our men and women safe while they protect us from our nation’s enemies.

Sgt. Kimberly Denise Munley is a Killeen police officer who was close to Fort Hood on Thursday when she heard the police radio reporting the attack at the SRP. Sergeant Munley, 34,  is also member of Killeen’s SWAT team. Although the City of Killeen contracts to provide police services on the base, she was following a procedure that has now become the accepted approach for officers arriving at an “active shooter” crime scene before the SWAT team; i.e., a crime-scene where a gunman is at large, killing as many people as he can. Munley deployed active shooter protocol.

Sgt. Kimberly Denise Munley drove directly to the scene of the carnage and identified the active shooter within three minutes after Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s first shots were reported. Hasan was chasing a wounded soldier. She stepped up and engaged him because her training taught her that “if you act aggressively to take out a shooter you will have less fatalities.” 

Right here in Federal Way, our officers receive more aggressive firearms training than most officers received in the past.  Experience has shown that domestic terrorism and/or Islamic jihad attacks can erupt at any time and any place, including the Seattle-Tacoma area.

It often takes SWAT crews 30 minutes or more to arrive at a crime scene. In the past, active shooters continued killing victims while patrol officers, trained to wait for SWAT, stood by out of the line of fire. With an average time of one victim shot every fifteen seconds, first-responders like the patrol officer that stopped an active shooter in a North Carolina nursing home are critical.

As she headed towards the shooter, Hasan charged towards Munley firing and striking her more than once as she went into a crouched or kneeling position. Her partner may have struck Hasan with gunfire but that remains unclear at this time.

What is clear is that Munley shot at Major Hasan while he returned fire. She ran or walked rapidly toward him, continuing to fire; both she and Hasan went down, each with multiple bullet wounds.

The original 911 call came in at 1:23 p.m., and five minutes later Sergeant Munley had already shot the gunman. According to the New York Times:

Sergeant Munley began her career as a police officer in the beachside town of Wrightsville, N.C., after graduating from high school in nearby Wilmington. She quickly earned a reputation for fearlessness, despite her stature….

 Sergeant Munley was wounded in both thighs and her right wrist. Sergeant Munley has two children. She joined the police force in January 2008 after a career in the Army much of which she spent at Fort Hood. Her husband is Matthew Munley, a member of the Special Forces. Munley is an advanced firearms instructor for the civilian force that assists military police on the base. She developed a love of shooting and hunting when she was young.
The information herein is pieced together from articles in the Washington Post and New York Times.

There is little information so-far about Munley’s partner. At least one police officer was killed in the firefight. But Munley’s partner, Sgt. Mark Todd, apparently survived the shootout. Todd told CNN:

Todd, who had become separated from Munley, saw that she (Sgt. Munley) had been shot. Hasan was 15 yards from him, Todd told CNN, “standing there hiding behind a telephone pole waving his weapon, firing it at people.” Todd said Hasan saw him, calmly pointed and shot. Todd couldn’t see a weapon – only a muzzle flash –and fired back. Hasan, who by then had allegedly shot 100 rounds, fell.

This officer’s bravery amazes all of us. Nevertheless, most of us that are not police officers could have done what she did- if you and I have the right training and the equipment.

See Preparing for the Flood.

Suzerain- Main Entry: su·zer·ain
Pronunciation: \ˈsü-zə-rən, -ˌrân; ˈsüz-rən\

Function: noun

1 : a superior feudal lord to whom fealty is due: overlord;

2 : a dominant state controlling the foreign relations of a vassal state but allowing it sovereign authority in its internal affairs.

Jeremy Rabkin, a professor of law at George Mason University School of Law, recently authored an article published in Imprimis  and called “The Constitution and American Sovereignty”. In the article, Rabkin explains how the concept of national sovereignty, as we understand it today, developed during the Seventeenth century along with nationalism.

