A Quick Run Around the Web -- March 10, 2016

• "Dynamic and Realistic Hunter’s Training"--The Firearms Blog. The article links to a couple of videos showing some realistic hunter training: in the woods shooting at moving targets shaped like the game animals. The author also writes: "Notice the difference in recoil, time on target etc.on bolt-action vs. semi-autos." This is best seen in the first video (about 2 min. into the video) where you get to see two shots each from a bolt-action and semi-auto: the semi-auto is far quicker.
• "Two Approaches to Confronting a Home Invader: Guns for Beginners"--The Truth About Guns. The article addresses the pros and cons of shooting first without warning versus announcing yourself to a burglar. While shooting first is always better tactically, it may not be the wisest course of action in all instances. The article mentions that one of the advantages to announcing yourself first is that your "burglar" might just be "an amorous teen or a drunken neighbor." Or, I would add, your child or spouse up at night to get a snack or glass of water, your college age son or daughter making a surprise visit and arriving late at night, or your teenage son deciding to pull a prank--all of which are incidents that have resulted in tragic shootings because the homeowner did not (i) positively identify the target and (ii) failed to announce him or herself (and the intention to shoot or call the police). Even if it was a burglar, you might wind up having to explain to a jury why it was reasonable to shoot the perpetrator without giving him/her an opportunity to surrender or leave. Absent a clear and present danger requiring immediate use of the firearm, my opinion is that it is better to illuminate the target and announce yourself (issue a strong command such as "freeze" or "stop," which itself may make the target stop or hesitate) and indicating that you are armed (so the person doesn't think you are joking around), and that you have called the police (even if you have not yet done so). Don't get too wordy or engage in a conversation or debate, though, or it will reduce your own reaction time. As soon as you engage your mouth, you are disengaging other neural pathways that you may need to respond to a threat.
• "Shot 'by his own hostage': Fugitive murder suspect 'is gunned down by family while holding man, woman and toddler captive in their own home'"--Daily Mail. The fugitive chose poorly.
• "Germany says it has obtained files on Islamic State members"--Los Angeles Times. "... Britain's Sky News reported [German federal criminal police] had obtained 22,000 Islamic State files on the border with Turkey and Syria, files that detail Islamic State fighters' real names, where they were from, telephone numbers, and even names of those who sponsored and recruited the militants." The files were electronic, and came via a defector from ISIS. Poor security.
• "'Game changer': How the EU may shut Turkish door on migrants"--Reuters. Turkey and Germany (why continue the fiction that the EU members have much say?) have reached a broad agreement on stemming the flow of refugees and immigrants coming through Turkey to Europe. However, the devil is in the details, not the least of which is that the agreement requires Europe to accept one Syrian refugee for every one that is returned to Turkey. It doesn't help that a leaked German police reports provides more details in the crime wave that has accompanied the infusion of migrants.

• Related: "Hungary Declares State Of Emergency, Deploys Thousands Of Troops To Border"--Breitbart UK. "Announcing the deployment of troops, the [interior] minister said: 'we don’t know exactly what reactions those refugees and illegal migrants will have, [those] who are already inside the neighbouring countries. Therefore the government has decided that to prepare for this situation Hungary will strengthen protection of its borders, and we declare a crisis situation due to migration for the entire country.'"

• Related: "Immigration Treason in Britain"--Anonymous Conservative. Citing to a news article indicating that Tony Blair reportedly presided over a conspiracy to flood the country with immigrants. "The biography claims that far from attempting to exercise any form of control whatsoever over migration, the British government worked to force the country to 'see the benefit of a multicultural society', and that to do so the country received 'two million more immigrants' than it would otherwise have expected." The Anonymous Conservative then goes on to comment:

As I look out on politics today, I realize how Hitler came to power. As a society enters the end stages to corruption and decay, the establishment will begin to grow bored with merely screwing the patriotic populace behind their back. That boredom will begin to drive them to do it ever more blatantly, as a demonstration of their power – the last aphrodisiac they can seek to assuage their ennui.

* * *

There comes a point, as the decay and collapse reach their end stage, where the establishment becomes the enemy, and the voters will support anybody who opposes it. It is at that point where a smart psychopath, who recognizes the trends, can gain the support he would otherwise be denied, simply by opposing an establishment which is clearly set to destroy the nation.

Note: he does not consider Trump to be that "psychopath," but rather a last chance for the Republic.

• "The Market-State Concept Revisited"--Richard Fernandez at PJ Media. "The Market State" is a concept popularized by Philip Bobbitt and enthusiastically adopted by many progressive leaders on the left and right. Bobbitt predicted that the Market State would, in the future, replace the Nation State, explaining:

"The simple difference between the two is that the nation state derives its power through its promise to improve its citizens' material wellbeing, while the market state is legitimised through its promise to maximise its citizens' opportunities." Or to put it another way, where the nation state – be it fascist, communist or democratic – is highly centralized, the market state is fragmented and is run by outsourcing its powers to transnational, privatized organisations.

Under the theory, while a nation state is a state defined by sovereignty within territorial borders (and must act to defend those borders):

A market state, by comparison, is defined by constitutional, economic and strategic adaptation to a world in which the claims of human rights, the reach of weapons of mass destruction, the proliferation of transnational threats to security and well-being, and the emergence of global capital markets that ignore borders, curtailing the power of states to control their own economies; while the development of telecommunications networks that likewise ignore borders, serves to undermine national languages, customs, cultures and regimes.

Fernandez discusses that this "open-border" nirvana has not appeared because the same tools that supposedly were to give rise to the dominance of the Market State has also empowered ethnic and religious groups, such as ISIS. But the failure goes beyond that, to a rejection of the "leadership" offered by the Market State. Fernandez writes:

The key fallacy may lie in [Babbitt's] belief that the market state would work to "maximize its citizens' opportunities."  This belief rests on the unsupported assumption that such State would continue to act as the faithful agent of its citizens.  Yet once a State has been relieved of what Paul Monk called the duty to maintain "sovereignty within territorial borders ... and a public policy of large-scale social security for the population within those borders" it acquires a rival claim to its services: the World.

"World leaders" no longer work only for their own countries, but for the World.  Politicians like the Prime Minister of Greece suddenly find themselves working for "global capital markets that ignore borders", faceless bureaucrats in Brussels and accountable to a bewildering plethora of G's -- G8, G20, etc -- not to mention a United Nations and a United Europe.

In retrospect the idea that an increasingly internationalized political elite would automatically remain faithful agents of their own populations should have rung alarm bells.  Although much has been made of the security violations of Hillary Clinton's private email system, its true value is as a record of how the Clinton's constituency grew beyond the borders of America.  It is not for nothing that the Clinton Foundation is also known as the Clinton Global Initiative.  It has received money from 20 foreign governments.

A world where Angela Merkel feels compelled to accept millions of migrants for Europe even to the detriment of Germany and where president Obama feels he can sign major international treaties with Iran without reference to Congress is an unstable world locked in a game that is no longer transparent.  Who do politicians work for?  It creates a world of dubious loyalties and unpredictable coalitions.

If the obvious conflict of interest has been ignored by the politicians, it has not been lost on the voters.  Many plainly sense what economists call an principal-agent problem, which may be the source of the current voter revolt. ...

Read the whole thing.