Who Does the Government Intend to Shoot?

Source: Daily Caller | By Major General Jerry Curry, USA (Ret.)

The Social Security Administration (SSA) confirms that it is purchasing 174 thousand rounds of hollow point bullets to be delivered to 41 locations in major cities across the U.S. No one has yet said what the purpose of these purchases is, though we are led to believe that they will be used only in an emergency to counteract and control civil unrest. Those against whom the hollow point bullets are to be used — those causing the civil unrest — must be American citizens; since the SSA has never been used overseas to help foreign countries maintain control of their citizens.

What would be the target of these 174, 000 rounds of hollow point bullets? It can’t simply be to control demonstrators or rioters. Hollow point bullets are so lethal that the Geneva Convention does not allow their use on the battle field in time of war. Hollow point bullets don’t just stop or hurt people, they penetrate the body, spread out, fragment and cause maximum damage to the body’s organs. Death often follows.

Potentially each hollow nose bullet represents a dead American. If so, why would the U.S. government want the SSA to kill 174,000 of our citizens, even during a time of civil unrest? Or is the purpose to kill 174,000 of the nation’s military and replace them with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) special security forces, forces loyal to the Administration, not to the Constitution?

All my life I’ve handled firearms. When a young boy growing up on my father’s farm in Pennsylvania Dad’s first rule of firearms training was, “Never point a gun at someone, in fun or otherwise, unless you intend to shoot them. If you shoot someone, shoot to kill.” I’ve never forgotten his admonition. It stayed with me through my Boy Scout training, when I enlisted in the army as a Private to fight in the Korea
War, during my days as a Ranger and Paratrooper and throughout my thirty-four year military career.

If this were only a one time order of ammunition, it could easily be dismissed. But there is a pattern here. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has ordered 46,000 rounds of hollow point ammunition. Notice that all of these purchases are for the lethal hollow nose bullets. These bullets are not being purchased and stored for squirrel or coyote hunting. This is serious ammunition manufactured to be used for serious purposes.

In the war in Iraq, our military forces expended approximately 70 million rounds per year. In March DHS ordered 750 million rounds of hollow point ammunition. It then turned around and ordered an additional 750 million rounds of miscellaneous bullets including some that are capable of penetrating walls. This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen. Is this something we and the Congress should be concerned about? What’s the plan that requires so many dead Americans, even during times of civil unrest? Has Congress and the Administration vetted the plan in public.


  1. Every SS office has at least one security officer. This ammo is to replenish ammo purchased many years ago. End of story.

    • George Michalopulos says

      that was quick! Uhh, can you explain the need for hollow points? We’re talking enough ammo here to kill every man, woman, and child in the US five times over.

      • Chris Banescu says

        George are you sure you’re referring to your own story here? How do 174,000 rounds of ammo ” kill every man, woman, and child in the US five times over”?

        • George Michalopulos says

          Read further down, Chris.

        • Michael (James) Kinsey says

          The ammo count is up to 750,000,000 nationwide, if the google I did on this matter, had any website that was accurate,.Most agree the number in in the 100;s millions range. The math is easy. Kill every American twice. It may all be fear-mongering ploy by the Gov to keep everyone cowed.

      • In theory, hollow points provide more controlled penetration, thereby lessening the potential of collateral damage such as innocent bystanders. Supposedly, they have better accuracy as well.

        • George Michalopulos says

          In theory, that may be true. In actuality, they are far more lethal than full-metal jacketed rounds, which more cleanly pass through the body and limbs. That’s why the Geneva Conventions outlaw them for use in battle.

          • Priest Justin Frederick says

            George, a hollow point bullet is more likely to remain in the target than a full metal jacketed bullet; Logan is right, it reduces possible harm to bystanders from over-penetration. It is true, though that the hollow point will generally do more harm to the target it hits than the FMJ. But that is the point if you’re pulling the trigger, isn’t it?

            Geneva Contentions do not outlaw them. They were outlawed by the earlier Hague Convention for use in international conflicts. But, quoting wikipedia:

            “Because the Hague convention applies only to the use of expanding bullets in war, the use of expanding rounds remains legal, or even required, in some circumstances. Examples of this are use of appropriately expanding bullets in hunting, where it is desirable to stop the animal quickly either to prevent loss of a game animal, or ensure a humane death of vermin, and in law enforcement or self defence, where quickly neutralizing an aggressor may be needed to prevent further loss of life, or where the bullet must remain inside the target to prevent collateral damage e.g. on an aircraft.”

            • George Michalopulos says

              I misunderstood. The hollow point will most likely not penetrate the victim thereby reducing the risk to the next person in the line of fire. The point however remains: why does the National Oceanographic Institute, TSA, and other non-military agencies require this much ammo? Why do they need it in the first place? The Congress only authorizes the Armed Forces among the government agencies to be armed. The Posse Comitatus act as well prevents the Army and Navy from law enforcement. They can only shoot on citizens in case of armed rebellion or insurrection.

              • Priest Justin Frederick says

                I think it odd that these agencies are buying ammunition, to be sure. But for us to have any clear sense about this, we’d need to know what sort of purchases, if any, they have made in the past so that we have some basis of comparison, whether this is something new, something much increased from the past, or simply business as usual.

                • George Michalopulos says

                  Agreed. I am of the opinion that if such purchases were indeed made in the past then they were just as illegitimate.

                  • Apparently, you have missed out on visiting your local Social Security office recently. They have turned into mini-bunkers with security cameras, armed guard (who directs all comers to “take a number and have a seat”) and all other employees behind a glass partition. I pray that I never have to go and apply for another replacement SS card…

                    On the flip-side, our local driver’s license office (moderated anarchy) could benefit from their example… **mind flashing to driver license examiner sporting a 9mm**

      • George,

        Hollow point bullets make sure you don’t need to fire many bullets. One usually puts a person down. If they were expecting people with armour, they’d use full metal jackets.

      • Five times over…I guess they are lousy marksmen.

        Maybe they expect the American populace to become zombified and harder to kill first…maybe vampires!!! OOH!!! WARE WOLVES!!!

        Apologies for the jokes…those are the only real reasons to justify stock piling such a serious amount of ammo for a country which does not have a war within it’s borders. It is because you intend to use it against people you consider to be monsters.

      • Warning: Entering conspiracy zone. Don your hard hats.

