summer patriot, winter soldier

join the n.r.a. ...

my very dear friends:

1.)  join the national rifle association right now.  to do so is to help preserve your liberties.

2.)  read http://www.atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com .  i do, every day, often times more than 3 or 4 times to keep up with the volume of posts.  it is informative & provocative, and never dull.  ev-uh!!

3.)  vote against barrack obama.  he is a threat to your liberty.  vote against him in the most meaningful way by votiing for john mccain, which, by my lights, is not a terribly happy choice, but is the best choice under the circumstances.

4.)  invest in precious metals.  brass, lead, and copper come readily to mind.  invest in organic chemicals, such as those branded by dupont, hodgdon, imr, and others.  buy as many firearms as you can, before your right to purchase them is curtailed: do not let them be confiscated, and do anything, including breaking the law, to prevent such.  any police officer acting in conformity with any law who tries to take your guns is not your friend or protector, he is enforcing your oppression, and morally and ethically you should not obey him: he is your enemy.

john jay, july 12, 2008.

the militia: bulwark of freedom

the militia: bulwark of freedom.

major general raymond “fred” rees is adjutant general of the oregon national guard.  he is a graduate of the united states military academy, west point, new york, after having grown up and educated in helix, oregon, just down the road from my home in milton freewater, and near adams and athena, and a couple of grain elevators well known to us locals.  it is safe to say that he is a small town boy who has made good, to the extent of having his own helicopter to fly around in, getting all the free “$400 haircuts” a guy could ever want from military barbers, and exercising considerable authority in a very complicated chain of command involving the largest military force in the world.  (more on that later.)  he is a military man through and through, but he is also informal enough that he has been known to walk into national guard armories in his jeans during those periods while he is home attending the family farm near helix, and to tell soldiers springing to attention to knock it off, that it is just “fred”: he has not shed the “aw, shucks” aspects of his rural upbringing.  i suspect he would not be reluctant to order those same soldiers into battle.  i happen to know all these things because i went to law school with him, where he was always dressed “high & tight,” and because i just got done talking to a uniformed soldier at the local armory about fred who told me that he still is quite informal, and that he turned down a promotion and billeting to washington d.c. as a three star general in the national guard command structure.  he chose to stay in command of the soldiers of his home state, i suspect because he simply chose to retain those ties to the land and people of north east oregon, such ties always involving great bonds of loyalty, and always inhibiting personal ambition and the lures of advancement.  he is, from all indications, an oregonian, first and foremost.  it is an odd concept these days in some places, ties to an upbringing and a land running ahead of career and personal advancement and “perks,” out of vogue, surely, but not dead.

to say that the soldier at the armory is personally motivated by loyalty to a commander he likes and respects is an understatement of very large dimensions.  and i have no doubt that the feeling is wide spread up and down the chain of command in the oregon national guard.  it would be an interesting thing to see if fred rees’s ties to oregon were as strong as robert e. lee’s to virginia, and whether the soldiers and the officers of the oregon national guard, (read that as the oregon militia, because that is what it is) were tied to fred rees to the same degree as the soldiers of virginia were tied to robert e. lee.

if you know men, you know that it is not an absurd question, nor a small matter.

and, if you know your history and political science, you will know that the issue of a militia troop’s loyalty to its officers was not a small question to the founders of this country as it pertained to maintaining the liberties of a citizenry, nor was it an absurd matter to those considering whether or not militia troops would fight a standing army maintained by the federal government to prevent the central government from imposing tyranny.  (if you think the militia an old & outmoded concept, i will remind you that a goodly number of the soldiers who fought in the civil war were members of privately raised, funded, uniformed, trained and commanded militia groups, taken up into the general chain of command.  depending on state constitutions and court decisions, i am not totally convinced that it could not be the same again under some circumstances: find a village common, some rifle and some kewpie hats, and you could be right back in business, as silly as it sounds to say.)(maybe somebody out there might know when the last privately subscribed militia fought under the aegis of the united states, and in what conflict.  my guess is teddy roosevelt and the “rough riders” in the spanish-american war.  any thoughts on this?)

fred rees is also a lawyer, and practiced briefly in pendleton, oregon before falling sway to his original calling and going back into the military.  i do not know if he maintains his membership in the oregon state bar, but would not be surprised to find out that he does.

i am going to switch focus here for a little bit.

liberals decry the american conquest of the north american continent, not the least component of which was the conquest and destruction of the american indian tribes and their ability to wage war upon the settlers and soldiers who overran their land, to the point of their near annihilation.  judged from about any perspective it was simply displacing indigenous people and shoving them aside, to make room for the occupation of the continent by the exponents of european civilization: i am not going to place “civilization” in quotes, as some do, as i view that civilization as the greatest and best hope, even yet, for the advancement of mankind.  even so, it cannot be gainsaid that the conquest of the land was at the expense of the indians.  as for myself, i tend to take the longer more detached view of things, and see it as near inevitability given the relative strengths of the two civilizations as they struggled over possession of the land and who would exercise dominion and control over it, but, then again, i am not an indian.

it seems to me, therefore, something of an irony that most liberals and leftists do not decry with equal fervor the muslim conquest of the west, both in the form of outright jihad and the terror campaign waged on all fronts all over the world, and in terms of the demographic assault by immigration and prolific birthrate by which islam sweeps aside the indigenous populations wherever they go.  that this is a conscious conquest by islam is left to no doubt given the pronouncements of imams and ayatollahs the world over, who declare this the precise aim of islam.  in simple point of fact, the modus oprendi of islam has been to insinuate itself into a country, mind its own business while it grows it populations, and then at a certain point to agitate for increased influence and privilege, and then at a certain point to overtly and violently seek political and social control of a locale.   once such dominance is achieved, then islam’s institutional control is cemented and all opposition is annihilated.

pundits on the left and the right shun the phrase “clash of civilizations” even when they are willing to talk of the underlying realities of the situation, but this is precisely what it amounts to.  it is war between the christian/jewish west and the muslim middle east, for dominion and control over the european and american continents, and to the extent that i pay any attention at all as to what is going on in south america and the carribean, it seems to be a conflict in full heat in those regions as well.  and, viewed in this matter, with apologies to and no intent to slight the inhabitants of china and the indian subcontinent, the contest between islam and thechristianit/jewish west is a contest for the domination of the world.  it is, in reality, a contest between the united states & israel, and the islamic world, for the conquest of the world.  europe and russia and japan for reasons of demographics are simply spoils, as they near inevitable collapse: they cannot muster enough interest in existence to replicate.

i see little difference in the campaign by americans to wrest control of north america from its indigenous populations and the campaign by islam to wrest control of europe and north america from the populations who succeeded to “indigenous” status when the land was taken by them.  in this, we see the course of history repeated, as the history of mankind has been the history of successive waves of invasion and conquest and consolidation and decline, the latter stage inviting the beginning of the entire process all over again.  both campaigns for control were fed by a supreme confidence that the conquest was right and good and proper, and destined, the conquest being viewed by americans under the rubric of “manifest destiny,” and the matter being seen by islam in precisely the same way, as a predetermined religious destiny.

