Tea Party Organizers Educational Forum. Our Mission is to Educate & Organize.
For those subjects that just don't quite fit any of the other ones--haha
Welcome to all Visitors.--
Please note: If and when I use caps. or underscore any of my posts---
Please know that I am attempting to " emphasize " only, and am NOT HOLLERING--OK?
Please show all links or sourses of your info--Let 'er Rip. Thanks, Landel
I am glad Gorsuch made it in. I think he will rule according to the Constitution which won't always go along with the Republicans. I think he will fair and make good decisions. It will be interesting. Now I hope another one will retire mainly a Democrat and that will make it a Supreme Court that I hope will follow the Constitution and not what they think!
I just wanted to tell you that I traveled to CA and will be here until I travel back to UT on Monday or Tuesday.
Park Service: Illegals destroying federal lands, unsafe for camping!
U.S. Border Patrol vehicles come and go from a checkpoint in Arizona.
Illegal immigration and drug running have destroyed border parklands, further threatened two species on the endangered list and led federal officials to bar visitors and campers in areas considered too dangerous to visit, according to newly released reports.
In studies of two parks that make up less than 90 miles of the Arizona-Mexico border, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service said that the areas have been ripped up with thousands of miles of unauthorized roads from vehicles that have crushed plants and animal habitat.
What's more, fires started by illegals have burned hundreds of acres of forestland and mountains of drugs, trash and abandoned cars and trucks have been found.
The reports, written before the huge surge of illegal immigration in the final years of the Obama administration, were released to Secrets by Immigration Reform Law Institute, and back up the Trump administration's push for a border fencing.
The 2011 studies of the impact of illegal immigration crossings on the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge were released to IRLI under the Freedom of Information Act.
The reports reveal that when fencing is erected, human and vehicle traffic drop dramatically and help the impacted areas recover. Just last week, the nation's former top Border Patrol agent testified before a Senate committee that more recent fencing in the area cut illegal traffic 94 percent and "actually allowed for the rejuvenation of areas that had previously been devastated due to heavy illegal pedestrian and vehicular traffic."
The focus on the damage done to protected ecosystems by illegal immigration could help the Trump administration push back on worries from environmental groups that a border fence or wall would hurt endangered species.
While those claims are based simply on concerns a wall would run through habitat areas of endangered species, possibly disrupting how they travel or grow, the two FOIA'd reports are in depth studies of the real impact of illegal immigration and demonstrate the value of a wall to protecting endangered species, rare plant life as well as visitors and campers.
Both agencies said that much of the damage is done by illegals traveling in cars and trucks, and especially when they get into chases with border agents.
The National Park Service, for example, said that fences "have reduced the illegal access by vehicles through the desert and have almost eliminated high speed pursuits on Hwy 85" that runs through Organ Pipe.
The FWS said with a fence, Border Patrol chases would be reduced. Damages, it said, "would not be occurring if illegal activity were not occurring in the area."
Other key findings in the reports:
Some 7,968 miles of unauthorized vehicle roads and trails were mapped in Cabeza Prieta.
It has further endangered the Sonoran pronghorn in both areas, of which there were just 21 in 2002. "Our concern is that smuggling and interdiction activities have resulted in significant impacts to wilderness character, and put other trust resources such as the federally endangered Sonoran pronghorn at risk."
"Past research of vehicle use in off-road areas have demonstrated significant impacts to soils, plants, and wildlife. Many of the direct and indirect effects currently occurring on the refuge are yet to be quantified.
Direct impact concerns include: soil compaction, increased soil erosion, damage to soil crusts, altered hydrological processes, disruption of migration patterns for Sonoran pronghorn and other wildlife, wildlife mortality, damage to vegetation from vehicle impacts, damage to cultural resources and degradation of wilderness values.
Indirect impact concerns include: alteration to the entire biotic community within CPNWR."
— In the Organ Pipe Cactus wilderness, "the effects of these activities are visible throughout the monument. We have documented thousands of miles of unauthorized roads and trails. We also deal with trash, graffiti, abandoned vehicles, vandalism, invasive plants and animals, altered ecological processes and degraded habitats."
US intercepts more Russian bombers near Alaska
Two F-22 stealth fighter jets intercepted two Russian TU-85 "Bear" bombers in international airspace. The jets flew beside the bombers before breaking contact.
U.S. aircraft have intercepted long-range Russian bombers near Alaska for the second time in as many days, according to media reports Wednesday.
The incident occurred about 36 miles off the coast — closer than an incident on Monday — CNN reported, but the incident was not immediately confirmed by the Pentagon.
"They are testing U.S. resolve by sending their bombers toward the United States," said Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee told the network.