        I’ve long suspected that Obama and his crowd have no intention whatever of losing the next election. It would account, for example, for their total, baffling, disdain and disregard for the opinions of their fellow countrymen and the high-handed abandon with which they rammed down the unread and unexamined “healthcare” bill—a naked power grab of a major sector of the economy. (The so-called ‘stimulus’ was also a naked power grab—the Left robbed the national bank and divvied up the proceeds with their political cronies.)

        It would also account for Obama’s fearless circumvention and emasculation of Congress, his 138 highly-questionable Executive Orders, and his formation of a shadow government composed of—what now?—45 ‘czars’, all of whom are marxists, maoists, and admitted communists, whose activities are actively hidden from the public and who are accountable to no one but Obama—not even to Congress or the Supreme Court. (It may also explain Justice Roberts’ last-minute volte-face on Obamacare.) Obama even ignored Congress’ legally-binding vote to de-fund them.

        In addition, it might explain the Executive Order, signed quietly when all eyes were diverted with, ironically, Independence Day, giving Obama overarching power over all American media–private as well as public—and the application of his signature, in direct opposition to his oath of office, on the unconstitutional—nay, criminal—National Defense Authorization Act, which effectively destroyed the Bill of Rights. (I’m serious, look down the list of rights and tick off the ones the NDAA nullified.) Oh, and he also trashed the First Amendment: Christians no longer have religious freedom. (You may like to fantasize that the issue is still in play, but it’s not; it’s now criminal in the United States to practice Christianity. And laws are coming down the pike to restrict our freedoms even further. Rest assured his shadow government has been drafting similarly limiting legislation like inspired army ants over the last 4 years, and will rapidly break it out when he wins. Christians will have to abandon the church or go underground, or go to jail. Our only—only—hope is that Romney defeats him and gives us back our constitutional rights. Yes, I despise the Republican establishment, too, but they’re all I’ve got. )

        Think of it: the Marxists have been dying to get into the White House for decades. Now they’re in. Do you actually believe they’re going to let a mere election cast them out? These guys are made of sterner stuff. The sole end of all their violence, lies and machinations over the last 70 years has been raw power, not ‘social justice’ (which is a mere pretext, Marina). These are the offspring of the old SDS, the Weathermen, the CPUSA. These are the guys who have no problem breaking kneecaps or placing bombs in banks. I think we’re naive to believe they’ll just take their marbles and go home at this point—this is it. 2008 was coup–a soft coup, but a coup nonetheless.

        Oh, and what about the mysterious construction project beneath the White House that was recently finished?

        And now they’re buying bullets. Face it: Obama is a dictator, and the situation is even worse than we think.

        How are they doing it? In plain sight.

        At ease.

      • Subdeacon Julio says

        Hollow points (usually specialized LE only rounds) are the standard in local and federal law enforcement practice. Can you think of a single department or agency that uses FMJ ammo?

        • George Michalopulos says

          No, my concern was that social agencies that are not authorized by the Congress in Article I are in possession of these lethal rounds. Fisheries and Wildlife, Oceanographic, and DHS don’t need this much ammo. What next? NASA? HUD? Dept of Education? (Scratch that last one.)

      • Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest Militias on the Premise members are Militants and Belligerents that pose a threat to National Security?

        Recently the Obama administration stated to Federal Judge Katherine Forest that under (NDAA) The National Defense Act of 2012 the President had authorization to lock up belligerents indefinitely. That they (were justified) to lock belligerents up indefinitely—because cases involving belligerents directly-aligned with militants against the good of America—warrants such punishment.) Pres. Obama could use NDAA provisions to order U.S. Military Forces to round up without evidence, millions of Americans including militias by alleging they are belligerents or a threat to National Security. Many observers believe Obama intends to extend NDAA to imprison U.S. Citizens in Indefinite Detention not involved with or associated with enemy forces.

        Hitler included similar provisions in his fascist (Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933). Almost Immediately after the German Parliament passed Hitler’s laws, the Reich Government ordered the arrest of German Citizens and confiscated their guns without probable cause or evidence; delegated powers to German Police and other authorities to arrest anyone Nazi authorities claimed attempted or incited public unrest: arrested among others were outspoken Germans, writers, journalists, peaceful protestors and artists. After World War II the East German Secret Police (Stasi) used the threat of Indefinite Detention to forcibly recruit thousands of informants.

        The U.S. 2012 NDAA legislation Obama signed 12-31-11 is similar to Hitler’s 1933 fascist laws the SS and Gestapo used to target persons in Germany for arrest, imprisonment and execution without probable cause; and confiscate millions of dollars of property. Hitler used his laws to suspend Parliament and the Supreme Court insuring his laws could not be rescinded.

        During the Obama Administration’s recent request for a (stay) to stop U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest blocking enforcement of vague NDAA provisions, the Obama Administration—never clarified what constitutes a (belligerent); or militant; or what belligerent activities (directly aligned with a militant) to order a belligerent’s arrest or indefinite detention; or what is against the good of America. Under vague provisions of NDAA, the President could accuse anyone of being (directly aligned with militants by way of any political or other association; activity, statement, writing or communication with an individual or group government deemed (militant) to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans. Writers, journalists, Americans that disagree with or question U.S. Government or its allies—may under NDAA be subject to arrest and indefinite detention.

        NDAA 2012, like Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees enforces censorship; refers to the Patriot Act e.g. warrant-less searches of private property and forfeiture of property from persons not charged with crime. Provisions in NDAA 2012 keep the door open for corrupt U.S. police; government agents and provocateurs which there are many, to falsify reports and statements to target any American, group or organization for arrest, indefinite detention, complete disappearance; civil asset forfeiture of their property.

        You may have noted NDAA referred to the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act lends itself to Government / police corruption; the Federal Government may use secret witnesses and informants to cause arrests and civil asset forfeiture of Americans’ property. Witness(s) and informants may be paid up to 50% of assets forfeited. Federal Government under 18USC may use a mere preponderance of civil evidence, little more than hearsay to Civilly Forfeit Private Property. Under the Patriot Act innocent property owners may be barred by government knowing the evidence federal government uses to forfeit their property.

        Sections of NDAA 2012 are so broad, it appears U.S. Government or the President could (retroactively) deem an American’s past 1st Amendment activities prior to passage of 2012 NDAA—supported hostilities, terrorism or (Belligerents) to order the arrest and Indefinite Detention of any U.S. Citizen, writer, group or organization.

        Under NDAA 2012 it should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated, not allowed legal counsel or habeas corpus may be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.