in the present battle for north american and europe, between the islamic middle east and the “christian” west, the west would appear at a distinct disadvantage in terms of the very loose, casual and limp wristed assertion of the worth of its values and beliefs, the “christian” aspect of religious and cultural faith having almost disappeared under hundreds of years of cultural onslaught from leftist doctrine and religious indifference. Islam, by contrast, is at a high water mark in terms of the strength of the belief in its value structure and religion, by its adherents and exponents.  oddly enough, the western left, though avowedly believing in nothing and asserting that nothing of the west is to be believed in, or adhered to, has allied itself with islam and generally asserts the superior moral and intellectual position of islam in most adversarial contexts: it is a curious example of the prisoner sharpening the knife for his executioner, because the first persons to go under the knives of muslim conquers will be their leftist enablers. 

islam believes very fervently that it has the firm grip on the tiller of destiny, even though the west could send islam’s ambitions into oblivion in mere seconds, were it possessed of sufficient self confidence and belief in its moral authority to exercise such power readily as its disposal to secure its own place in the world.  the paradox is that while the west retains the military power to completely destroy islam in seconds, it possesses insufficient belief in its own right of self existence to exercise that power.

right, wrong or indifferently inaccurate on the subject, i believe it is because the west has been almost totally abandoned by its leaders and elites, who have fallen prey to the siren songs of moral relativism as spouted by the left for the last 100 years or so.  moreover, i believe the left has made a concerted effort to take over and control the various institutions in our country (a strange assertiveness on the part of people who professedly believe in nothing) and in the west that will allow them to exercise an abject surrender of western interests in the favor of multiculturalism and to the interests of islam.  oddly enough, islam has been very skillful at piggybacking its way into following the path and parameters of the same cultural assault, and, to a limited extent, may be seen as insinuating itself into the same institutions to further its conquest, this insinuation being most obvious in the academe, and the federal bureaucracy: not the least surprising, is the success of the same insinuation into the ecumenical religious institutions and bureaucracies, where multiculturalism and a “brotherhood” and “religious tolerance” ridiculously beneficial to islam rules the day.

there is one difference between the present context and the prior and most recent conquest of north america by the forces of european civilization.  in my view it is quite material, and relevant to the discussion soon to be at hand.  and, that is, i do not intend to give in to the forces of islam, and i surrender nothing to them.  and, there is a further difference.  not only will i fight to oppose islam, but i will fight those who do not oppose islam, and who counsel what in effect is surrender to islam.  and, it should be added, i mean “fight” quite literally.

if i may shift the focus of this again, just a bit.

the views of the left in the halls of academia, in the bureaucratic groves, in the backrooms of government, in the temples of religion and in the exercise of the tremendous influence of the media and the entertainment industry have placed the security of the west and of our liberties in great peril, as they have weakened societal confidence in its own values, and greatly diminished the natural assertiveness of people to defend their values.  it is pernicious.  one will not defend what he does not believe in, and if a populace believes in nothing, it will not defend itself: this is the great lesson to be taken from the fall of europe.  the same views insinuated into our government, turn governmental institutions into hiring halls for nihilists and defeatists, who believe fervently that nothing is worth fighting for.  in effect, were our government entirely infected with these views, beset by a tired relativism and cynicism that cannot see the pursuit of policies consistent with western and american values,  it would render government into an aider and abettor, enabler, and perhaps an outright accomplice to the islamic conquest of the west and the united states.  (i have not forgotten israel.  i simply have become tired of appending “… destruction of israel and annihilation of the jews …” to every sentence i write.)

in my view.  you may accept or deride it as you wish. 

this view may be the view of a partisan sour looser, who does not like to see the reins of power in this country pass from the hands of those to whom he feels emotional and intellectual compatibility, to the likes of barrack obama, nancy pelosi and harry reid, not to mention the soon to be departed teddy kennedy.  but, i see in the machinations of those who would curtail our gun rights via international treaty in the face of protections enshrined in the constitutional fabric of our nation and history, and in the machinations of u.n. bureaucrats who hold human rights violations hearings featuring islamic speakers who decry political oppression in this country, very dangerous signs that these worthies and others wish to curtail ancient and important anglo-saxon rights and privileges in order to clear the way for those who would usurp our liberties.  wonderful word, “usurp,” kind of out of fashion in this day and age, but used frequently in a more enlightened age: it means to illegitimately or illegally seize power and authority, or to suppress the expression of another’s legal right.

we arrive at my original concerns.

what if our government and supporting institutions are wholly occupied and taken over by persons who are inimically hostile to the heritage of political right and liberty asserted by the citizens on this country, and inimically hostile to our intellectual, political and social heritage for the last 400 years or so of anglo-saxon history, in this country and in england.  (“england” is a rhetorical devise used a short hand for the history of our general culture, and no attempt is made to assert that “england” really exists any more except within our historical context, the country itself having vanished in any meaningful sense some time ago, the precise point of its disappearance not being known: all i know with any conviction is that it is gone.)

the precise question posed by this paper, focuses solely on the decisions that major general fred rees and his cohorts in the regular army command of the united states and the various national guard units will make, should this usurpation come to pass.[1]

this question did not go unconsidered at the formation of our county.  the concerns behind this question were the concerns of the founders, and openly discussed by them, and they thought that in the structure of the government they proposed and in the history of the nation of men they sought to govern, lay the protections against such usurpers, such would-be tyrants. 

central to their conceptions lay the notion of a people jealous of their right and liberty, and overtly hostile to any attempts by those seizing and using the central authority to curtail that right and privilege.

the federalist papers, authored anonymously under the penname “publius” by james madison, alexander hamilton and john jay, are considered organic documents of our system of government, on very nearly equal footing as the constitution itself and the declaration of independence.   these various articles, authored as part of the public debate over the ratification of of the constitution, and in support of same, are considered the definitive interpretations on the functions of our government, and are prized for their insights into the political and social implications supporting the structure of the institutions comprising our government.

in articles 28 and 29 of the federalist papers, alexander hamilton, writing as “publius” considered the roles of the various state militias in combating those who would use the very organs of the national government  itself to try and usurp and curtail the liberties of the people.  now, as a preface,  it must be noted that the authors of the federalist papers were not just ordinary commentators, but some of the preeminent politicians, scholars and political thinkers of the day: they were and are among the luminaries of our history, simply put.  john jay took part in negotiating the peace of paris which ended the revolutionary war; he authored the constitution of the state of new york, a state in fact and in law the most powerful country on the north american continent until the adoption of the united states constitution, for which the new york constitution served as a textual and structural model, and he would become the first chief justice of the united states.  alexander hamilton would become the first secretary of the treasury of the united states, and later an architect of the national banking system and an architect of its system of currency.  james madison is considered a “founding father” of the united states, author of its bill of rights to the constitution, and the fourth president of the united states: it is from his meticulous journals that much of our knowledge of the formation of our country was gained.  it is “not as though”, in these men, the united states had the authoritative voice of presidents, judges and university professors and political  scholars, all contributing to an understanding of our basic laws, it is in actual fact and upon due consideration, precisely the case.

the following words, therefore, are not to be taken lightly, as these words were considered weighty topics by weighty men, offering wise counsel to the consideration of events and eventualities they thought entirely possible and plausible, and which would be central in the fate of the nation they were attempting to create.  they viewed and considered, therefore,  the precise issues i have raised above, and they viewed the matters discussed below as the last best measures to be taken by citizens,  citizen soldiers, patriots and person who believed in the value of their heritage, to protect, preserve and advance that heritage.  in short, they thought it entirely plausible that some might used the institution of the government which they were creating to impose tyranny, and they thought the realities discussed below necessary and proper to implement in order to preserve that liberty.

these were not superficial men.  they had fought and killed to wrest liberty from those they considered oppressors, and they did not shrink from the prospect of fighting and killing those who might seek to impose oppression upon them in the future.  in short, they were jealous of their right and liberty, and they expected their fellow citizens to be of similar disposition and metal, and prone to exercise the same remedies in the face of tyrants that they had.