Abraham Lincoln defined sovereignty as “a political community without a political superior”.  Thus, sovereignty isn’t so much about power as it is about authority and legitimacy. Rabkin notes that:

“… in medieval Europe… the defining character of that period was overlapping authority and a lot of confusion about which authority had primary claims. No one had to think about defining national boundaries. This became an issue only in the modern era, when interaction between different peoples increased.”

The law of nations (i.e., international law)  began to develop contemporaneously with modern concepts of national sovereignty as a result of expanded commercial activities, maritime pursuits and the pursuit of war by European monarchs and princes.

The U.S. Constitution provides that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”.  Treaties are binding on the states; nevertheless, to be valid, a treaty must be consistent with the Constitution. Thus, the Constitution preempts and supersedes treaties.  As Alexander Hamilton explained, “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government” because it is the Constitution that authorizes the government to make treaties in the first place. The historical consensus, now under attack, has been that a treaty violating the Constitution violates the authority which provides legitimacy for the treaty in the first place.

Today, according to Rabkin, there is no longer a consensus regarding the principle that legislative and legal authority cannot be delegated to international tribunals or commissions and this has become “a contentious issue“.  There is strong legal precedent, however, prohibiting Congress from delegating its power to legislate to an international body.

Delegation of judicial power is also a point of contention. Can the rights of American citizens in the U.S. be determined by foreign courts? Such delegation of the judicial power violates Article 3 of the Constitution. Judicial power “shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

In the case of Medellin v. Texas, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court considered an International Court of Justice ruling. A Mexican national that violently raped and murdered two girls in Texas had the right to receive counsel from the Mexican consulate under the 1963 Vienna Convention. Despite a ruling that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer, the U.S. Supreme Court held that treaty provisions were diplomatic in nature and did not bind the sovereign State of Texas.

Rabkin points to the European Union and its European Court of Justice, originally established to interpret disputes about treaty provisions between sovereign European nations, in order to illustrate how rapidly loyalties can shift to supra-national bodies. Wasn’t the dissension about the war in Iraq largely a national schism over whether the Bush Administration or the United Nations was to decide international policy relating to Iraq? In the 1970s, the Court of Justice held that conflicts between treaty provisions and national constitutions would be resolved in favor of the treaty provisions and EU members accepted the idea that a treaty takes precedence over national constitutions.

A proposed UN Climate Change Treaty waiting in Copenhagen for the President to sign in December may soon test whether the Court will hold to its previous ruling in favor of non-delegation of legislative power.

This week the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation and others filed suit against the City of Seattle for violating the Washington state firearms preemption law. Dave Workman describes how this local gun battle is a part of a larger war looming, as the campaign to subject the American people to a UN gun treaty gets under way:

“As former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr writes today on his blog, there is an international battle over gun rights unfolding in the United Nations, and one in Seattle that has been well-covered….”

 

In February, 2007, before most of us thought candidate Obama would be the next President, J.R. Dunn suggested in an American Thinker article that a global religious creed may be the only chance for world governance to overcome U.S. voter resistance to any variety of global suzerainty. The key to promoting such schemes (floating around since before the founding of the ill-fated League of Nations) is a messianic figure that can usher such a secular religious crusade into institutional existence:

In “Religion Without Revelation”, Julian Huxley identified the sense of the numinous (feelings of awe and religiosity) and announced that a universal world religion was needed in order to incorporate such profound feelings….

He advocated enlistment of mass media outlets as the best method for converting masses of humanity in every nation to the new secular religion. Thus, by making spiritual feelings (i.e., numinosity) available to everyone without the need to look to higher authority (i.e., Biblical revelation) the world can dispense with feelings of guilt or other negative reactions resulting from moral degradation, loss of human life and diminished expectations of human dignity that have been washing to shore since Huxley began his mission in the 1940s.  Now we see all this along with an evangelical-style face in a neo-Progressive wave being financed by George Soros, a billionaire intelligence operative who works at levels that are apparently deeper than most folks realize.

