Unforeseen Contingencies

Montana Tactical Firearms, S.W. Montana Second Amendment, and Gun Owners of America are putting on Be Prepared, a series of workshops on self defense, emergency preparedness, and preserving the Second Amendment on June 8 in Three Forks, Montana.  A contingent from Unforeseen Contingencies will be there, and readers are encouraged to join us.

Meanwhile, here's an interesting video that makes it clear why being prepared to protect oneself is necessary.  This video actually understates the the importance of being prepared, because the police have absolutely no legal obligation to come when you call.  There's not a country in the world where you can successfully take them to court if they fail to protect you.  Of course, even you could successfully take them to court, that wouldn't make up for being victimized.  So wherever you are, dear reader, be responsible and be prepared to take care of yourself.

It should be no surprise to readers that I am fiercely opposed to gun control.  Perhaps less well known is that I'm a great fan of the short short story.  Here's something that combines both themes.

During the aforementioned trip through the UP (see previous post) we stayed in Manistique, Michigan, a nice little town on the northern shore of Lake Michigan. After an early morning run on the boardwalk along the shore, we headed west along the coast. I happened to tune my radio to WCHT AM 600 in Escanaba, and caught a quite interesting and colorful local talk show, the Outspoken Sportsman, featuring Bill Moore.  The show covers hunting, fishing, political issues surrounding these activities, and I gather anything else that happens to strike the hosts' fancy.

Towards the end of the show he did something a little different.  He read a short piece of fiction, "Sundown at Coffin Rock."  I was getting towards the edge of the broadcast area and had to slow down to avoid losing the signal; if necessary I'd have stopped and gone back -- it's a gripping short short, and Moore's reading of it was perfect.  He mentioned that there's a second part but that it would have to wait for another show.

Now that I'm off the road I've managed to find the website of the author, Ray K. Paden.  He has both Coffin Rock stories online, along with two others.  Paden writes extremely well, and he's certainly on target with these.  Unfortunately, today they seem less like fiction and more like a reasonable projection of where some in the federal government hope to take us.  I highly recommend reading these.

The rest of Paden's site is quite entertaining as well and worth a visit.

I'm happy to report that Chaos and I successfully negotiated the long haul from the east to the Rockies, and are now safely ensconced in our well-fortified secret compound in the wilds of Montana. The lovely Johanna joined us a couple of days ago, and we're settling in for what promises to be an exciting summer. The trip across country went nicely, particularly since we went the long way through Michigan's UP, a delightful part of the world. I'll have something to say about that in the next post.

The Benghazi scandal, the IRS scandal, and now the AP spying scandal: corruption, coverups, political intimidation, spying on and interfering with the press... what a lovely spectacle.  The IRS and AP scandals are particularly important, because the MSM is finally confronted with things it will cover.  I don't think Media Matters will be able to keep up with this.

I predict that things will get much worse for Obama and his regime.  We'll see that this rot originated at the top and that there's much more.  And finally, finally the MSM is starting to take on the regime.  For the first time, an impeachment in the indefinite future seems not an utter impossibility.

Here's hoping!

Mike Vanderboegh at an Oath Keepers meeting in Connecticut, speaking on the dangers of collectivism.  Highly recommended.

I will have a report on Ted Cruz address at Hillsdale College (it was superb) but am about to hit the road west; blogging will be on hold for a bit.

IRS apologizes for targeting opponents of big government.  How nice, she even apologized twice for harassing proponents of freedom.  This must be what Obama meant by "change:" tyrants who apologize while they violate your rights.

I wonder if they will have to apologize when they impose mandatory RFID chips on people.

So the federal government seems to think.

DEFCAD files are being removed from public access at the request of the US Department of Defense Trade Controls.
Until further notice, the United States government claims control of the information.

That's the message imposed on the top of the Defense Distributed's webpage for the 3D printer plans for their new Liberator handgun.  The federal government is now shutting down distribution if this information.  Note that this is not shutting down the manufacture of weapons, but rather the distribution of information they want forbidden.

The story is available at Gun Rights Examiner and also at Sipsey Street (see the comments).  The feds seem to be as uninterested in the First Amendment as the Second.  With this bunch -- Obama, Biden, Holder, Napolitano, et al. -- the rest of the Constitution is of no particular interest either.

Meanwhile, at the state level, more and more people are telling the feds to go to hell.  We're living in a world where the federal government increasingly sees us, the citizens, as the enemy.

I'm presently in [REDACTED] where I will hear Sen. Ted Cruz speak at [REDACTED] College commencement tomorrow.  Report will follow.

Addendum: Additional pieces on the governments' attack on Defense Distributed and Cody Wilson:

Forbes (news story)

Gun Rights Examiner (news summary)

WaPo (news story)

Rifleman Savant  (opinion)

I watched a good bit of the House Oversight Committee hearings on Benghazi yesterday.  They were riveting.  High ranking career diplomats testified, under oath, that the attacks on the Benghazi were terrorist attacks, that there was never any question that they were demonstrations in response to the Mohammed video, that attempts on the ground to come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate were thwarted from much higher up, that a coverup was put in place immediately following the America deaths, and that those who did not participate received angry calls from the administration and suffered retaliation.  But an even more important story is that the "mainstream media" still finds this not really newsworthy.  New York Times did manage to do a half decent job of covering some highlights this morning, but the MSM reaction is largely either to dismiss this as a witch hunt by Republicans or as a confusing story of conflicting claims on which good people can reasonably differ... both positions are deeply dishonest.