In no. 28 hamilton considered the possibility that the leaders of the national government might usurp or destroy the liberties of the people, and offered the observations that the various states, their militias and commanding officers in the militia, and an armed citizenry should be able to readily defeat such a cabal.  said hamilton, in part:

“if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exercise of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. in a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense.  the citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.  the usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo.  the smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts.  intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part when the opposition has begun.  in this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.

the obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them.  the natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.  but in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate.  power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state government, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government.  the people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate.  if their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.  how wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

“it may safely be received as an axiom in our political system that the state governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.  projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large.  the legislatures will have better means of information.  they can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community.  they can readily communicate with each other in the different states, and unite their common forces for the protection of the common liberty.

“the great extent of the country is a further security.  we have already experienced its utility against the attacks of a foreign power.  and it would have precisely the same effect against the enterprises of ambitious rulers in the national councils.  if the federal army should be able to quell the resistance of one state, the distant states would be able to make head with fresh forces.  the advantages obtained in one place must be abandoned to subdue the opposition in others; and the moment the part which had been reduced to submission was left to itself, the efforts would be renewed, and its resistance revive.

“we should recollect that the extent of the military force must, for all events, be regulated by the resources of the country.  for a long time to come it will not be possible to maintain a large army; and as the means of doing this increase, the population and natural strength of the community will proportionably increase.  when will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their state governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations?  the apprehension may be considered as a disease, or which there can be found no cure in the resource of argument and reasoning.”

this last observation by publius is within the context of arguing that the opponents to ratification of the constitution were raising a straw man argument by saying that the proposed constitution had no prohibition against standing armies.  this publius savages, noting that neither the articles of confederation nor the constitutions of the 13 original states, save in the bill of rights of two of them, and then only subject to the approval of the state legislature, contain such prohibitions: hamilton rather deftly points out that this is really nonsense, in a way, because in all cases the only authority capable of raising a standing army would be the legislature of a state, so what is the point of having the legislature “approve” or “disapprove” its own conduct.  finally, hamilton argues that any attempt to impose tyranny by a standing federal army is bound to fail, in the face of the people to exercise their inherent right of self defense, its origins arising in natural law.

as a cautionary note towards adopting hamilton’s argument without question, it should be noted that he never would have anticipated the federal government taking under its own wing the regulation and administration of the state militia’s, e.g., the federal assumption of control over the national guard, nor the advances of military science, nor the incredible lethality and efficiency of modern weapons: his was a day when the cavalry horse was the most potent weapon on a land battlefield, and ships of the line at sea.  still in all, as the recent campaigns in iraq and afghanistan point out very well, hamilton was a sagacious judge of the difficulties of suppressing insurrection supported by a people over a large territory. 

In no. 29, hamilton looked specifically to the issue as to whether the state militias would have the strength to contest any attempt on the part of a standing army, at the direction of the central authority, to usurp the liberty of the people.  he believed that an armed citizenry, which he observed very unique as a political institution in the world, would be more than able to defeat a standing army.  said hamilton, in no. 29, first noting the constitutional provision proposed to regulate the militia [this text is within the original constitution, and is not from the 2^nd amendment to the same, which negates the view that the amendment goes to the regulations of militias, they being already “regulated” under the below passage]:

“… to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the united states, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress.”

hamilton noted that some opponents to the ratification of the constitution had raised the specter that the above provision might lend itself to the assertion of tyranny via the federal government’s control of the militia,  to which assertion he replies:

“’but thought the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of that utmost importance that  a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia.  the attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size, upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need.  by thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defense of the state shall require it.  this will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.  this appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.’”

“thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed constitution should i reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and perdition.  but how the national legislature may reason on the point is a thing which neither they nor i can forsee.

“there is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty form the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instill prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism.  where in the name of common sense are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens?  what shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?  what reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the union to prescribe regulations for the militia and to command its services when necessary, while the particular states are to have the sole and exclusive appointment of the officers?  if it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the states ought at one to extinguish it.  there can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.”

friends, i cannot tell you what your demographic situations and associations are, but i can tell you who i have associated with and worked with in my life, and i can tell you there is wisdom in hamilton’s observations, to the effect that, where is our common sense if we fear our sons, our brothers, our neighbors with whom we mingle of a daily basis, and with whom we share common sentiments, habits and interests.  now, this same observation might be offered of any force comprised of our fellow citizens, but it retains its full force when we consider the community flavor of the national guard or state militia, where people are taken into such service from the communities where they remain, secure in the social and familial matrix from which they have arisen.

in yakima, washington where i toiled in the vineyards of justice for many years, is found a marine reserve detachment of tankers, who have served with distinction many times in the iraqi campaigns, and whose skill and marksmanship with an m-1 abrahams main battle tank is known throughout the united states military.  i worked with several of the officers in that unit while they worked as civilian sheriff’s officers for the county, and they would look very dimly indeed upon any government which tried to take away their liberties, or which would try to compromise the position of the nation for which they fought and exposed their lives.   i worked with members of the local air force reserve who did multiple tours in afghanistan, as communications and control officers, and were otherwise gentle souls working on behalf of juveniles caught up in the juvenile courts.  the daughters of my friends have served as military police officers in iraq, and as truck drivers.  i worked in clallam county, washington with ex-fighter pilots who later served in the reserves, and they did not favor the curtailment of the rights for which they fought.

we have little to fear from our fellow citizens with regard to our liberties, for they are as jealous of them as we are, and, dare i say, even more so, because they have fought for them and been exposed to the rigors of battle in asserting them on behalf of other people, less fortunate than ourselves.  (yes, it is well to observe that they are less fortunate because they have not themselves asserted those rights and liberties, but, they learn.)

and now, to sort of wrap up these various discussions and synthesize a coherent topic and essay.

so, the question becomes, what would fred rees,  as a two star general and adjutant general of the oregon national guard, a graduate of west point and a combat veteran in viet nam, … , what would fred rees do if barrack obama were elected president and it came to pass that he used his new found toy of a security agent to suppress the liberties of the citizenry.  if fred rees were asked to use his national guard troops to likewise impose upon the liberties of his fellow citizens, of his fellow oregonians, would he do so?  or, would he be inclined to take his troops into the field, and by arms, oppose such a usurpation of our heritage of rights and liberties?   what would the u.s. army do?

i will caution you, i have not seen or spoken to fred rees in well over 25 years, and i have not had the benefit of ever speaking to him on any subject even remotely connected with this, and do not know his views.  i most certainly do not speak for him, nor with his authority. 

i know that as a united states military officer, as an officer and a gentleman, he has sworn to uphold the constitution of the united states.  and, that he has tremendous respect for the chain of command, as only what must be nearly 40 years of active service can instill.

i also know that he is a lawyer.  and, that he knows full well that the parameters of our rights and privileges have been won by struggle, and the copious spilling of blood by his fellow citizens and by his soldiers, as they have been limned out by violent history and conflict.

i do not believe fred rees would act to suppress his fellow citizens, his beloved oregonians, those people who are precisely his sons and daughters and aunts and uncles,  and, … , well, …, so on.  i think fred rees would spit in the eye of anyone who asked or commanded such a thing of him.  i do not believe that a man who would visit his soldiers in his farmer’s jeans, and tell them to be at ease in the company of “it’s just fred” would betray his friends, his soldiers, men who have entrusted their lives to his patriotism and his judgment.