According to one description of Rudolf Otto’s thinking (the German scholar who popularized the concept of numinosity):

Otto describes the numinous as an awe-filled encounter with ultimate reality (UR). UR is designated by Otto as a mysterium tremendum and a majestus as it is experienced as a powerful sentient force, worthy of utmost respect. It inspires not only awe, but also fear. While the subject is urgently attracted to this ineffable source of creation, it may in some instances frighten, humble and ‘purify.’ Otto also notes subjects may perceive some sense of creaturely wretchedness and unworthiness, standing naked, as it were, in the face of a great and powerful, “wholly other”(16) UR-Creator-God.

See C. G. Jung and Numinosity

This definition of numinosity is fairly close to the way in which C. G. Jung defined it and the context in which Julian Huxley used the term in “Religion Without Revelation”.  Huxley, the founder of UNESCO, envisioned a future synthesis of Communism with Capitalism.

Finally, notwithstanding our digressions into the semantics of numinosity we are back to Rabkin’s most startling thesis:

Where does this trend away from the sovereignty of national constitutions lead? I do not think the danger is a world tyranny. I think that idea is fantastical. Rather what it will lead to, I think, is an undermining of the idea that national governments can protect people, with the result that people will start looking for defense elsewhere. We saw this in an extreme way in Iraq when it collapsed into chaos before the surge, and people looked for protection to various ethnic or sectarian militias. A similar phenomenon can be seen today in Europe with the formation of various separatist movements. We’re even hearing loud claims for Scottish independence. And it’s not surprising, because to the extent that Britain has surrendered its sovereignty, Britain doesn’t count for as much as it used to. So why not have your own Scotland? Why not have your own Wales? Why not have your own Catalonia in Spain? And of course the greatest example of this devolution in Europe is the movement toward Muslim separatism. While this is certainly driven to a large extent by trends in Islam, it also reflects the fact that it doesn’t mean as much to be British or to be French any more. These governments are cheerfully giving away their authority to the EU. So why should immigrants or children of immigrants take them seriously?

If the world ever looks to supra-national insitutions for protection, I and others are convinced there will be a recognizable world religious movement with new religious symbolism representing the power and authority of the new “majestus“.  As events in the religious world shift before your eyes, ask yourself- in what will your grandchildren grow up believing and whom will they serve?

Normal people recoil from scenes of gruesome slaughter.  We remember the sight of people throwing themselves from the burning floors of the World Trade Center and every year September 11th comes around.  There are newspaper articles that remind us of the “tragedy”, as though it was some act of nature.  Earthquakes and hurricanes create tragedies; terrorists inflict carnage that result from purposeful acts of war- usually against against unarmed civilians for the purpose of creating horrified confusion.

Somehow it is easier to frame the burning twin towers as a tragedy because  jets were used as giant missiles in a manner that was impersonal, yet devastating.  Shooting innocent people requires the shooter to look at the victims’ eyes and the victim sees the face of his or her murderer.  In Mumbai many deaths came slowly; in many cases, the victim not only lived to experience the painful aftermath but will remember the horrified looks of surprise on the faces of loved ones and the faces of the young men that were sent to wound and kill as many as possible.

As in Mumbai, September 11th resulted in recriminations against our government, partisan bickering, denial that it could happen again and public discussions about whether the American government should suspend civil liberties and do away with traditional protection of privacy.  All kinds of proposals are on the table to protect the American people from an enemy that is already here in the homeland waiting to strike.  I just looked at the Brady gun control website and they have been telling us that gun shows are bad because that is where terrorists can buy guns! 

If the Brady campaign is really concerned about terrorists attacking with the automatic weapons similar to those that were deployed in Mumbai (they should be concerned but you cannot buy full automatics at gun shows)- Sarah Brady and friends should favor getting as many ordinary people that can be armed and trained out into public places with guns.  Keep in mind- there is nothing that says terrorist tactical teams cannot walk down your street doing the same thing they did in Mumbai.  Outlawing pistols or gun shows or high capacity magazines will not stop terrorists from acquiring whatever they need.  Most high powered modern weapons have been illegal in India since the days of British colonialism and the penalties for owning any weapons without licensing (very difficult) are very harsh.