  2. The hollow point manufacturer probably has a better lobbyist than the regular bullet manufacturer. 🙂

  3. Ah, so now Monomakhos shows its true colours, this time as a right wing propaganda rag! What’s next, did zombie Vince Foster steal your cookies? Nice to see that Orthodoxy is conflated with right wing politics.

    • George Michalopulos says

      I’ve always been right-wing. Like those dead white guys who wrote the Constitution.

      • Patrick Henry Reardon says

        Geroge says, “I’ve always been right-wing. Like those dead white guys who wrote the Constitution.”

        Well, okay, but General Curry is not a “white guy.” Nor is he part of Marina’s “right wing propaganda.”

        General Curry—a friend, who has worshipped with us here at All Saints—is one of the most competent, thoughtful, cultured, and balanced men I have ever known.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Is he Orthodox then? If so, then I am doubly gratified.

          • Patrick Henry Reardon says

            George asks of General Curry, “Is he Orthodox then?”

            No, but his son and family are. Indeed, they are members of All Saints Church here in Chicagol

        • General Curry’s bio is impressive. It lends credence to his concerns, which I at first took to be the ramblings of a right-wing paranoid conspiracy theorist. It leads me to speculate that the US govt is preparing for the possibility of widespread civil unrest prompted by some possible future event. A catastrophic economic collapse perhaps? This could indeed augur Fascism if history is anything to go by. And don’t you have a General Election coming up in November? Preparing for unrest in the wake of the possible defeat of Obama? Frightening. Let’s hope and pray none of it comes to pass.

          • George Michalopulos says

            Think of this: what if there is a financial collapse and the EBT cards ring up snakeeyes? Prepare for food riots.

            • EBT?
              Educate this non-American, George.

              • George Michalopulos says

                Electronic Balance Transfer cards (formerly foodstamps but now credit card-looking thingies).

                • OK.
                  Now, educate me further if you will.
                  Why does the richest country in the world have so many people on foodstamps/EBT?
                  Even working people, I believe. Goodness, even OCA priests!

                  • George Michalopulos says

                    Two reasons: first, the economy sucks. The second is even more insidious: by having so many people on food stamps it makes them even more dependent upon the government. It makes it impossible for the GOP to enact any more Welfare reform like it did in 1996 under Bill Clinton. Same thing with government healh care. Yeah, it blows seven ways from Sunday. But are you gonna vote against it? What if granny has to go into the hospital? At least there she can be euthanized.

                    Think of it. If a financial crisis happens and the EBT cards don’t work –well, let’s put it this way: ever see the movie Soylent Green? The middle and working classes are now permanent hostages for continued tax increases. If they don’t pony up then food riots commence.

                    • Of course, the US economy is in a bad way, but I was thinking about in relatively prosperous times. I’m averse to conspiracy theories, George. I think it comes from having worked in government – I know first-hand how incompetent governments are, particularly at planning. I think the GOP will be forced to reform welfare incrementally by the pressures on the US budget, not least from your banker, China. But China has no interest in seeing its major customer beset by food riots and other social instability.

                  • In general, several decades of failed Keynesian economic policies initiated as emergency measures under FDR (for some understandable reasons) and lasting far beyond their use-by date.

                    Specifically, the continuation and amplification of those same expired socialist policies placed on steroids by the grave and evil stupidities of Marxism, which the Democrat party now openly espouses. Isolated and naive academics, Obama’s administration has no clue how business works—they could not run a lemonade stand. Donald Trump would fire them all in the first episode.

                    Thus, in their fevered quest for the absolute, literal—impossible—equality of all men, they kill or discourage business health with a variety of irrational, or impossible, demands, fines and taxes—-by penalizing employers, by villifying the successful (“Murder the Kulaks!”), by actively killing industries they don’t like (think gas, coal, energy), by siccing the IRS or the DOJ on certain business owners because they contribute to the wrong party, by allowing the union to strong-arm whole industries, by compelling organizations to reduce the size of their workforce (willingly, or as an unintended consequence of bad legislation), by nationalizing certain industries and making the government an unwanted, intrusive and inept business partner, by throwing away billions of tax dollars in crony capital schemes and—ultimately—by killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Thus, businesses are demoralized and running scared and Americans are out of work and on the dole to a degree unseen since the first Great Depression. (This, too, is a depression.)

                    Austrian economists generally believe that if Obama had left the economy alone, the recession would already have cleared itself. FDR interfered, too, with the same disastrous results.

                    By the way, have you ever noticed how many revolutionaries are millionaires? Mao, Stalin, Castro, Obama. They collect all the cookies, and everybody else ends up on food stamps—if they’re lucky.

          • Will Harrington says

            A more likely scenarior is general civil unrest in the wake of an Obama victory. The view from rural areas isn’t much reported, but I’m well off. I’m a teacher with a masters degree earning some thirty mumble thousand a year. I was hired last year, got a standard raise this year, but my real income has seriously eroded. There is no alternative to burning gas out here. Gas prices are high, so are food prices and I don’t know of anyone in the school district where I teach who is self sufficient, even if they do produce massive amounts of one or two types of food. They depend on that for income and go to the supermarket like everyone else. the small town I live in is extremely fortunate to still have a grocery store, hardware store, gas station, and bank. Theoretically, you could live off of what you can get in the town, but even with high gas prices, the prices that small town stores often have to charge mean that it makes financial sense to bite the bullet and make a trip or two a month into a larger town (about an hour). Most of us have trucks ( a necessity for farmers and those who work in with farmers). I have a jeep. I dream about a fiat 500 and the ability to go wherever I want for a reasonable cost, but I have my doubts that a 500 would long survive our roads, maybe a rally type mini? Anyway, I can’t afford it.
            Life out here is getting hard, our incomes are shrinking in real terms. We are overwhelmingly conservative. And guess where the majority of people are actually armed? It’s not the city or the suburbs.
            If Obama wins and it is shown with even vaguely reasonable probability that his victory may have been fraudulent, then I sluspect that federal employees may not be very welcome in much of rural America. I sound paranoid to myself, but I don’t think I am.

            • Thanks Will, for informing us city folk of life in small rural town america by someone who knows the realities from personal experience.

              • Will Harrington says

                I think rural america is largely forgotten, except for subsidies to farmers, who are increasingly big agribusiness. But, even if the farms are owend by corporations, we rural people do the work and, as the principal of my school said to a Kansas State government official who visited when asked what one thing she wanted him to remember, without us, you don’t eat.

            • Will Harrington says:

              I sound paranoid to myself, but I don’t think I am.