and, I further believe that his soldiers would follow him in such decisions of conscious.   these brave men and women, who have fought in the lonely corners of the world to preserve freedom and to advance liberty, did not come home just so they could turn around and be used to oppress their fellow citizens.

oaths of office, oaths of service, fealty to country and command, … , all of this, could not be used to make such people into oppressors.

if it comes to it, i believe that fred rees and the men and women of the oregon national guard would oppose any national government or command agency which tried to oppress them, and their fellow citizens.  and, quite skillfully, and, with deadly accuracy and consequences, for anyone trying to abridge the rights they have sworn to respect and defend.  this being the case, for we live in an era in which the members of the national guards and reserves have honed their skills on the battlefield.

in short, as robert e. lee, i believe that they would fight for their home states, and for their families and in an effort to protect their families and their liberties.  they would uphold their country, and the constitution for which they have sworn their fealty, and they would not fight to impose either tyranny or a tyrant upon those families and those liberties.

i am tied to my soil.  whenever i drive over the ridge at nine mile, and see the opposing ridges and peaks of the blue mountains spread before me, i tear.  i tear as I write this, and i am not ashamed to admit it, i love the ground I was born and raised on, and would die to defend it.

i think the person i have known my whole life feel the same way, and i think fred rees and his soldiers do too, and i think that they would follow him to protect this ground, and the liberties and rights of those who have occupied it for generations.  quite frankly, i would expect no less of them.

barrack obama may have the loyalties of a bunch of misguided leftist and kids who don’t know any damned better about what he is, and what he wants to do.  and, there may be a limited few who would usurp and destroy our liberties with him.  he may even try to create an armed agency of persons loyal to his edict, to enforce his edict and impose it upon the citizenry of this country.

but, I don’t think he has enough of them.

 

and, I don’t think he has enough of them with guns.  nor do i think that he will ever command fred rees’s following.  fred has got, i believe, too much robert e. lee in him to ever oppress his fellow citizens.  g_d forgive barrack obama, and nancy pelosi, and harry reid, should they fail to understand that, because fred rees will not forgive them.  he did not fight for his freedoms, for his country, just to turn it over to leftist piss ants so that they could destroy it, trample its liberties, or hand the keys over to islam.

and, don’t forget.  fred knows where they keep the keys to the ammunition stores.

in sum, i am not very happy about barrack obama and his ilk assuming the reins of power.  and, they may look impressive atop the government’s horse.  but, they may find the ride far balkier than they ever thought, because fred rees and his kind can be a pretty stubborn ride, if you catch my drift.

i have never found my faith in “publius,” e.g., jay, hamilton and madison misplaced.  read no. 10 of the federalist papers, if you will, for more on this topic.  publius understood us far better than barrack obama.  publius looked to our habits and dispositions and proclivities in an effort to sustain what he had created, whereas barrack looks simply to fool us, because he has looked at our lesser qualities and is convinced he can, whereas publius looked to our better qualities as a source of hope and optimism. He looked there to find a bulwark against the barracks of the world, which he well anticipated.  there has never been a shortage of charlatans and frauds, and we have survived many, and publius has long shown us the way.

John jay, @ 08.09.2008

---

[1] this day, 07.11.2008 atlasshrugs2000 published an article, “corruption eruption: obama’s garden of corruption and graft, from which the following language is taken:

 

the man wouldn't get a garden built, are we supposed to hand him the keys to the kingdom and all that treasure? and what, pray tell would he do with it? apparently he wants to create an army of lackeys, ""[w]e are going to grow our foreign service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the peace corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy," said obama. "we cannot to continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. we have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded." (staggering, read it all at iba)

the link to atlasshrugs is http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/corruption-er-1.html , and i urge you to read the balance of the post.

now, politicians often say things they do not really think about, or really consider the import of what they have said.  but, obama just said that he wants to create a federal civilian police security force that is as powerful, as strong, as well funded as the united states military.  any similar incidents in history jump to mind: the assimilation of the hitler brown and black shirts into the german military, totally loyal to the nazi party and outside the command structure of the german military.  implausible, you say?  well, read what obama said.  a security agency as “ … strong, powerful and as well funded…” as the united states military.  for what use would this agency be put within our borders.  we have myriad state and federal police forces already in this country, and they do, by and large, a good job?

to what use, indeed, would this new “agency” be put, not already comprehended within the scheme of existing civilian police forces?

 

cannibals eat you alive ... fight them ...

friends:
 
an excellent post at the top of a.shrugs main page, re: the release of a notorious al queda cleric on bail pending the outcome of his deportation proceedings, which apparently will stretch on until the end of civilization or the second coming of christ, or of the genuine jewish messiah, which ever comes first.
 
a wonderful post, full of the hostess's usual flair.
 
i urge you to read it.  the article is "brits release bin laden's 'right hand' at 'center of al queda's activities in the uk'", and the link is: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/06/brits-release-b.html

i posted this "comment," probably a little longer than a comment, but it is about a phenomena which has always intrigued me.  the victims of revolution cannot bring themselves to punish their transgressors and murders: they have so lost any conviction, that they do not even possess the intellectual moral authority to either stop of punish those who are eating them while they live.  cannibalism cannot be wrong, can it?
(my friends, those 25-40 hardy souls a day who read my blog, chide me for my punctuation, and say not a thing about the downfall of civilization.  now, i find that odd.  laughing.)
jjay
 
................................................
 
friends:
a student's fascination with 20th century revolution and totalitarianism led to a lifetime's interest, and i have ever been fascinated with a very strange thing about those goings on.
those regimes about to topple do not have the wherewithal to punish their attackers, though they know they are on the threshold of oblivion.  and, they know who is going to deliver them to it.
for instance.--czarist russia sent many of the marxists & socialist who would destroy them into years of exile, for capital offenses including bombers and assassinations.  they did not send them to the gallows, i suppose to prove they were not barbaric?
among those exiled, lenin who was shipped back into russian in a german military box car in order to foster further disorder after the czar was toppled, and trotsky, who wrote a sports column for a new york newspaper prior to the fall of the czar, though was his murderous ways had to do with sports is quite beyond me.
by way of further example.--adolph hitler received mere months in prison, during which he wrote mein kampf, sort of as a vacation lark, after he instigated, led and participated in a riot in which several policemen and brownshirt henchmen died in an exchange of gunfire.
it is not so much that "revolutionaries" depose regimes, it is just that the regimes get tired, and lie down to get out of the way, and someone rushes in to fill the power vacuum.  nature and politics abhor vacuums.
as noted the other day, england just stopped being populated by englishmen and women, and nobody really knows when it happened.
john jay
milton freewater, oregon  usa

__._,_.___

sweet mother of jesus

my dear friends, it is becoming increasingly evident that iran knows how to build an atomic bomb, and knows how to deliver it in an integrated missile system, all technologies at hand.

as usual, atlasshrugs is at the forefront of reporting these things.  apparently the knowledge of this has been floating around intelligence and black-market weapons circles for some time, but leave it to the good proprietress at a.shrugs to report the matter and give it wider dissemination: and in her inimitable style. 

look at & follow the links.  as is her wont, pamela puts a lot of the story into the links in her posts, and usually includes links which contain paths to further knowledge and a more sophisticated understanding of the issue.  her post related to this, “why wasn’t a.q. khan assassinated?” is typical in this respect, the links revealing a further wealth of information.

