Paul M. Jones

Following controversy over its purchase of around 1.2 billion bullets in the last six months alone, the Department of Homeland Security has put out a new solicitation for over 200 million more rounds of ammunition, some of which are designated to be used by snipers.

A series of new solicitations posted on the FedBizOpps website show that the DHS is looking to purchase 200 million rounds of .223 rifle ammunition over the next four years, as well as 176,000 rounds of .308 caliber 168 grain hollow point boat tail (HPBT) rounds in addition to 25,000 rounds of blank .308 caliber bullets.

As James Smith over at the Prepper Podcast website highlights, “It is the type of ammunition and not necessarily the quantity that is troubling.”

Smith points out that the DHS’ acquisition of .308 rounds is of concern because they are set to be used by well-trained snipers.

That's the stuff I use in my Armalite AR-10 Super SASS. Why does DHS need that kind of round? Are they planning to shoot folks at long range, or what? Via » DHS Purchases 200 Million More Rounds of Ammunition Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!.

In most places, about 30 to 250 people are rioting, and causing damage, but so many people are ready to attribute their actions to an entire country or religion. Think of it this way: do the Occupy Wall St. protests and rioters in Oakland represent all Americans? Of course not--they represent some Americans, but not all of us, and their actions do not reflect anything about a majority of Americans.

Also, people who keep asking why Muslims, etc., don't counter-protest or condemn certain actions, 1) people have jobs and families to take care of--let's say you opposed any rioters who were part of the Occupy Wall St protests. Did you go to Oakland, etc. and counter-protest? If not, why would you expect anyone else to? 2) Also, let's say you did condemn the Occupy protests or damage in Oakland--so what? Do you think anyone who thinks America is a police state cares what you think, or that your condemnation accomplishes anything effective?

At the end of the day, most people want the same things--to take care of their families and to have a job. Countries with many unmarried, unemployed, or uneducated men are going to have problems regardless of religion, race, or background.

(Edited to add paragraphs.) Via Rafat Channels Tullock, Kuran, and Sunstein, Bryan Caplan | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty.

Obama's actual record is worth sussing through. As spun out at the Democratic National Convention, Obama's domestic policy moves have seen nothing but success. Either the stimulus flat-out worked or, if it didn't actually achieve any of its goals in terms of reducing unemployment, it staved off far worse outcomes. You got that, America: If I hadn't gotten to do what I wanted, says President Obama, you'd be even more out of a job. The illegal auto bailout was so successful that it will never earn back what was spent on it. Health care reform, which expands the budget-breaking program Medicare and yet manages to protect completely the budget-breaking program Medicare, will help the country's bottom line because it forces more people to pay for insurance so good they have to be forced to pay for it. The president's plans for the future include more spending, slightly more taxes (but only on the rich) and deficits for at least the next 10 years (his budget proposal only goes that far).

When the focus shifts from economic policy to things such as the drug war, or immigration, or transparency, well...noboby really wants to discuss those things anyway, right?

So thank god for this latest flap over Romney saying in private essentially what he says in public. Because if it weren't for that, we might actually get around to discussing something/anything that actually has a real bearing on just how bad whoever gets elected in November is going to screw things up even more. After all, a presidential campaign is really just not the place for that sort of discussion.

via Secret Romney Tape Means We Can Finally Stop Talking About Obama's Failed Foreign & Domestic Policy! - Hit & Run : Reason.com.

the House members who voted 301-118 on Wednesday to reauthorize the vast spying powers in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act (or FISA Amendments Act, and yes, that's really its name) don't seem to understand what they were doing. The same thing happened in 2008, when Congress first voted to retroactively legalize warrantless wiretapping. Then, as now, supporters of the legislation falsely insisted that it does not collect the communications of American citizens. 

"This bill has nothing to do with Americans on American soil," said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on the floor. The bill only grants authority for "targeting foreigners located outside of the United States, and not on Americans in the United States, or anywhere else in the world," said House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chair Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who repeated this twice for emphasis. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) even emphasized that "the government cannot reverse target individuals overseas in order to monitor those in the United States. That means the government cannot target a US person simply by monitoring a non-US person that the US person is talking to." 

That's not true.

via Members of Congress Who Reauthorized Warrantless Wiretapping Bill Don't Understand What It Does | Mother Jones.

In sum, free speech is not intended to protect benign, uncontroversial, or inoffensive ideas. Those ideas do not need protection. It is intended to protect – to foster – exactly those political ideas that are most offensive, most provocative, most designed to inspire others to act in the name of its viewpoints. One could say that every significant political idea, on the right and the left, has that provocative potential. If speech can be constrained on the ground that it can inspire or provoke violence by others, then a wide range of political ideas, arguably the only ones that really matter, are easily subject to state suppression.