              I was tempted to say you may want a second opinion on that, but the problems you allude to I know are real. I would suggest at looking for more complex answers, especially as we enter an election season that will be marked as a perfidy of great proportion from, both of the major parties.

        • I dunno George M. … I would consider the guys that rebel against the monarchy revolutionists…you know “left wingers”. Thus it was called the “American Revolution.” Although the American Founding Father’s had political leanings that were arguably conservative especially by today’s standards.

          • No. Not all revolutions are the same.

            Ours was a distinctly American Revolution, having nothing whatever in common with the failed ideas that are now espoused by contemporary American “left wingers.” To find analogous ideas you have to look, instead, to the French Revolution: those are your guys. The crowd that was responsible for the Reign of Terror, the guillotine, the Commune—the crowd that was responsible for the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Cuban Revolution—-those are your guys.

            The American fathers were products of the Scottish Enlightenment, not the French Enlightenment. (Read Hippolyte Taine, Georges LeFebvre, Thomas Carlyle.) The revolution of the Founding Fathers resulted in the most free and prosperous nation the world has ever known. The leftist revolutionaries created only madness, despair and death.

            They keep assuring us that if we give them another chance, they’ll do better next time, but only fools believe them.

          • Will Harrington says

            THe American Revolution was conservative. The colonies had developed their own governments, but the expenses incurred in fighting the War for Empire, (the French-Indian War,) the British monarchy instituted a new form of tyranny specifically to benefit the crown coffers. This interfered with colonial governments and economies as well as prevented the development of an Irish economy. The thirteen colonies were not fighting to create a new form of government, rather hey were fighting to preserve what they allready had and they used the enlightenment to create a framework to allow that sans a king.

            • Archpriest John W. Morris says

              You are right. During the 17th England was too involved in its civil war, the commonwealth, the Stuart Restoration and the Glorious Revolution to bother to try to govern the colonies. During the first part of the 18th century the British were involved in a series of wars that left them little time to try to govern the colonies. Then after the end of the French and Indian War in 1763 the British were finally free to try to govern the colonies. But the colonies had governed their own affairs for about 150 years and were not about to give up their local self-government and obey London. Just like a child who is used to no discipline will revolt it the parent suddenly changes and decides to impose discipline on the child, the colonies revolted. It was actually more like a colonial war of liberation than a real revolution like the French and Russian revolutions. Although I sometimes wonder who really won, since it seems we cannot get enough pictures and stories of the British Royal Family.

              Fr. John W. Morris

              • George Michalopulos says

                Partly I believe it’s because monarchy is the natural state of affairs, especially in a monocultural nation-state. The Greek word ethnos conveys a type of shared blood kinship between the king and the people.

          • George Michalopulos says

            George P, the Founding Fathers considered themselves free-born Englishmen, the inheritors of ancient rights going back to pre-Norman times and whose rights were being trampled upon. The Declaration of Independence was no Kumbaya document. Jefferson clearly accused King George III’s government of unleashing “the merciless savages” on the American people. The Constitution was created to safeguard republican government for “our posterity.” They didn’t give a whit about the rest of the world.

      • George Michalopulos says (September 13, 2012 at 3:49 pm):

        ‘I’ve always been right-wing. Like those dead white guys who wrote the Constitution.’



        In the late 1700s, american revolutionists — including James Madison who (I think) actually wrote the US constitution — were most definitely LEFT WING in the spectrum of the politics of the time. These things change.

        While I really and truly don’t do politics, I’m not completely ignorant of history, even as it’s unfolding all around us now.

        II appears to me that our contemporary ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ are divided by only one thing, and that’s not big government poking its nose into everything, although that’s something. It’s really about money, and how we individuals can keep our money and not let it go for government programs to help the poor.

        At least among us Americans since our independence from England, it’s always been money. How much to tax, how much to spend and on what.

        How EVER did we get to from 1776 to 1919 (or what year was it?) without a national income tax?!

        In our own time, we need to strike a balance between personal, state, and federal responsibilities. Our orthodox christian faith ought to teach us how to behave in such a climate.

        At the moment, it seems to me that neither major political party is offering anything like that. We must satisfy the national debt and catch up with the national deficit before we venture forth again with money as a solution to any other nation’s problems.

        But now we want to borrow more money from China to help countries which hate us?!!

        While I don’t have the answers to these problems, I’m not completely devoid of common sense, and I think that our USA needs to reach financial balance before we do anymore deficit financing.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Monk James, I am a true Liberal in the classical sense of the term. Like Locke, Burke, and the Founding Fathers, all of whom were Christian (yes, Thomas Jefferson too officially at least), they derived their theories of constitutional governance from well-trodden discursii going all the way back to the High Middle Ages and the Scholastics who pioneered Natural Law.

          They were most definately not “left wing” and the democracy was a dirty word to them. When the French Revolution played itself out right after our own Constitution was enacted, they became even more conservative, almost Tory-like in their revulsion for mob rule. They also knew that a Republic (“if you can keep it”) could only be kept by virtuous men and that “religion and morality were the indespensible supports for [it]” as Washington said in his Farewell Address.

          • Democracy = 51 wolves and 49 sheep, voting on what’s for dinner.

          • Michael Bauman says

            George, John Adams was even more specific: “The Constitution is meant for a Christian people, it is wholly inadequate for any other.” All the more shame to Wilsonians and neo-cons who want to export it to a non-Christian world.

            English common-law was greatly influenced by the Justinian reformulation of Roman law and inherently Christian.

            • Michael Baumann. On the contrary, there are important differences between Anglo-Saxon Common Law and the Napoleonic Code which is, indeed, unlike Anglo-Saxon Common Law, a direct historica descendant of Justinian’s code.
              The Anglo-Saxon Common Law and the Napoleonic Code are the main two contrasting influences in modern Western jurisprudence.
              In the United States, i believe it is only the state of Louisiana which retains vestigial evidences of the Napoleonic code: for example, Louisiana has parishes rather than counties
              There is absolutely nothing “inherently Christian” in Justinian’s Code.

              • “There is absolutely nothing “inherently Christian” in Justinian’s Code.”
                Not in Roman Law, Your Grace, but the Justinian Code incorporated a lot of the Church into it, as the Theodosian Code did before it.

                On the other hand, there is a question if Norman Common Law was modeled on Islamic shari’ah, via the Normans ruling Sicily and Antioch along with England.