the link to the article follows:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/06/why-wasnt-aq-kh.html

and i sincerely hope you read it.  and, read the rest of her blog, which is fascinating, provocative and informing.  i read it every day, often turning to it several times over the course of the day to stay up, because she prints a prodigious amount of posts each day.

this post at atlasshrugs simply confirms why we must aggressively destroy iran’s nuclear plant and weapons production facilities right now.

right now.

john jay @ 06.17.2008

perambulations on perambulating

perambulations

i walk to live, quite literally.

my usual course is to walk the river banks or the county roads, which offer wonderful vistas of the hills surrounding my little valley and quiet solitude.  this day, however, i chose a different path through my small little town, and it took me to petits noirs, chocolates, 622 main, milton freewater, oregon.  as i chatted with the proprietress i consumed sample chocolates, including a marvelous truffle with a very subtle and delicious rose scent and flower flavor, delectable as it melted upon and over the tongue.  as it turned out, she lives in rural eastern oregon by way of growing up in new york city, and we chatted of that.

i bought a small box of truffles, flavored with dried apricots and lavender buds, one of the many commercial uses to which lavender is being put by an industry in the northwest rapidly moving from the cottage status to major venture.  they will, oddly enough make their way back to new york city for a friend.  this on the box:

wine suggestions.  dried apricot, lavender.  this sweeter milk chocolate mendicant makes a divine pairing with a wide spectrum of whites, in particular the muscat varietal ..  dry or sweet.  wines with dry or fresh fruit notes, or those with subtle or strong floral overtones will be complimented by this chocolate.  a heavily oaked, buttery chardonnay can also benefit from this chocolate.

milton freewater lies where the walla walla river spills from the confines of its river canyons, and spreads to the valley floor.  as i look out my windows, i see the foothills upon which lie the wheat and pea fields sustaining the town for years, the peas and the pea canneries brought here in the need to feed the armies of the united states during wwii, the people enticed here to work by government adds extolling the weather, the climate, the region and the available work.  needless to say, it was not a town built upon sophistication and the pampering of the palate, with chocolate and wine.

now walla walla, washington, hard across the near border between washington and oregon sports a new and burgeoning wine industry, thick with boutique vintners, vineyards and wineries, and allied indulgences of spirit and appetite.  it is a different place.

i talk to live, it is what i enjoy.

so, prior to the chocolates, i walked by a house by the high school, a lovely house of many years, and a man spraying something around the trees and sprinkler heads, probably a herbicide of some origin, probably gotten from a farmer friend as it is likely some degrees of strength beyond the weak kneed stuff you buy in hardware stores: i say that because of the applicator he was using, a farmer looking thing.

i told the man i had never seen the house before, though i must have looked upon it a thousand times, it lying adjacent to the playing fields of the high school, where i competed for four years in track and football: as a matter of fact, it is also near the grade school lots where i competed in football, and played daily.

i had just never seen it, or, more precisely, it had just never registered.  odd, that, because it is a big and handsome house: apparently not relevant to me for all those years i looked at it.  the same thing occurred to me with a mountain range, once.  my dad homesteaded ground between winnemucca and mcdermott nevada/oregon (it straddles the border), and for my summer “fun” i lived and worked upon that half section of ground, clearing sage brush with a tractor drawn tool bar and rake,  and changing sprinkler pipe, growing the beginning crops of wheat and hay on bare sand, yet devoid of any humus.  after hours, when there was such an occasion, my brother and i would go into oravada, neveda, to a bar, where he would drink beer and have a hamburger, and i drank pop and ate peanuts, and then went home to eat his cooking, consisting of chili and rice and canned fruit cocktail.  every day, and every meal.  and, every day, it was up early to change the pipe, consisting of lateral lines of 45 pipes, half of which were 4 inches in diameter, and half of which were 3 inches in diameter.  the water would be shut off, and we would slog out into the mud in our rubber boots, sinking into the sandy soil above our ankles with each step, lifting the pipes to drain the water, and carrying it to the next set, each ¼ mile line consisting of about 30 to 35 40-foot lengths.  back and forth through the mud, lifting and slogging.  it took between 8 or 9 hours to do this twice a day, and between morning and evening sessions we drove tractor and cleared more brush.

we lived in a small cabin with a gas refrigerator and stove, and gas lights, and no hot water, and no bathroom.  we had a small privy out back, and a 55 gallon drum on a stand which emptied into a tin can with holes punched in the bottom, and showered at night after the sun had warmed the water during the day.

oddly enough, i did not notice a branch of the sierra nevada’s running by, just out the back door, literally, as the land we homesteaded was a high mountain basin, nearly dead flat as it was dry lake bed, with a huge water table lying beneath the surface at some depth.  bare, majestic and sere, the mountains form an incredibly striking backdrop to the little valley dotted with farms and sage brush.  it is picturesque, and only a dullard or a kid working his ass off all day could not see it.

i never saw them.  i just wasn’t looking.

at any rate, i thought of this as i talked with the man, who looked familiar, and it turned out to be a lawyer 15 years my senior who had worked in my little town for years.  we chatted about family, and about his korean war experience flying navigation and instruments in a navy pbm, which he did 1951-1955, in and around korea, china and russia, up to and around Vladivostok.  interesting work.  interesting stories surrounding that work. he will attend a reunion of his unit this summer.

where the conversation ought to be interesting.

because, he intends to vote for barrack obama this fall.

at precisely this point the conversation, which had been cordial, became quite testy.  my fault, probably, because i could not refrain from the “did you know this” line of conversation regarding obama.  it got a little testier, when he said, i don’t know about this rumor mongering bullshit, it reminds me of the swift boat stuff with john kerry in the last campaign, and i hated it, he said.  he went on to say that he knew a swift boat veteran who had been wounded, “shot up” in viet nam, and who said kerry was alright: the man had resented being contacted by swifties, and had refused all attempts to join in with the attacks on kerry.

my friend, the old lawyer, went on to say that all of these things were unsubstantiated.  i told him they were verified, and mainly by kenyan journalists manning the last vestiges of colonial journalism in the main line papers in nairobi, and other cities.

i told him of obama’s links to o’dinga, and the links going back years between the families and how they were centered around membership in and participation in communist party organizational efforts in kenya.

and, how obama and dick morris had consulted with o’dinga on how his campaign should be run, and how o’dinga had fostered the violence in kenya after his electoral defeat, and how obama had exploited that situation and had been written up in a puff piece by joel klein, extolling obama’s diplomatic “skills” until the facts started to come out about obama’s partisan support, consultation and campaign efforts along with dick morris.

unsubstantiated bullshit, said he, to these facts.  and, the implication was clear from his demeanor, that he viewed such allegations as plainly unsubstantiable.

he declined any help on my part to help him access these facts and issues.

he did harrumph, on passing as we parted, that he most certainly would not keep his head in the sand about such things, if they were presented to him and proven.  he would not, in other words, refuse the oats and water, but they would have to be brought to him in pails, and the feed bag placed over his ears and nose, before he would partake of such seeming fabrications.

he does not see, and he will not see, unless his nose is put right up to it.  i had never seen his house before, had not seen the sierra neveda’s before, because i was either not interested or was hostile to viewing what lay before me.  he will not look at obama, he will not see mr. obama and his past, unless it is shoved right up to his nose, and placed right under his glasses, and someone makes him apprehend.