On Monday, two F-22 stealth fighter jets intercepted two Russian TU-85 "Bear" bombers in international airspace. The jets flew beside the bombers before breaking contact.
There was no evidence the Russian aircraft were armed and they did not violate U.S. airspace during the earlier incident, defense officials said.
Nikki Haley: Trump’s Syria Strike was his “Finest Hour”
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday that the Trump administration intended to build on last week’s missile strikes and ratchet up pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.
“We want to continue to have the backs of our allies,” she said. “You are going to see pressure on the political solution. In no way do we look at peace happening in that area with Iranian influence. In no way do we see peace in that area with Russia covering up for Assad. In no way do we see peace in that area with Assad as the head of the Syrian government. And we have to make sure that we’re pushing that process.”
Haley said it was disgusting to watch Russia’s reaction to the chemical attack, seeing their “first priority was to cover for Assad.”
“Russia’s reaction was not, ‘Oh how horrible,’ or, ‘How could they do this to innocent children,’ or, ‘How awful is that?'” she said. “Their initial reaction was, ‘Assad didn’t do it. The Syrian government didn’t do it.’ Why were they that defensive that quick? The idea of the casualties came after.”
Haley praised Trump’s response to the attack, calling the strike “his finest hour since taking office, because he was very thoughtful about it.”
It remains to be seen how President Trump will follow up the surprising strike; others in the administration have said the focus will now return to the original priority; defeating ISIS in Mosul and Raqqa and allowing the political process to play out as it pertains to the Assad regime. Meanwhile, some in the Republican Party such as Sen. John McCain, are calling on Trump to pursue both goals.
As a candidate, Donald Trump criticized the use of the U.S. military when it came to interfering in Middle Eastern affairs, and he was skeptical of Obama’s actions in both Syria and Libya. On the Sunday shows, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hinted at that position, saying there was no material change in policy, strikes or no strikes. He said that the Trump administration would continue to learn the lessons of Iraq and Libya and keep the military’s focus on destroying ISIS.
If Assad is to be removed from power, it may first require Trump to put a divide between Putin, Syria, and Iran. That, in turn, could require the removal of economic sanctions against Moscow, and that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.
In the meantime, Thursday’s strikes proved that Trump is not afraid to take decisive action, even if it means disappointing a block of his supporters. That may not please everyone, but it shows him to be a true leader.
Who can seriously complain?
YES WE DO! A REAL PRESIDENT FOR A CHANGE
Socialist Tyrant Strips Citizens Of Guns, Then Sends His Militia On Attack.
Members of the Bolivarian Militia jump to music during their seventh anniversary celebration, in front of the Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas, Venezuela, Monday, April 17, 2017.
The natural right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment was previously reflected in the English Bill of Rights (which also saw it as a preexisting right).
That right was written down after Kings and Parliaments disarmed their opposition and raised their own militias to quash political foes.
It looks like Venezuela’s socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro is trying to play from that despicable centuries-old playbook, arming up his loyalist militia to put down the citizens his nation has disarmed.
Embattled Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro announced plans Monday to expand the number of civilians involved in armed militias as tensions in the crisis-wracked South American nation continued to rise.
Maduro said he hopes to expand the number of civilians involved in the Bolivarian militias created by the late Hugo Chavez to 500,000, up from the current 100,000, and provide each member with a gun.
Speaking to thousands of militia members dressed in beige uniforms gathered in front of the presidential palace to mark the force’s seventh anniversary, Maduro said it is time for Venezuelans to decide if they are “with the homeland” or against it.
“Now is not the time to hesitate,” he said.
The announcement comes as Maduro’s opponents are gearing up for what they pledge will be the largest rally yet to press for elections and a host of other demands Wednesday.
Thousands of Venezuelans have taken to the streets since the Supreme Court stripped the National Assembly of its last vestiges of power nearly three weeks ago, a decision it later reversed. At least five people have been killed, dozens hurt and more than 100 detained in the demonstrations.
Tyrants have always disarmed the general citizenry to protect their own power bases, and have built their power bases by co-opting the military. In many instances, they’ll also form militias out of their cult followers, using them as a force to either cancel-out the military if they think military leadership may oppose them, or in cases where they don’t want dirty tricks linked to the government directly, they use these militias to tyrannize the citizenry into compliance with the fig leaf of having plausible deniability.
In Venezuela, it appears Maduro is going straight Third World strongman, and is using his militia to terrorize his citizens into compliance, even as his socialist policies destroy one of the richest nations in South America (in terms of natural resources).
Intelligent citizenries with a sense of history will never listen to governments that demand they disarm “for the common good.”