                • Thanks, Isa. Indeed, Justinian’s code covered ecclesiastical matters and the interaction between the state and the church. Our Orthodox Church court tradition is, indeed, completely outside the world of the AngloSaxon Common Law., but traceable to Justinian’s Code, and is much more compatible with the court systems established in continental Europe, especially after Napoleon’s conquests.What an interesting idea, that shariah (like the veils non-Orthodox brides wear at their weddings, entered our western system through the contacts of western European knighthood with civilization!

          • Archpriest John W. Morris says

            You are right. The founding fathers would be horrified at the way that we elect a President. It is the most inefficient way to choose a leader in the world. That is why they established the Electoral College. They never meant for the people to directly choose the President. Even the Senators were originally elected not by a vote of the people, but by the various state legislatures. We desperately need to reform the way we elect a President. Too much money is required to run for office. Even the most honest man or woman is going to be influenced by the people who give him or her the money needed to run for the Presidency. Sometimes I think that the old way of each party choosing its candidate at its national convention is better than our present system with its expensive primaries. Sometimes, I even think that we should switch to a parliamentary system with the leader of the party with the most votes runs the government. We could even do what Germany does and have a President who is the symbolic head of state but has no real political power. Even a powerless monarch would be better than making one person head of state and head of the government.

        • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

          Monk James, there is some very good thinking being done on these issues by the Catholics mostly.

        • Michael Bauman says

          Monk James, we got from 1776 to 1913 without an income tax for several reasons:

          1. Governement didn’t try to take care of everybody: Private enterprise and community charity were encouraged and part of the values of most folks
          2. We were not involved in foreign wars (only Jefferson’s destruction of the Barbary Pirates and the Mexican War are exceptions both quick and relatively inexpensive)
          3. There was little to no industrialization so that people could actually make good livings for themselves without having to become wage slaves to do it.
          4. We were on the Gold Standard which tends to reduce inflation as the government is not free to print money any time they want.
          5. The goods imported and the tarriffs on them (the main revenue stream for the Federal Gov’t) were sufficient to cover the cost of the government until Gover Cleveland lowered the tariffs forcing him to borrow gold from J.P. Morgan to keep the governement afloat as the Sherman Silver act forced the U.S. to buy silver
          6. Women tended the home and raised children
          7. There was no such thing as consumer debt or the consumerism it funds(not to mention the corruption and secularism that follows in its wake)
          8 The amount the governement spent to fund the national debt in 1910 was less than 1/2 of 1% of GDP. Today it is heading toward 3%, this percentage will increase rapidly and expotentially as inflation increases. (The 3% figure is understated as it does not include any of the interest paid by quasi-government entities such as the MACS)

          The income tax was a major goal of the early Progressives. Its goal was two fold: soak the rich and fund the government to start taking care of folks. The early Progressives where both populist and socialist who wanted government to right preceived and actual social wrongs. President Wilson exapnded that role to the whole world in an horribly arrogant, racist, mysogynistic and paternalistic way so that we now have to pay for the rest of the world’s social wrongs (or correct them militarily-especially when the wrongs were the result of our earlier medling, e.g, WWII). Interestingly Wilson was largely not a Progressive here at home. He violently and aggressively opposed women’s suffrage for instance.

          This is greatly over-simplified summary, but this is a blog after all. The general outline is correct

          The Orthodox solution is all too often stated in terms of the stator’s favorite political ideology.

          To me the Orthodox solution is ascetic, kenotic, personal and intimate–not part of any political party’s platform that I know of.

          BTW: I think an earlier comment I saw on Mormanism being founded by a demonic vision is missing the point. Joseph Smith didn’t have any vision, IMO. He was simply a con-man looking for a really long, stable con from which he could reap money and power although the rituals are influenced by Masonic rites. Mormanism is not exactly demonic, it is extremely heretical and worldly and so is rooted in this world. It is pragmatic rather than ideological in political terms and not theocratic. Mormanism is highly individualistic as faithful Mormans are not really part of a greater whole or body as are Christians and Muslims. Their identification as Mormans is much more akin to nationalism/fraternal lodge rather than as a body bound together by God (who ever he is). Three significant ways in which it differs from Islam.

          • Michael Bauman said:

            The early Progressives where both populist and socialist who wanted government to right preceived and actual social wrongs.

            As always, thanks for presenting your views in rational and logical manner–your comments are always worth a read and I don’t have to worry about my eyes rolling to the back of my head and catching. Regarding your statement, should government seek to right actual social wrongs?

            • Michael Bauman says

              Logan46, Thank you, but not always. You raise a good question though.

              I think it is important to distinguish between two types of government action: 1. the on-going work of any government to protect and defend its citizens from depredation and violence, foreign and domestic; 2. Positive action to create a structure or solution that is just.

              While #2 is at very rare times necessary, it is and should be far more rare that is assumed in modern thinking. If we are to allow such action the reasons for it and the scope of the action must be clearly defined, limited and monitored. Otherwise the crises to which the government is responding will almost assuredly create bad law (such as the Patriot Act and the situation in which it was created and passed and so-called healthcare reform a solution in search of a problem and really bad law in many ways).

            • George Michalopulos says

              No, usually they screw it up even worse.

            • Archpriest John W. Morris says

              One major problem with the Progressives was that they thought that if they used the government to create a just society according to their theories, a just a good and just society would result. In fact they believed that the environment made people do bad things. We know that is a gross oversimplification. Some people do bad things because they are bad. Some people live in poverty because they make bad choices or are too lazy to work themselves out of poverty. The other problem with the Progressives is it was an elitist movement that thought that the intellectually elite should run society. The problem with that is that someone can know a great deal of theory, but lack practical experience on how things really work in society. Any time that any group, even the elite and intellectual, gets too much power the result is always the abuse of that power. When we have the federal government telling us what kind of light bulbs to buy government has too much power. In New York, they now tell people how large a cup of soda pop they can drink. Freedom means that people have a right to live their own lives and even to make mistakes. Progressives like Obama do not really believe in free enterprise in which competition in the market place determines the shape of the economy, in stead they believe in a controlled government run economy. We all know what that did in the Soviet Union. Controlled economies do not work because there are always unforeseen consequences to the decision that government bureaucrats make.

          • “The early Progressives where both populist and socialist who wanted government to right preceived and actual social wrongs. President Wilson exapnded that role to the whole world in an horribly arrogant, racist, mysogynistic and paternalistic way so that we now have to pay for the rest of the world’s social wrongs”
            The difference between the ideal vision of Wilson, especially that which he projected overseas, and the reality (conning the African-Americans, treating returned soldiers with criminal neglect) reminds me of what some Episcopalian-Anglican friends have told me about the agitators for women’s and homosexual ordination. Publicly they espouse tolerance with an air of enlightened superiority and smarminess that makes one want to vomit, but privately they are right bastards, especially the bishops amongst them. It must be a particular personality type who exhibits such traits; regreattably they seem to aspire to and achieve positions of power.