do you understand the task that is before us?

but, the task before us is not impossible.

folks, i was brought upon on hard fried eggs and potatoes fried in crisco.  i looked forward to hash, made from left over roast beef and refried home fries, and though it delectable with salt and pepper.  there was a time i would have fought you for a stuffed bell pepper, and i know that for a fact, because i was involved in a few scuffles with brothers for precisely that.  my brothers and i bent a few noses at times, and i was in more than a couple of dust ups for things more trifling than that.

now i find humor and meaning in reading about dried apricots lending enjoyment to buttery chardonnay.

my friend will not seek out the truth about obama.  he will not welcome it.  do you understand what i just said.  he does not want to know this stuff about obama.  he is not in the least bit curious about it, and he thinks anybody trying to convince him otherwise is a fucking right wing crack pot.

but, it is just like confronting your own naked body in the mirror after you have bathed and before you put on your clothing, and there you lie before yourself, unadorned, the truth revealed about your body.  you look, and you understand, and you accept.  so, to thoroughly mangle all of this, when the feedbag is slipped over his ears and mouth, he will partake of the truth, and if it is palatable, he will eat it and accept the sustenance.

but, it is going to have to melt on his tongue as did the rose truffle filling on mine, and the hard chocolate shell is going to have to taste good, and it is going to have to be presented to him as he stands naked before the mirror after his bath, e.g., precisely with that window of time an opportunity when he has to regard the naked truth, when he cannot keep his view from his body by the protective veneer and protection and clothing of his already formed preconceptions.

it will not do to have it come on the t.v. after dinner while he reads the paper.

it will have to come on the radio early in the morning, on the radio, in the bathroom, while he is naked just after toweling off and just before the bathrobe comes on, to hide himself from his own regard.

it is a small window.

if we can find it, we and john mccain will win and we will live, and we have four more years in which to protect and perpetuate europe and western civilization in this hemisphere.  if we cannot find my friend naked just out of his bath, and stripped of his preconceptions, we will lose the election, and we will be faced with hard decisions just how far we will go to protect our way of life, our religions, our heritages, and our continued vitality in participating in the politics of this great country, before being swept away under the ravages of leftist ideology and consolidation of powers.

for, if obama and his ilk win, they will complete the institutionalization and perpetuation of this leftist pap.  and, as silly as the preceding sentence sounds so will the actual fact of the assertion prove unpleasant, and destructive of your freedoms.  the leftists will silence talk radio, they will destroy the blogs, they will remove conservative thought completely from the schools, and it will cease to be part of the public discourse.

the globalization of the united states will continue, the united nations will remove the monarchy from england, and the godless alliance between the radical left and islam will continue apace.

so, our task is precisely delineated.  we have to put the feed bag of truth on as many naked people as we can get a hold of, and whose attention we can capture at they stare at their protruding bellies and saggy parts.  it is that simple.

oh, yes, i write to live.  quite literally, as a matter of fact.

john jay @ 06.13.2008

drafting a field manual to defeat islam in america

how to combat the conquest of america by islam: as allied w/ the radical left

now begins the project for which this blog was conceived.

i have no interest in duplicating the work of others who have demonstrated that islam is inimically incompatible with the values of democracy, and that its evils are inextricably linked to the core doctrine of the religion as set down in the koran.  i am satisfied to a moral certainty that prior exegesis is correct, and i am also satisfied to a moral and intellectual certainty that our democratic values are superior to the intellectual and religious tyranny that is islam, and that it must be combated.

i am also certain that these issues will inevitably come to a head as islamic immigration into this country continues, and view the same as a purposeful invasion designed to work the eventual forcible conquest of america. i am convinced that violent conflict will occur as islam attempts this conquest and as we resist it, and i am equally convinced that unless such a resistance is undertaken with certain goals and strategies in mind, it will prove futile.

the remaining articles in this blog will be devoted to developing a doctrine of that defense.

the u.s. military has been fighting and winning wars for just over 2 ½ centuries, and in that time has amassed a vast doctrinal manual on how to fight war.  curiously enough, no manuals have emerged on how to conduct civil war, and how to prosecute defensive and offensive campaigns against a  multiple military and political threat comprised of domestic and foreign elements, and which threat contains elements which are at once intellectual, religious, doctrinal, and socio-economic, political and class based in nature.

previous articles have discussed identifying and recognizing these threats.

the articles to follow will discuss how to attack and defeat them socially and militarily, with the military element being paramount.

heavy emphasis will be placed upon armed conflict with clearly identified opponents, and armed and clandestine conflict against opponents who are more subtle in nature.

i will advocate things which may seem repugnant to the values which are sought to be protected.  this raises certain obvious tensions, and to the extent that i can, i will try to resolve them.

but, from this point on, the emphasis will be on the how to.

--john jay @ 06.07.2008

reloading the .300 whisper

“reloading the .300 whisper”

if you are conservative, and i assume you are because you are reading this, and you have as yet to join the n.r.a. you are an idiot and a damned fool.  no other organization does as much to protect your rights, liberties and privileges as the national rifle association, and if you don’t know that you are an idiot twice over.

JOIN THE N.R.A.!!  NOW!!

good.  we have that squared away between us, and we can get on with things.

in the may 2008 issue of the american rifleman, author aaron carter discusses handloading a most interesting cartridge, which has a broad range of uses from hunting small game, being a very useful clandestine/dirty ops/sniper weapon capable of operating under full automatic fire while having decent noise suppression, to being a big game weapon of the .30-30 winchester class and useful for hunting deer.  all one caliber/cartridge, and all in one rifle platform, and capable of all the functions described above.  in addition, if you feel like it, it is also capable of being a “plinker.”

the cartridge was developed by j.d. jones , proprietor and guiding spirit at ssk industries, who has the audacity to think that in our capitalistic system he should benefit from his labors and inventiveness.  the following passage is taken from the article:

as for ar-15’s, ssk offers complete packages (gun included), custom-built upper assemblies and rebarreling of existing uppers in .300 whisper.  … .

when considering the purchase of .300 whisper products, know that outside of ssk industries, only thompson/center arms is licensed to produce .300 whisper contender and encore barrels, and rcbs and hornady make the only licensed dies for the cartridge.  some companies have worked around this restriction by slightly changing the cartridge’s name.  … .  let the buyer beware.  may 2008 american rifleman, page 50, author: aaron carter.

this is not an entirely unknown situation in the firearms business, and others before j.d. jones have tried to patent or trademark such cartridge innovation, usually to no avail: it is very easy to change a dimension or specification here, or there, and call something something else.

but,  jones did something beside simply neck up an existing cartridge and put a different bullet in it.  he conceptualized a different use for the cartridge by going against the historical grain of development for the last 150 years, which has been to lighten projectile and increase energy delivery by increasing the velocity of the projectile.  the byproduct of this has been noise, recoil, muzzle flash produced at the point of firing a modern cartridge, and by adding a sonic boom that travels along with a bullet just as a sonic boom follows a supersonic jet, thereby adding one other factors which help someone being shot at, should he survive the experience, or his fellows, ferret out the location of the shooter.  if you are a shooter that doesn’t want to be ferreted out, a sniper say, this is highly undesirable.

jones went the opposite way.