The “common good” is always abused by dictators and tyrants.
Demonstrations are turning bloody in Venezuela even now, and a teenager was murdered by one of Maduro’s armed militiamen in Caracas today.
He will not be the last to fall, in a nation that unwisely listened to the government’s demand to disarm.
NRA Hits the Field to Defend National Reciprocity Legislation.
The NRA is amping up their defense in an effort to push legislation for National Reciprocity.
In a new video on NRA TV, the NRA-ILA Executive Director makes the case for the legislation by comparing it to an outspoken opponent of the NRA: The New York Times.
“If 10 states made it a felony to read The New York Times, the media would run the story 24/7 until Congress fixed the assault on the First Amendment. But when 10 states criminalize the Second Amendment, the media says nothing,” said Chris Cox. “They don’t report that honest, well-meaning people—nurses, stay-at-home moms, veterans, even a disaster relief worker—have been charged with felonies for simply having a lawfully owned firearm.”
Cox ends his commentary vowing to stand up for America’s 100 million gun owners: “we will fight until the full measure of our Second Amendment freedom is restored to every citizen in every corner of the land.”
Watch the full video here:
This Lawsuit Could Shatter ALL Federal Gun Control Laws.
The federal trial of a Kansas man for manufacturing and selling firearms and silencers without a federal license could very well turn out to be the pivotal case that not only challenges the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934, but also every federal firearms law ever passed in a battle that will determine whether it is the states or the federal government that has the constitutional right to pass gun laws.
Put bluntly, this could be huge.
When Shane Cox began selling his homemade firearms and silencers out of his military surplus store, he stamped “Made in Kansas” on them to assure buyers that a Kansas law would prevent federal prosecution of anyone owning firearms made, sold and kept in the state.
The 45-year-old Chanute resident also handed out copies to customers of the Second Amendment Protection Act passed in 2013 by the Kansas Legislature and signed by Gov. Sam Brownback, and even collected sales taxes. His biggest selling item was unregistered gun silencers that were flying out of the shop as fast as Cox could make them, prosecutors said later. One of those customers – 28-year-old Jeremy Kettler of Chanute – was so enthusiastic about the silencer that he posted a video on Facebook.
But last week a jury found Cox guilty of violating federal law for the manufacture, sale and possession of unregistered firearms and silencers. Jeremy Kettler was found guilty on one count for possessing the unregistered silencer.
The case could reverberate across the country because it cites the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, pitting the federal government’s right to regulate firearms against the rights of states.
The judge overseeing the case expects it ultimately to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
At trial, defense attorneys contended their clients believed the Kansas law made their activities legal, arguing they are “caught in the crossfire” of the struggle between the state and the federal government over gun control.
Cox and Kettler were convicted under the National Firearms Act, which is a part of the Internal Revenue code enacted under Congress’ power to levy taxes. The case raises the question of whether that taxing authority can be used to regulate firearms that stay within state borders. Advocates for state’s rights also contend such guns do not fall under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.
After a decades-long wait, we finally appear to have a case that is likely to see the United States Supreme Court have to directly examine whether the Founding Fathers meant what they said when they wrote amendments to a federal Constitution that was designed to tightly bind and constrict the reach of the federal government.
What most 21st Century Americans simply do not grasp is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not written to give rights to the citizens of our then-new nation, but was instead written to tightly constrain the federal government.
The Founders had just won a long and brutal war against a far-away foreign government, and the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were locked in a power struggle on just how much power the federal government in a swamp on the Potomac River would be allowed to have. The Federalists were concerned that the federal government would be anemic and far too weak to be of any use at all, while the Anti-Federalists wanted the power to remain where they felt it belonged, with the states, so that the people in each state could determine what is best for that state’s citizens.
The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to placate the concerns of the Anti-Federalists, and was meant to be ten strong chains binding down the then-puny federal leviathan to prevent future abuses.
The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights was written by Founding Fathers who understood the right to bear arms as a natural human right that the Creator bestowed upon each and every human being.
How can there be any other right, if the right to defend your life is not the most paramount right of them all?
They almost felt it silly to have to codify a natural right that was so obviously self-evident to them, but knowing that a federal government unchained is a federal government tyrannical, they ratified the basic human right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Founders and following generations thought this to be very clear language. They recognized a well-armed and well-trained citizenry as the well-regulated militia, and that having citizens both well-armed and well-trained with military-grade arms was imperative to the survival of the young Republic not just against foreign nations and native tribes, but also the ever-hungry, ever-corrupting desire of nation-states to grow and seize power for themselves, turning citizens into subjects, and subjects into slaves with both edicts and chains figurative and literal.