But really there's nothing here.  For example, Washington Post's "Fact Check" assures us:

Yeah, right.  It's astounding WaPo "Fact Check" can print this kind of BS and still have even a shred of public credibility.  Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice all repeatedly claimed that the video was responsible for the attack, and there's ample evidence that they knew this was not true.

I gather that this comment from NYT must be interpreted in the same fashion.

 If the testimony did not fundamentally challenge the facts and timeline of the Benghazi attack and the administration’s response to it, it vividly illustrated the anxiety of top State Department officials about how the events would be publicly portrayed.

Well, the testimony did fundamentally change the facts and timeline of the administration response.  But then NYT doesn't claim it didn't, it just says if it didn't...using a construction that says there was no change but later can be twisted to include the possibility there was.

I think the hearings confirm two things.  1) the current administration, including the president and the former Secretary of State, are enemies of the United States, pursuing their own power and own agendas, and 2) the MSM is far more interested in running interference for the, for political reasons, than in reporting news.

The media is working to protect a corrupt administration that is trying to fundamentally change America.  This is very dangerous.

Update: I suppose that by now everyone knows that the CIA has been smuggling arms to Syria, and has heard that Ambassador Stevens' trip to Benghazi might have been irelated.

"We" at UC are happy to present this guest post from Greg Summers, student of economics at Hillsdale College.

Americans are increasingly becoming involved, or at least knowledgeable, about politics given the recent bevy of "beautiful" crises. Ironically, this long sought after development may have culminated a moment too late; Americans' voices fall short of the demands of special interest groups.  The sickly economy and an indifferent administration only inflame the sentiments of the people, specifically the primary tax base - the middle class. People are understandably angry that in a time of immense potential abundance our government can't keep its own checkbook in order. And after each government screw up they come back for more. So we have the most vital socioeconomic group subsidizing negligence and being forced to pander to special interests.  Those who don't benefit are furious.

The media offers little assistance with FOX/MSNBC being laughable and the other networks containing little more that watered down journalism. The number of important events that are unreported, or barely mentioned, is impressive. For example, look at the pathetic late reporting on the Gosnell trial or the passing of CISPA - the most significant piece of legislation on the internet ever drafted - or Congress pulling a bait and switch on reforming insider trading laws for politicians. Where is the media in all this? Why are these stories not worth the public's attention?

There also appears to be negativity brewing towards classical liberal types - surprisingly from both parties. Harry Reid recently labeled libertarians (he referred to them as Tea Party members) as dangerous anarchists who want to strip away government which is "inherently good". But then, perhaps this is a hopeful development; it reflects a certain fear on the side of politicians. The man who complains the loudest usually is threatened by something.

There is hope in the long run. The harder anyone tries to silence rational ideas the more the silencer looks bad, and this especially true in the Information Age. Social media has created unprecedented access to information, and internet groups like Anonymous (however erratic their behavior may be) pose a strong defense against government interference. However, as computer and internet technology industry develops many of those advantages will fall away. But that is where humanity can innovate and find new methods of distributing information. Most people are hard to silence if they're motivated enough. Ideally, a peaceful, reasonable realignment of policy will occur soon.

The probability of that?

I couldn't even begin to guess.

Click on photo for shirt caption.

New York Times is convinced it is time to surrender, it appears.  Unforeseen Contingencies thinks differently.

North Korea has sentenced an American citizen, Bae Joon-ho, to 15 years hard labor for "hostile acts" against the nation. The trial lasted all of a day, and no doubt met the usual standards of fairness typical of communist jurisprudence. It's very likely that his "crime" was engaging in Christian mission work.

Here's how New York Times headlined this in their afternoon email update:

North Korea's Sentencing of American Puts U.S. in a Bind

By CHOE SANG-HUN

To which "we" at Unforeseen Contingencies can only reply "yeah, right."

Sometimes the apparent helplessness and lack of courage of the "progressives" is hard to fathom.  North Korea has us "in a bind?"  My first reaction at seeing how NYT is framing this was to think of the following response the U.S. could give.  Barack Obama could announce, publicly, that the United States is giving Kim Jong-un 24 hours to release Mr. Bae.  Otherwise, starting 24 hours from now, each day the North Koreans keep Bae in custody, the United States will sink a North Korean merchant vessel on the high seas or in North Korean waters.  And if the North Koreans kill or otherwise harm him, we will sink every North Korean merchant vessel on the high seas or in North Korean waters, and if they ever get a new one we'll sink it, too.  We don't care what Jong-un says, if he likes he can denounce Bae and the U.S. in the strongest terms and claim it is from his from magnanimity that Bae is released -- but release him or else.  Jong has 167 days.

Of course, this would require that the United States had a president who was not a dithering coward.  Unfortunately, Barack "chemical weapons are a red line!" Obama seems to be an utterly helpless man who loves to make big pronouncements but has a difficult time making any real policy decision, especially if it is at all hard.  But at least Obama didn't surrender (yet).  And there might be better responses than UC's proposed response; the United States are very strong and North Korea very weak. But the NYT's position that "we are in a bind" and perhaps should send Jimmy Carter to apologize -- good grief.  That's more pathetic than Obama himself!

Update 6 May: President Park of South Korea is on a similar page: "North Korea engages in provocations, threats. This is followed by negotiations and assistance. ... it's time for us to put an end to that cycle."  Let's hope she can put some backbone into America's campaigner-in-chief.