he took a very small cartridges, expanded the cases necks to accept larger caliber bullets, and stuffed very long and very heavy projectiles (compared to the original projectiles) into the cartridge case, and kept the overall length of the bullet about the same, so that the new cartridge would function in rifles that would handle the original cartridge case.  to do that, he had to stuff most of the bullet into most of the cartridge case formally occupied by lots of power (remember the velocity & energy thing, produced by lots of power relative to the capacity of the rifle’s bore), thereby greatly reducing the amount of powder capable of being placed in the cartridge.

the result, a heavy bullet traveling at speed’s below the speed of sound, producing no sonic boom.  the origin of the shot cannot be identified by the sonic boom of the bullet.

the further result, one not entirely anticipated by most people as the thinking has been toward ever increasing amounts of powder relative to the bore capacity to eke out further marginal units of velocity, e.g., increase powder capacity 10%, get a 2% raise in velocity, was that it turned out that very little powder was needed to propel the heavy projectiles (relatively speaking) to speeds below the speed of sound.

another further and very desirable effect for that fellow not wanting to be ferreted out, is that the less powder used to power a projectile, the smaller volume of propellant gas produced for a given bore capacity means, … , well, less gas; gas that cools faster in a bore, and, less pressure associated with less gas cooling more rapidly, as all of this decreases the volume of the propellant gas, and, finally, if the gas is pushing the bullet out the barrel slower, it is also going slower.  finally, a large component of the bang of a rifle is unconsumed incandescent propellant hitting an oxygen rich environment as it leaves the barrel of a gun, and exploding, in a sense, adding more gases to the propellant column as it leaves the barrel, and greatly increasing the velocity of the propellant gases.

the whisper tames this vicious cycle, turns it the other way, producing less recoil and blast effect.

the final result, is that this reduced column of gases is easier, much easier to “silence” and “hide,” in short, the blast effect can be attenuated in terms of sound levels, decibels, and in terms of muzzle flash.  if you have ever seen a high powered rifle fired at night, the effect is spectacular, with a muzzle blast and flash of extending as much as several feet past the end of the barrel, and in high velocity weapons, the noise is horrendous, enough to cause permanent ear damage upon only several exposures, in really bad weapons.

the whisper cartridges are capable of producing no more noise or muzzle signature than an ordinary air rifle, or pellet rifle, when properly suppressed.

i do not know if jones expected this entirely when he started, but it can be said with some degree of assuredness, that no one the hell else did.

his work was novel.

so, if i buy any whisper products, such as a suppressed upper for my ar-15 rifle in a .300 whisper, you can be sure that it will be from ssk industries, and the loading dies from rcbs.

the article at hand in the american rifleman details the bullets that can be loaded in the .300 whisper, and all made to function reliably through an ar-15 style of rifle.

the loads range from a 125 grain (1/4 ounce plus) at 2,100 feet per second from a 24 inch barrel, making a load comparable in power to a .30-30 winchester, to a bullet weighing 240 grains (1/2 ounce plus) traveling at 1040 feet per second at the muzzle, which is below the speed of sound.  here is where it starts to get interesting: the 125 grain bullet requires about 15 grains of powder to achieve its velocity, while the 240 grain bullet requires a miniscule 9.5 grains of powder, a charge weight comparable to some pistol cartridges, and many, many grains less than some large pistol cartridges.

it simply is amazing that such small charge weights of powder can kick a 240 grain projectile to that velocity.  by way of ridiculous comparison, a .300 winchester magnum loaded with a 165 grain projectile to 3200 feet per second, about 3 times the speed of the whisper, requires as much as 80 grains of powder to achieve that velocity at the muzzle of the weapon, approximately 9 times the amount of powder in the whisper cartridge with the heavy bullet.  (this data from the speer reloading manual, edition the 13^th.)

the difference.

a 165 grain projectile fired at an object 3,000 feet away, is going to take something over a second to get there, but in the process it is going to make a muzzle flash observable even in daylight from the proper vantage, and looking like a roman candle at dawn or dusk, and like a 4^th of july fireworks display in total darkness, and is going to leave a noise signature in the form of a sonic boom along its entire path, and even the most bovine of humans is going to be able to instinctively follow it back to its origins, in a twinkling: the persons head will be looking in the right direction before the person knows what he is doing.

anyone struck in a remotely vital area is going to be d.r.t., e.g., dead right there.

by contrast, a 240 grain projectile fired at an object 3,000 feet away is going to take over 3 seconds to get there, and the bullet is going to arrive at a far greater angle of incidence, but, it is going to get there, later, not sooner, but it will get there.  (i used to shoot a replica remington rolling block rifle in .45-70 caliber at metal gongs 24 inches in diameter at over 600 yards, using a 400 grain bullet at a muzzle velocity of about 1200 per second.  in good sunlight, using a spotting scope, the observer/spotter could see the bullet falling to the target at a very steep angle: a professional ballistician could tell you exactly, but we always estimated that it would be about 35 degrees plus.  at that range, it took about a second and a half for the bullet to reach the metal target, and about a second and a half for the “gong” to get back to the shooting station, enough time to load and fire again if one were in a great hurry.)

anyone struck in a remotely vital area by that big old lumbering bullet is going to be equally d.r.t., e.g., dead right there.

but, in this case, the .300 whisper having a sound suppressor on it is not going to make any noise discernable to the object/person/entity being shot at, nor is there going to be produced by the shot any muzzle flash, even at dark.  now, if our shooter is so unlucky as to fire a shot when being directly observed by a light sensitive or heat sensitive instrument just as he shoots, he may very well be detected, but not, most probably, by the naked eye.  nor is the projectile going to leave a signature noise track across the sky, its travel being almost totally undetectable.  as an added bonus, should our shooter have chosen a hide behind a screen of leaves or other vegetation, those materials are not going to be agitated or moved or flutter in the muzzle blast, because it is so greatly reduced.

If our shooter is shooting in an urban situation, and has chosen to shoot from behind a layer or two layers of ordinary gauze hung in front of a window, or in front of his hide, or in his hide but behind other natural objects, his shooting position is going to be almost undetectable, at least from the aspect of any kind of signature caused by the effects of the shot going off.

the whisper is a very versatile and useful cartridge.

its uses, in light of the previous discussion, in terms of counter insurgency work or in terms of conflict between social or religious or political rivals, should be readily apparent.

and, speaking of suppression, articles like the american rifleman article recommended for your reading, are not yet suppressed.  you should acquire, read and become familiar with this information while you can.

the article has a chart and accompanying discussion of many useful loads, and loading techniques.  i have been reloading for 35 years or so, and considered it most informative, and educational.  take that for what it is worth.

mentioned in the article, and most useful are:

the hornady handbook of cartridge reloading, sixth edition, and

the sierra 50^th anniversary handgun reloading manual.

if you are new to reloading, i heartily recommend the speer reloading manual, the last edition i purchased being the 13^th edition, and i am sure there is a newer edition.  i also own the manual published by nosler bullets, and consider the nosler and speer books the absolute most useful in terms of good, safe and reliable loads.

all of these manuals discuss reloading in clear, simple and useful terms, and are loaded with wonderful illustrations, …. , well, …. , illustrating how reloading she is done.

in sum, the article in the american rifleman is a wonderful resource, and introduces you to many people and concepts in shooting and reloading.  if, for instance, you google j.d. jones, or ssk industries, you will be rewarded with tons of useful information.

try it, you may like it.  and, if you do, please reward mr. jones and his enterprise, by buying a genuine ssk industries .300 whisper product.  he and thompson/center have long been known in the firearms industry for enterprise, innovation, and products that work and are backed by wonderful warranties and service.  that is how they got to where they are today, as the saying goes.