That the Second Amendment meant the federal government in Washington had no power to constrain or regulate arms was unquestioned reality for the first 143 years of our Republic, and then the Democrats of the 1930s, under the disreputable and dishonorable Franklin D. Roosevelt, decided that the Constitution and Bill of Rights no longer mattered.
FDR and his congress were bound and determined to enslave the states to the will of his federal government, and the National Firearms Act of 1934 was a direct challenge to the sovereignty of the states to make laws regarding firearms. It was also a thumb in the eye of the Founders who had clearly written the Second Amendment to mean that the federal government was constrained from passing gun laws.
That’s precisely what the Founders meant when they wrote that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” upon by the federal government.
Quite simply, the Congress and President lack the constitutional authority to pass any gun laws.
Not a single one.
The only federal challenge to the constitutionality of National Firearms Act to date was U.S. vs Miller in 1939, which was uncontested when neither the defendant nor his attorney showed before the federal court. As a result, we’ve never had these federal gun laws challenged on the fundamental level.
If Cox and Kettler’s attorneys see this challenge through the courts, we can expect it to arrive before a U.S. Supreme Court in several years time. It will be a high court shaped by the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, and the organization that spent more money than any other to help him win the Presidency, the National Rifle Association.
If President Trump and a Republican-controlled Senate put a textualist judge on the high court to replace Antonin Scalia, and any or all or the three elderly liberal-to-moderate justices are replaced by textualists before Cox and Kettler come before the high court, there would seem to be a high likelihood that a strict reading of the Constitution and Second Amendment would regard the National Firearms Act as clearly being an unconstitutional usurpation of powers reserved for the states.
If the “Trump Court” is composed of a textualist majority and the cult of the “living Constitution” dies off, then there is a very strong possibility that the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, and the proposed National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act—literally every federal gun law, both for gun rights and for gun control—will be thrown out in short order as unconstitutional laws Congress never had the authority to pass, or laws that the federal government has the authority to enforce.
It’s going to be very tempting for most of the nation to celebrate such an affirmation of states rights, but it’s also important to realize that as the Supreme Court strikes down federal powers to pass gun laws, it simultaneously places those powers in the hands of state governments, and not all state governments were smart enough to mirror the natural right to bear arms reflected in the Second Amendment.
While recognizing the Second Amendment’s intent to outlaw federal gun control is undoubtably a good thing for the nation overall, I cannot pretend to have a crystal ball to foresee what that might mean on the state level, and what that may mean in states who refuse to treat their citizens as anything other than subjects.
We indeed live in interesting times, and I look forward to living in a world where the Supreme Court upholds the laws of the land, and not the whims of activists in robes.
SOCOM Looks to Ditch 7.62 NATO For Better Long Range Performance.
SOCOM has seen the light, and is finally looking to drop the 7.62 NATO in favor of a lighter and better-performing rifle in a 6.5 short-action caliber.
Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action sniper rifle systems.
Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the .260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
Research shows that both rounds will “stay supersonic longer, have less wind drift and better terminal performance than 7.62 mm ammunition,” SOCOM officials said.
Hauquitz said that the research is focused on the popularity and availability of the cartridge, and finding out the benefits and drawbacks of the different rounds.
At the same time, SOCOM is working to develop polymer ammunition in 6.5 mm to reduce the load for operators, Hauquitz said. Research is showing a one-third weight reduction for 7.62 mm ammunition, allowing the 6.5 mm to come in at 5.56 mm weight ranges.
Is anyone seeing signs of a clear trend here?
The Army is already looking to bring back battle rifles and widely distribute them among the troops, at the same time they’re replacing their semi-automatic sniper rifles with a HK descendent of the AR-10 that isn’t really a sniper rifle.
After more than half a century of service, the Army seems to be losing faith in the 5.56 NATO round as a viable caliber for the long term. They’re looking at rounds such as the .260 Remington and 6.5 Creedmoor in an AR-10 sized battle rifle, and the Army Marksmanship Unit has been running an “AR-12,” (a AR-type rifle between the AR-15 and AR-10 in size) in the experimental .264 USA.
While it’s far too soon to guess at what this means for the long term, the three very similar stories strong suggests that the U.S. military is looking to transition away from the 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO cartridges to a single polymer-cased round in the 6.5mm family that will weigh no more than the 5.56 NATO, but will out perform it at short range, and the 7.62 NATO at longer ranges.