            • Will Harrington says

              I suspect this is because most people in there right minds do not want power for powers sake. They may seek it because they see a problem that they believe needs to be adressed, or because they have been raised to believe they have a duty to serve. The first go home when they have done their job, the second are growing fewer all the time as the ideas of duty and honor become less important. Those who find power to be its own reward are patholgical (in my opinion) but they often do rise to power, if only because no one else wants it. Most people don’t. How many organizational meetings have we all been to where the running joke is that the people who are absent get elected to an office or a committee?

              • I think you’re quite right, Will.
                Add to that that the class which used to produce natural leaders out of a sense of noblesse oblige has all but disappeared and that the modern world seems to breed pathological types at a greater rate than previous civilizations and the prospects for the future of Western civilization look quite dim…barring divine intervention, of course.

            • Archpriest John W. Morris says

              You are right about Wilson. He was from Virginia and was a racist. He segregated the armed forces.
              The way that he ended the First World War paved the way for the Second. First he tried to force his idea of democracy on a people who were not prepared for democracy. The result was the chaos of the Weimar Republic. Then he issued the famous 14 points without consulting the British or the French who had other ideas. The Germans surrendered on the basis of the 14 points and then learned at Versailles that the French and British had no intentions of honoring them. The result was the Treaty of Versailles that ruined the German economy, led the German people to lose faith in the civilian officials who negotiated it, and paved the way for Hitler and the Second World War.
              Had he and the French and British not insisted that Kerensky not continue to fight in the war, perhaps Lenin might not have been able to use the people’s longing for peace as a way to gain power and Russia might have been spared the horrors of Communism.
              We have made the same mistake in the Middle East. We need to learn that the rest of the world does not necessarily want our idea of democracy. We also need to understand that majority rule does not equal democracy if the rights of the minority are not protected. Now Obama’s policies have paved the way for the victory of radical Islam in the Middle East.

              • George Michalopulos says

                It’s amazing how the Progressives which lionize Wilson and his messianism conveniently forget his racism. It was during his administration that the first motion picture was shown in the White House, D W Griffiths’ Birth of a Nation. This movie extolled the Klan and even quoted Wilson in it.

              • Archpriest John W. Morris says

                I could add that the mess in the Middle East is also the fault of the victors of the First World War. Instead of letting the Arab people have national self-determination as they did to the people of the Habsburg Empire, the British and French divided the Middle East among themselves. The British created the Mandate in Palestine. If they had let the Palestinians govern themselves, the state of Israel might not have been founded and all the turmoil that followed could have been prevented.

        • Will Harrington says

          Monk James, they were left wing only by European standards. By the standards of the colonies where they lived they were not. They were trying to preserve their colonial rights and priveledges against a crown that was desperate to raise revenue. The colonies already had legislatures. The added nothing to what they already had. THey removed what they saw as growing interference and tyranny from a distant crown. They did not rebel for ideological reasons. THey used enlightenment ideology to explain and support why rebellion against the crown that was trying to change their way of life was necessary. The basic definition of a conservative is one who tries to preserve the status quo. The definition of a liberal is somewhat more tricky, but the American revolutionaries largely fit within the definition of conservative.

        • Archpriest John W. Morris says

          Actually it is premature to apply the terms left wing and right wing to the American Constitutional Convention which took place in 1787. The terms left wing and right wing come from the French National Constituent Assembly which met two year later during the French Revolution.

          Fr. John W. Morris

          • Archpriest John W. Morris. A suggestion: correct your use of the word “premature” It WOULD have been premature to apply the terms “left” and “right wing” in 1787, To apply the words to any assembly BEFORE 1789 would be anachronistic.

            • Archpriest John W. Morris says

              Your Grace:

              I believe that the term premature is accurate. American political parties had not really developed in 1787. In fact American political parties tended to avoid too strict an adherence to a political ideology during most of American history. We usually had two parties, the ins and the outs. This began to change during the Progressive era, but even then there were Republican Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin. Parties tended to become more ideological during the New Deal, but then returned to the older “big tent” type of party in the 50s. Even John Kennedy would be considered conservative by contemporary standards. Until recently there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. This began to change in the 60s with the rise of the anti-Vietnam wing of the Democratic party. However, until very recently there were still conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. Only in our times have the parties divided along sharp ideological lines. Obama and his people have pretty much marginalized the old Blue Dog Democrats. The Tea Party has done the same with the old Rockefeller Republicans.

              • I don’t mean to insult Archpriest John W. Morris or denigrate his illustrious credentials; nevertheless, i believe he doesn’t understand the difference between premature and anachronistic. Q.E.D. in his post of September 16, 2012 at 11:05 pm.

                • Archpriest John W. Morris says

                  Both terms apply. I prefer premature because 1787 is too early to make the distinctions between left and right in American politics. Besides these categories tend to change as conditions change. For example, in the 19 century the Republicans were the party of protective tariffs because they wanted to protect American industry. The Democrats who had their base in the South opposed protective tariffs because the Southern cotton planters did not want the England to erect a protective tariff on southern cotton in retaliation. However, now the Democrats as the party of the labor unions favor a protective tariff, while the Republicans as the party of free trade oppose them.

      • I recommend George’s statement, “I’ve always been right-wing. Like those dead white guys who wrote the Constitution.” be repeated, in particular, “those dead white guys.”

        If there’s a reason for the inclusion of ‘white” in that statement, what is it?

        • Priest Justin Frederick says

          Probably because they are so often dismissed in cavalier manner using just such terms, their being white and male the main reasons for dismissing and ignoring them, the content of their thought unengaged.

        • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

          You’ve never heard of “Dead White Males”? It is shorthand for the classical tradition that came under assault from multiculturalists and others on the left starting in the 1960s.


    • Ah, yes. Another emotive liberal who doesn’t read.

    • Perhaps, from the depths of your great wisdom and superior worldview you can offer an alternative explanation of the unpredented purchase.

  4. Ah, yes, they were white, were they not? Always good to get right down to the fundamentals.

    And the NRA should be pushed to foster legislation criminalizing the sale of hollow-point to anybody but non-governmental groups.