The New York Times in an article entitled “Wounds Heal, but Grief Lingers in Mumbai“  observes that “grief has hardly dissipated from the wards of Mumbai’s largest public hospital. To travel down its spit-stained corridors is to witness physical wounds healing but mental ones that may linger for years.”

The article gives a fairly clear idea of what it feels like to survive being shot three times and then have your throat slit:

“The stitches have been removed from Harish Chandra’s neck. Mr. Chandra, a 56-year-old civil servant, has little trouble telling how one of the attackers held his forehead and slit his throat and how he saved himself by kneeing the man in the groin.”

Others will agonize over lost loved ones for the rest of their lives:

“But in a nearby ward, Malati Devi Gupta, a metal brace on her badly fractured left leg, cries out for her son and refuses to believe he is not coming back. “If you can arrange it, I just want to meet Vinod,” she tells a visitor. Vinod, relatives say, died in her lap, blood gurgling from his mouth, after being wounded by a grenade at Mumbai’s main train station on Nov. 26.”

The terrorists also caused a certain impact on the world because the tactic of deploying small arms caused a protracted period of horrified confusion.  Whereas terrorist bombings have previously caused more loss of life in India, the damage from a bombing is almost instantaneous. 

The inability to control anything once a bomb goes off makes it almost akin to an act of nature in the mind of the victim and the wider society.  But shooters moving people around in various parts of the city, executing large numbers over the course of hours and even days as others ran away created agony and desperation.  And anger toward the government for disarming the people and then standing helplessly before the apparently inexorable onslaught of terror.  In Beslan, Russia, terrorists created a similar protracted scenario of horror.  Beslan was carried out by men and women on September 1, 2004, claiming that they were serving God by declaring war on school children!  No place in the world is immune from these attacks!  The attackers eagerly anticipate murder of innocents in Asia, Europe, Africa and North America.

 “Kanish Chhabria, 11, found out that his parents had been killed at the Oberoi hotel when a friend sent him a condolence message on his Facebook page, according to the boy’s uncle, Ajay Chhabria,” according to the NY Times article.

The New York Times article analyzes class issues by quoting a doctor as to how victims’ economic status impacts the ability to deal with the emotional anguish of grief. “Better-educated victims are likely to be more traumatized because they often are more introspective.  They think more.”

What we need is less of this kind of “analysis” and more anger and indignation; less about “tragedy” and more about about how to make sure it does not happen here!  Has anyone seen an editorial in the New York Times or other major daily newspaper analyzing the possibility that such an attack could happen here in the U.S.  The attacks were very successful from the standpoint of the planners’ objective in executing the mayhem in Mumbai. 

They intended to accomplish much more killing but the emotional shock wave that has rocked the world and media and government reactions provide plenty of encouragement fpr the terrorists to do it again.  The action necessary to discourage further horrific scenarios in the U.S. is for a few average American citizens to drop the jihadists right where they stand. 

The United States is about the only place such a result is likely to happen.  We will not drop them in “gun-free” zones, however, unless many law abiding Americans decide to disobey the laws and carry our big .357 magnums. 44 mags and semi-auto pistols and little snub-nose revolvers, .380s and God only knows what other fire power our hard working, honest American citizens are carrying (many, including off-duty cops, are now keeping assault rifles in the trunks of their cars). 

Keep in mind that the enemy will shoot the men in blue first if they can.  Our police officers are training like never before- with AR-15 rifles, .40 caliber pistols and shot guns.  Surveys show that most police, including the higher levels in the chain of command, believe it is just a matter of time before we have a WMD or small arms attacks like Mumbai experienced.

“Wounds are healing, doctors expect many more patients to seek treatment for flashbacks, nightmares and insomnia.  Mr. Chandra, whose throat was slit, was also shot three times in the back. The last bullet, lodged in a kidney, was to be removed this week. But more than the pain from his injuries, he will have a hard time forgetting the viciousness of the attacker’s screaming curse as he cut Mr. Chandra’s neck. Several times in the past two decades, doctors here have rushed to treat victims of bombings and communal riots.”