I like the idea of the military moving towards a cartridge with at least an 800 meter range so that our soldiers aren’t being badly outgunned by foes equipped with 7.62x54R rifles and machine guns that have roughly 300 meters more of an effective range than our 5.56 rounds. In a perfect world, I’d love for our troops to b able to field a 7-9 pound rifle capable of engaging enemy soldiers at 1,000 meters and area targets at long ranges than that, but I don’t think equipping our troops with a sub-MOA rifle with a 1,000 meter range is going to make a bit of difference unless we radically reshape marksmanship training in the Army.
I’ve trained Iraq War and Afghan War veterans when I was an instructor at Project Appleseed‘s home range.
The Marines we had (typically from Camp Lejeune) were typically squared away and could pick up our slung rifle marksmanship techniques pretty quickly, because Marine culture emphasizes individual marksmanship.
Our Army guys (typically from Fort Bragg) fell into one of two camps. Special Forces guys tended to be very competent and mastered what we had to offer very quickly, and shot “Rifleman” (expert) during their first Appleseed weekend.
“Regular Army” guys and National Guardsmen tended to be pretty cocky until the shooting started.
They quickly learned that shooting at a target one-inch square at 25 yards can be very humbling if you haven’t mastered the fundamentals of shooting, and quite frankly, the Army simply doesn't teach that, and hasn’t in a very long time.
I think that equipping SOCOM unit with accurized rifles and extended-range 6.5mm cartridges make sense, as these troops have the training (or can get the training) to actually use these longer-range cartridges to good effect.
I’m not so sure that equipping soldiers with a rifle capable of 1,000 meter hits when the soldiers themselves don’t have the skills to make consistent hits at 300 meters makes a lot of sense.
If the U.S. military is interested in equipping our soldiers with longer-range weapons, they greatly need to increase the training budget and quality of training for our troops.
I don’t care how good a weapon system is, if it’s put in the hands of someone who lacks the skill to use it, it’s a waste of money.
The Army’s Newest Sniper Rifle, Isn’t A Sniper Rifle!
The iconic image of a military sniper is similar to the one above, where the muzzle of a highly-accurized bolt-action rifle pokes out between blades of long grass and the rough burlap of a ghillie suit.
So why is the U.S. Army purchasing something that’s less accurate and shorter-ranged?
The Army has chosen a new semi-automatic sniper rifle, replacing the M110 which entered service in 2008.
According to reports by the Army Times, the winning rifle was the Heckler & Koch G28. According to the the company’s website, the G28 is a version of the HK 417 battle rifle — itself a variation of the AR-10 rifle.
Amusingly, Heckler & Koch doesn’t consider the G28 a sniper rifle.
The G28 is a military version of the civilian semi automatic competition rifle MR308. Deployed in the established 7.62 x 51 calibre, the “Designated Marksman Rifle” (DMR) ensures accuracy of 1.5 MOA whilst enabling a full night fighting capability. Providing a maximum effective range and a high first round hit probability up to 600 meters, the G28 will also allow suppressive fire against man size targets accurately up to 800 meters.
This came after a 2014 request for proposals for a more compact version of the M110. The M110 is being replaced despite the fact that it was named one of the Army’s “Best 10 Inventions” in 2007, according to M110 manufacturer Knight’s Armament website.
So, what is behind the replacement of a rifle that was widely loved by soldiers after it replaced the M24 bolt-action system? According to Military.com, it was to get something less conspicuous as a sniper rifle. The M110 is 13 inches longer than a typical M4 carbine, something an enemy sniper would be able to notice.
A designated marksman rifle (DMR) is a shorter-ranged, slightly less-accurate system designed to be used by sharpshooters within infantry platoons and squads, to provide accurate, longer-ranged aimed fires than are possible with the current generation of intermediate-caliber assault rifles. They are not as accurate as true sniper rifles (which today are capable of of sub-MOA accuracy with factory ammunition), and military snipers have been moving away from 7.62 NATO for some time due to the shortcomings of the cartridge. More recently, American military snipers have used the .300 Winchester Magnum, .338 Lapua Magnum, and .50 BMG cartridges.
So why are we adopting another semi-automatic sniper rifle, when we’re saving 2.5″ and three pounds?
I have a guess.
The G28 also would seem to fit the role of another weapon system that the U.S. Army is interesting in reviving, that of the battle rifle. The G28 is at heart a battle rifle, and would presumably be a contender for a much wider deployment in that role. Adopting the G28 as a sniper rifle would let the Army put the weapon through it’s paces before adopting it as the Army’s new battle rifle.
It’s important to note that the Army’s new battle rifle is a mid-term solution, and only for an interim period. Both the current generation of assault rifles and the interim battle rifles will eventually be replaced by a next-generation assault rifles featuring longer-ranged intermediate-caliber cartridge like the .264 USA, which has longer range than the 7.62 NATO and more power than the 5.56 NATO.