  5. I just saw an article that the Marines at the Egyptian Embassy were not allowed to carry ammo (http://times247.com/articles/report-embassy-marines-not-allowed-to-carry-ammo). I guess American citizens are viewed as a greater threat than terrorists who storm our embassy on foreign soil! Hmmm.

    • Every U.S. Embassy has the right to protect itself. When the intruders broke the door in, they should have been met with a 50 cal. Marines on the roof should have been throwing grenades.

      • George Michalopulos says

        And yet our precious State Dept told the Marines to stand down. In fact, they didn’t have any live ammo. How smart is that?

        • Valerie Jarrett, in her capacity as “senior White House aide,” has a full-time secret service detail plus police protection whenever she visits Chicago to see her family. (Actually, it is getting rather dangerous in Chicago—time to ship out to Montana.)

          Ambassador Stevens, on the other hand was left to die alone, in terror and ignominy, with castrated soldiers and only a locked door between him and the medieval sadists who murdered him. Meanwhile, Obama and Hillary got a good night’s sleep. Keep Ambassador Stevens in your prayers. This is a stupid, evil and destructive administration. The rivers of blood that will be shed as a result of its naive and deeply cynical policies is only just beginning to well out of the ground. Soon it will be a torrent that will wash us away.

          FYI: Interesting article describing how the State Dept knew of the attack 48 hours in advance, yet did nothing to preserve the Ambassador’s life. Obama and his fellow travellers have to go. It may be one of the last acts we’ll be able to make as free men.

          • George Michalopulos says

            This is un$%$#*believable. And how does Eric Holder look the family of the slain DEA agent in the eyes after he instigated Fast and Furious? Mene, mene, tekkel, upharsin.

          • Joseph from L.A. says

            Three, it is quite unsettling to read how fast you are in calling the Pres. Obama a “stupid & evil” administration but dance in a torpor of pride and arrogance as almost 500 thousand children were murdered in Iraq created by the “right-wing” Republican government of Ex-Pres. Bush. The hypocrisy of the right wing group in this forum is quite appalling as George Michalopulos wrote above: “I’ve always been right-wing. Like those dead white guys who wrote the Constitution.” is RACE what motivates so much venom??

            • George Michalopulos says

              No, race does not motivate this forum. DWM is a colloquiallism made by those of use who are conservative to deride progressives who see the white race as singularly evil.

            • Michael Bauman says

              Joseph, clearly our policies in the Middle East have been a disaster, but it is an has been a no win situation for a long time. If military force was going to be used, Bush chose the wrong target. Should have gone after Iran.

              If he had done nothing, it is quitely likely that the murder rate of innocents in Iraq would be about the same as it is now–just different children. However, it would be more hidden and therefore much easier to ignore.

              In any case, your argument is illogical. Simply pointing out the stupidity and evil somewhere else does nothing to disprove that Obama’s policies are stupid and evil.

              I’ll give you this, Bush’s policies were stupid and ignorant which led to a possibly greater evil than what he was attempting to destroy. Obama’s policies, IMO are not stupid but are intentionally designed to do what they are doing and therefore a greater evil.

            • You and the person who gave you a thumb’s up are both gonna have to up your game; your race cards have expired:

              Liberal super PAC: Calling Republicans racist more effective than criticizing policy

              ““When we said that Steve King … is pro-life and believes in cutting Social Security and voted for the Ryan budget, no one cared,” Arnold said. “When we said Steve King’s a racist, Steve King believes that immigrants ought to be put in electric fences, people moved.””

              Besides, Obama is stupid and evil. Isn’t he the guy who put his hand on a Bible four years ago and swore to Chief Justice John Roberts to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?”

              Or was that some other guy?

              Obama should resign or be voted out of office.

              I know, I know, love hurts.

              • George Michalopulos says

                I don’t think he’s stupid –far from it. Just a Marxist anti-colonialist who doesn’t understand the historic American nation.

                • Archpriest John W. Morris says

                  I think that he is just incompetent. He is not doing his job as president. The evening they murdered our ambassador, Obama did not attend a national security briefing, because he flew to Las Vegas for a fund raising event. He will not take the time to meet with the Prime Minister of Israel, who could very cause a major war by attacking Iran, because he has to appear on the David Letterman program. He created a commission to work on jobs and has not met with it. Read the reviews of Bob Woodward’s latest book. Woodward is no right wing flake. Of all the men we have elected as president, he is one of if not the lease qualified. We usually do not elect Senators because they have no executive experience. Instead, we usually elect governors because they have had executive experience.

            • 500,000? That’s highly debatable.

              Slate, The Guardian, and even The Nation all published sober correctives of dead-Iraqi-baby inflation toward the end of 2001, decisively backing Richard Garfield over Robert Jensen.

          • Michael Bauman says

            Obama’s policies are neither naive nor cynical. I recommend the work of D’nesh D’sousa. His thesis is both penetrating and created with true intellectual/academic integrity. Clearly he has a conservative bias, but he does not engage in an agenda driven political polemic.

            Fundamentally, D’sousa believes that Obama’s foreign policy is driven by the ideology of Third World anti-colonialism (Obama’s dreams from his father). The main components of this ideology are anti-capitalism; anti-Americanism and anti-Christianity with the concomitant support for the reduction of American power, antipathy to Israel, a tilt toward Islam and socialist/fascist type economic policies.

            BTW: D’sousa specifically rejects two points that many anti-Obama folk hold to strongly. D’sousa rejects the belief that Obama is not an American citizen and that he is a Muslim although Islamic influence through his early years is evident.

            Totally off point: According to 2008 U.S. census figures there are almost twice as many Muslims in the U.S. as there are Eastern Orthodox. Maybe we need to take a clue from the 1960’s slogan: Make love, not war (as married couples of course).

            • Obama’s policies are neither naive nor cynical.

              I’m sorry. It is intensely naive to believe that of all the noble, intelligent, and gifted people who have ever lived and who have sacrificed their lives trying to solve the intractable human problems of the world, you are uniquely illuminated, you have some profound degree of insight that others have lacked. Obama’s worshippers just don’t get that. They’re naive, too.

              For cynicism, I’d have to get the bulldozer out of the garage, and I just too tired right now. This afternoon’s kabuki-theatre-of-the-damned at Andrew’s Airforce Base will have to suffice.

              From what I’ve seen of D’Souza’s argument, he may have a point about Obama’s anti-colonialist bent. I’ll have to investigate it. Obama’s a complicated and interesting person. If we survive this, history will have a field day with him.