--john jay @ 06.07.2008

reliability and functioning issues with the ar-style rifle

“they don’t always go bang”

if you intend to acquire a firearm as a personal defense weapon, you should be aware that just as any other machine a firearm may fail to function as intended, and even finely made firearms don’t always “go bang” if you haven’t taken steps to assure proper function.

in this regard the ar-15 series of rifles is no exception.  and, even though the rifle has benefited from some 40 years of development and refinement dedicated towards making it dependable, it does possess several design weaknesses centered on the function and reliability of the bolt.  these weaknesses are not so serious as to compromise the integrity of the weapon, and to this day, further semi-automatic combat rifle development still copies the basic design features discussed below, so the system must have continuing attractiveness and viability to weapons’ designers.  still in all, the prudent owner of a weapon will keep certain function issues in mind, learn how to deal with the mechanical and physical steps to deal with them, and take the proper precautions in terms of maintenance and parts kept on hand for repair.

the heart of an ar-15 is a rotating and reciprocating bolt, whose movements are imparted to it by a bolt carrier which moves it back and forth, and which rotates the bolt into battery, or locks it, by means steel rod cut through a helical cam in the shaft of the bolt.  it all sounds very complicated, but a visual inspection of the bolt and carrier upon disassembly of the rifle reveals the logic of the system in a glance.

when the rifle is fired, propellant gases from the barrel are siphoned off and travel in a tube back to the bolt carrier and bolt, and push the bolt carrier rearward.  as it travels rearward, the steel rod in the bolt carrier operates on the angled surface of the cam, causes the bolt to rotate.  when the bolt rotates, the lugs projecting from its surface move away from contacting corresponding projections in the barrel extension, and into line with slots in the barrel extension, and past them to the rear as they are carried away by the bolt carriers rearward movement.  the spent case is held against the face of the bolt by a lipped piece of metal mortised into the bolt face, the lip on the extractor holding onto the rim of the case as the lip projects into a recess in the milled into the case ahead of the rim.  as the tip of the spent case clears the confines of the receiver past a hole milled in its side, the case is ejected from the firearm by the pressure of a small plunger milled into the bolt face, the cartridge pivoted outward around the point where the extractor has held onto it from the chamber.  the ejector and extractor work in tandem to achieve the ejection of the case as described.  the bolt is pulled back until it is behind the magazine which holds the next round to be fired at its top.   the bolt moves forward, a lower lug passing through a slot cut into the back of the magazine where it contact the rear portion of the next round, and shoves that round forward and into the chamber of the rifle, but not until the extractor has a chance to pivot on a hinge, allowing the round to come fully into contact with the bolt face as the lip of the extractor slips into the grove cut into the shell casing.

this happens at great speed, and the whole process is subject to great mechanical stresses.  the gun powder, a controlled burn rate propellant, generates nearly 60,000 pounds of pressure very quickly as it turns into hot incandescent gas, expelling a bullet from the ar-15 in .223 caliber at anywhere from 3200 feet per second to 3400 feet per second, depending upon the weight of the bullet in the round.  this force pushes against the bolt face while the bolt is held in battery, and though it is largely dissipated by the time the bolt cycles, you can imagine the heat and the battering to which the rifle mechanism is subjected to each time a round is fired.

enter the first design flaw.

one of the locking lugs is not quite as strong as some of the others, given its placement upon the bolt in an area where because of cuts in the bolt not as much metal exists to support that lug as the other lugs.  this lug is subjected to a predictable rate of failure, usually in the form of cracking, deformation or even chipping or breakage.  this has become so well understood, that some manufacturers have simply fallen upon the manufacturing expedient of omitting that lug from the bolt: the bolt is sufficiently strong as built that it is not weakened structurally by the omission, and the bolts ability to withstand and contain the pressures of the powders ignition is not compromised in the slightest.

it is therefore quite common, and entirely a proper expedient, for users of ar-15’s which are going to be subjected to heavy use to have on hand, in a parts kit, a spare bolt for field replacement should the bolt fail during combat, or should such failure be discovered during routine maintenance after combat operations if the failure did not lead to the weapon ceasing function.

enter the next design flaw.  to which i was subjected.

i owned an ar-180b, a designed somewhat different from the ar-15, but which has a bolt nearly identical to the ar-15, and absolutely identical in the design feature which “failed.”  this rifle began to fail to eject, and then to operate, after prolonged use.  upon inspection upon disassembly, it was found that the ejector, the little spring powered plunger fitted in a cylindrical hole milled into the face of the bolt, was “frozen” in place, projecting from the face of the bolt.  in such condition, the ejector caused the operational cycle of the weapon to jam, either not allowing a cartridge to present in a straight line to the chamber as it was not flush with the bolt face, or so as to cause an empty case not to eject as the plunger was imparting no motion to pivot it around the extractor.

further disassembly revealed the culprit in the form of thousands of tiny little brass filings that had somehow migrated down the cylindrical milled hole, past the very small mechanical tolerances between the ejector and the bolt, to lodge in the space where the ejector spring was housed, completely preventing the spring from imparting any force to the ejector, as the ejector eventually was prevented from moving into that cavity and compressing the spring. i took the rifle to don manning of shooter’s supply in yakima, washington describing the problem to him and showing him the disassembled bolt and ejector, all the while expressing puzzlement as to how this should have come to pass.

he said not a word, but disappeared into the back of the shop and bringing back a small rod of arkansas whetting stone, the end of which was very close to the diameter of the bolt face of the weapon.  here, he said, polish the face of the bolt with this, using a circular motion, just “twirl” the stone between your fingers, and using lots of machine oil to clear the grit. polish it until you remove irregularities or roughness from the face of the bolt, especially any machining burrs which may be around the edge of the hole in which the ejector is fitted.

ah, i said … .

not the first one of these i have ever seen, he said, nor the first one ever encountered.

that would explain the fact of the diameter of the rod being the same as the diameter of the bolt face, i said.

not too bad for mostly rock, he said laughing, and not referring to the stone that he handed me, with a big smile on his face.

i took the bolt home, and polished the face, and sure enough, in the process removed a tiny burr around the recess cut for the ejector, a burr on the side of the hole that was the “forward face” of the hole turning into the face of the cartridge head as the bolt rotated in the recoil cycle.  keep in mind, that the operational cycle of the bolt does not take place in a leisurely manner as the weapon is fired: i do not know the rotational speed of the bolt, but the bolt face is subjected to many thousands of pounds of pressure by the cartridge brass held against it by the force of the remnant propellant gases, and the bolt face turns very quickly.  the irregularity of the bolt face, plus the hardened steel burr, where cutting the tiny shavings every time a round was fired, and the forces involved where forcing the shavings into the milled recess housing the ejector, and packing them in there so tightly that the bolt ceased to function.

enter the next design flaw.  a design flaw to which i was also quite recently subjected.

about two years ago i purchased an upper receiver assembly for my ar-15 in 6.8 mm remington spc, which is a little larger caliber cartridge than the .223 remington, the 6.8 mm bullet being about .270 caliber.  recently i mounted an eotech 552 night sight capable optic, did some other preparation work, and mated the upper receiver assembly to an ar-15 lower receiver.  on the day that i wanted to take the rifle to the range i decided that i had best test some basic functions of the rifle, such as confirming that it would strip a round from the magazine and chamber it properly.

so, a loaded magazine was placed in the rifle, one round, and the bolt pulled back and released, to see if a ro