The article continues:

The hospital took in what Dr. Upsani described as entire families of wounded people, most from the nearby Chhatrapati Shivaji train station, also known as Victoria station, where two attackers spent at least half an hour throwing grenades and shooting at travelers, shopkeepers, passers-by and the police.

Kalpana Pawar, 24 and shy, was initially told that her husband’s foot had been injured. Then the police showed up at her house with his body.

 “My mother-in-law is very old, and they didn’t want to alarm her,” said Mrs. Pawar, fidgeting nervously in an interview. Her husband, a police officer, was off duty and traveling through the train station when the attackers struck. A newspaper photographer saw him pick up an old rifle from a fellow officer and fire in vain at the two terrorists.

The attackers were better armed. They tracked down and killed Mr. Pawar, who was the family’s only breadwinner. “He used to call home during the day,” Mrs. Pawar said. “Sometimes I feel that he will call again.”

Everyone needs to listen to the testimony from Texas State Rep. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp who saw her parents killed in a restaurant.  The impassioned testimony at a Senate hearing describes how she could have stopped the cold blooded executions of her mom and dad if she had not been required to leave her pistol in her car.

We are currently investigating a pattern of county and local governments enacting emergency power provisions that violate RCW 9.41.290, the Washington State preemption statute.  For example, the City of Yakima just repealed or amended certain laws that violated the state preemption law but we learned subsequently that the City Attorney’s Office advised the City to retain the following emergency powers:Chapter 6.06

EMERGENCY POWERS OF MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER

(7) An order prohibiting the possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person’s place of residence or business;

Such statutory provisions are in direct violation of State Preemption:

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

Yakima no longer has such a statute on the books.  But King County Code presently includes the following:

B. Upon the proclamation of an emergency by the executive, and during the existence of such emergency, the executive may make and proclaim any or all of the following orders:

9. An order prohibiting the carrying or possession of firearms or any instrument which is capable of producing bodily harm and which is carried or possessed with intent to use the same to cause such harm; provided that any such order shall not apply to peace officers or military personnel engaged in the performance of their official duties;

King County Code 12.52.030 (9)

Contact your local law enforcement and city and county lawmakers if such a law has been enacted where you live and contact us to let us know what responses, if any, that you receive.  We have been involved professionally with clients and citizen activists in successfully advocating changes in both the Federal Way and Yakima codes by simply informing honest public servants that some local laws are illegal.  Both jurisdictions are either in compliance now or are coming into compliance. 

As stated above, we were told that Yakima repealed the above referenced emergency powers statute and then we got word that a city attorney had advised the Yakima City Council to retain the emergency powers.  We will be posting a report detailing who and what transpired during the Council’s open and closed sessions on September 1, 2009.  If Yakima has a future emergency and illegally arrests gun owners that are lawfully exercising rights under state law (including the Washington State Constitution) the gun owners will certainly seek attorney’s fees and costs.  The federal courts ordered the City of New Orleans to pay huge fees and costs for its unlawful confiscations in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Citizen gun activists have brought about similar code changes in other Washington cities and counties.  You can ascertain much about the status of firearms laws in various localities and other information at http://opencarry. mywowbb.com/ forum55/20452. html.

The Governor has emergency powers that enable her to ban guns outside the home during a state of emergency:

 (1) The governor after proclaiming a state of emergency and prior to terminating such, may, in the area described by the proclamation issue an order prohibiting:
     (e) The possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person’s place of residence or business;

While the above referenced state law is not in violation of the state preemption statute, residents of Washington state (and our lawmakers) should be considering the way in which residents of New Orleans experienced a massive gun confiscation during the emergency following Hurricane Katrina.  The NRA and many state legislators all over the United States have worked together to get laws enacted to prevent just such a confiscation in a number of states.  Nevertheless, in Washington state, we are at the mercy of the Governor because, although there is proposed legislation modeled after the NRA endorsed legislation, it is unlikely it will ever get reported out of committee!