Other than would-be tyrants and their authoritarian followers, nobody should want that. Nobody should want the state to make and enforce lists of prohibited ideas. Even if such state action does not offend you in principle, there's a very pragmatic reason to oppose it: those who cheer when ideas they dislike are suppressed will very likely find, at some point in the future, that their ideas end up on the prohibited list, and will have little ground for objecting when it happens.

Emphasis mine. The author is not normally someone I quote, but his article bears reading in its entirely. Via Conservatives, Democrats and the convenience of denouncing free speech | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.

The State Department told reporters Friday afternoon that it won’t answer any more questions about the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans until the investigation into the incident is complete.

“I’m going to frustrate all of you, infinitely, by telling you that now that we have an open FBI investigation on the death of these four Americans, we are not going to be in a position to talk at all about what the U.S. government may or may not be learning about how any of this this happened -- not who they were, not how it happened, not what happened to Ambassador Stevens, not any of it -- until the Justice Department is ready to talk about the investigation that’s its got,” State Department spokeswoman Victorian Nuland told reporters late Friday afternoon.

“So I’m going to send to the FBI for those kinds of questions and they’re probably not going to talk to you about it,” she said.

All aspects of the attack, including what led up to it, its causes, the identity of the perpetrators, and the circumstances surrounding the death of Amb. Chris Stevens and the other three Americans, are off limits for reporters.

via The State Department doesn't have to answer your questions either | The Daily Caller.

In recent days, I’ve heard various people calling for punishing the maker of Innocence of Muslims, and more broadly for suppressing such speech. During the Terry Jones planned Koran-burning controversy, I heard similar calls. Such expression leads to the deaths of people, including Americans. It worsens our relations with important foreign countries. It’s intended to stir up trouble. And it’s hardly high art, or thoughtful political arguments. It’s not like it’s Satanic Verses, or even South Park or Life of Brian. Why not shut it down, and punish those who engage in it (of course, while keeping Satanic Verses and the like protected)?

I think there are many reasons to resist such calls, but in this post I want to focus on one: I think such suppression would likely lead to more riots and more deaths, not less. Here’s why.

Behavior that gets rewarded, gets repeated. (Relatedly, “once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane.”) Say that the murders in Libya lead us to pass a law banning some kinds of speech that Muslims find offensive or blasphemous, or reinterpreting our First Amendment rules to make it possible to punish such speech under some existing law.

What then will extremist Muslims see? They killed several Americans (maybe itself a plus from their view). In exchange, they’ve gotten America to submit to their will. And on top of that, they’ve gotten back at blasphemers, and deter future blasphemy. A triple victory.

Would this (a) satisfy them that now America is trying to prevent blasphemy, so there’s no reason to kill over the next offensive incident, or (b) make them want more such victories? My money would be on (b).

via The Volokh Conspiracy » Why Punishing Blasphemous Speech That Triggers Murderous Reactions Would Likely Lead to More Deaths.

When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to “grow the economy.” He does not swear to institute “fairness.” The only oath the President takes is this one:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

By sending -- literally -- brownshirted enforcers to engage in -- literally -- a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (It’s just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that’s what’s happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.

His ham-handed (ha!) violation of the First Amendment is met with apologism, when it is acknowledged at all, by those on the Left. Via Instapundit » Blog Archive » WHY BARACK OBAMA SHOULD RESIGN. Just for the record, this is what it looked like for a man who made….

Update: If they can go after that movie-maker, under pretense of "questions about violating probation," then they can go after anybody. That includes you. You commit three felonies a day.

The primary reason to be appalled: The government has no business pressuring a website to take down this video.

A secondary reason: They're probably barking up the wrong tree anyway. There's a strong possibility that the video was just a pretext for the attacks, much as it pains the administration to admit it.

A tertiary reason: Remember how tech-savvy this White House was supposed to be? And now they think they can choke this off at the source?

via The Obama Administration Pressures YouTube to Remove Video - Hit & Run : Reason.com.

After days of protests over an anti-Islam film, American diplomatic missions in the Middle East and North Africa were braced for further violence after Friday prayers. The US put its overseas missions on high alert.

Germany has closed its embassies in a number of Muslim-majority countries in fear of attacks. "We are observing how the security situation develops with great attentiveness and we have increased security precautions at a number of foreign missions," a spokesman for the German Foreign Office told SPIEGEL ONLINE. Embassies in North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan are believed to be among those affected.

The spokesman said that the missions would only close on Friday, though. Other German institutions such as aid organizations have also been urged to increase security precautions, he said.

Westerwelle said he could understand the outrage that many Muslims felt about the anti-Islam film. "But this outrage cannot justify violence."

The German army in Afghanistan is also increasing its security precautions. "We are assuming that we will also feel the effects of this whole business," one German soldier told SPIEGEL ONLINE in a telephone interview. "When the people here see the film, they are sure to protest."

via German Press Review on Middle East Violence against US Embassies - SPIEGEL ONLINE.