              D’sousa rejects the belief that Obama is not an American citizen and that he is a Muslim…

              I reject his rejection. The plain fact is that no one knows. From a strict technology perspective, the document Obama’s trying to pass off at the White House site as his birth certificate is an obvious fabrication–his attorney in New Jersey admitted as much; I assume he must have some reason for trying to pass it off as real, so I await developments. Same thing regarding his being a Muslim: there is so much conflicting infomation—much of it provided by Obama himself—that it is impossible to know the truth. I only know, from his extreme pro-Muslim activities, his obvious antipathy to Israel, and his (pardon me) cynical embrace of “Christianity” in the bastardized form of Liberation Theology that I cannot reasonably rule the possibility out.

              I am sick unto death of everyone acting as though there were areas of Obama’s history and philosophy that must be treated as though they don’t exist merely in order to avoid being “McCarthy-ized.” We can’t allow the Left to set the terms of the debate. For years, the Left vilified anyone who suggested that the Rosenbergs might be Soviet spies. Guess what? The Rosenbergs were Soviet spies.

              Here’s my agenda: I want to retain the freedom I was born with. I want that for you as well.

              • Michael Bauman says

                Maybe Obama is Muslim in his heart, maybe he is not really an American citizen, but politically both are moot because they are unprovable (D’sousa’s point really). What is provable by Obama’s own words and the words of his father’s closest friends and the positions of those who were mentor’s to Obama is that Obama is ideologically driven. Maybe I’m wrong, but ideologs don’t seem to me to be naive or cynical. Their belief may be horribly misplaced and destructive, but they know what they are doing, why they are doing it and have utter faith that they are right.

                Whether Obama is Muslim or not, he is certainly not Christian. Whether he is an official U.S. citizen, or not, his ideology was not formed by the traditional American ethos.

                His Hope and Change is the hope that America will no longer be the America we have always been. The ideology which he adopted from his father longs to destroy American power, capitalism, Israel and Christianity (we ‘cross worshippers” as sine of the Arab ‘freedom fighters’ are calling us).

                We could also argue over whether he is a marxist or a fascist, IMO, he is a bit of both but that too does not really matter, his ideology is nihlistic to the core and therefore dedicated above all to his personal power and control. It is an example of Nietzche’s “transvaluation of all values” that can be seen at the heart of all his policies. His hope is that all we have historically held dear in this country will be destroyed.

                • A marxist ideologue–like Obama—is especially naive because he is working with utopias and not the realities of human nature. Marx, for example, never associated with the hoi polloi. The few he did meet just ticked him off because they did not conform to his preconceptions, and they thought he was full of crap. All that stuff about the “working man” is the fantasy of an isolated mind.

                  In practice, however, you may be accurate. The professional ideologues in the Soviet Union gradually came to understand that communism didn’t work but dutifully gave lip service to the party line in order to remain in power. I read something recently where a citizen of the Soviet Union claimed that, oddly enough, none of the party members he knew in the Soviet Union were actually communists. He met his first real communists in the United States when he entered Berkeley.

                  Otherwise, we completely agree. Obama is a disgrace:

                  Obama must resign

                  • I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated…the whole world looks at America differently. If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country…I understand their point of view….And that will ultimately make us safer.”

                    —Barack Obama, November 21, 2007

                    Watch the video:

                  • Michael Bauman says

                    Nine: Naive: 1650s, “natural, simple, artless,” from Fr. naïve, fem. of naïf, from O.Fr. naif “naive, natural, genuine; just born; foolish, innocent; unspoiled, unworked” (13c.), from L. nativus “not artificial,” also “native, rustic,” lit. “born, innate, natural” (see native (adj.)). Related: Naively.

                    Ideologs may be deluded, but they are not naive. Technically, delusion is a belief that, though false, has been surrendered to and accepted by the whole mind as a truth;

              • George Michalopulos says

                Also, Obama’s SSN begins with the prefix “042-“. That’s a Connecticut prefix. Plus, his parents never lived as an intact family unit. Obama was born on Aug 4, 1961, yet his mother took him to Washington State just two weeks later, where she enrolled in college.

                Kinda makes you go “hmmmm…..”

        • Archpriest John W. Morris says

          It is not too bright, especially since the Libyan government warned us 3 days before the incident that the American embassy and its staff were threatened.

          • George Michalopulos says

            I was merely commenting about the mental capabilities of the president, not the rightness or the brilliance of the administration per se.

  6. That is a very good question and an equally good observation as to why a non-law enforcement agency of the government has to order ammo.
    To be concerned about death and enslavement is a very real concern for Orthodox Christians to consider. History tells us so that it has been an issue that has been dealt with over and over throughout the years by great men and women who are Saints of the Church, many of whom shed blood and shed their blood in defence of the Church and her people and the innocent.
    It has nothing to do with the color of your skin.

    • Even the Dept of Education ordered ammo and weapons. There is NO reason for them, or the NOAA to have either one. Ever. I’m still waiting for an explanation for the purchase of hundreds of thousands of coffins that are stored on farmland in the Southeast….

      • Patrick Henry Reardon says

        I’m with Kay on this. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to smell a rat in this business.

  7. Dear George,

    Hollow points are like depleted uranium ammo. They’re for overkill, supermaiming, anticipated crowd control, like that. But you are not asking the right question which is who got the sole source contract to supply these 70 million rounds of ammo?

    Now can we get back to the OCA and getting our Metropolitan back, transparency, the Holy Spirit, like that?

    Do you personally know anyone going to Parma?

    Can you conceive of supporting good hierarchs if everything goes from bad to worse? Can you conceive of some areas of support ? I was just reading the other day how Metropolitan Jonah was going to bring Bishop Seraphim Sigrist out of limbo in 2009. What was with that? Could each of us telecommute and supply some needed administrative or other help? How can we help them help themselves?

    Is the dude in the Metropolitan’s room over on Long Island the same dude who hacked him previously? Inquiring people outside the DOS (You can’t have him, btw; we want him back in DC) want to know

  8. CMON!
    others are going to start thinking you people are nuts.


    300 SSA agents–only 600 bullets per agent.
    I used to go target shooting and expend 100-200 rounds a weekend.

    • “People” in this case being right-thinking Leftists, I presume.

      I don’t give a damn how nuts morally ill people I have no respect for think I am. Ten years ago, people would have thought you were insane for suggesting that a Marxist would ever take over the White House.

      Shows you just how wrong people can be….

    • Robert,

      You do target shooting with hollow points?????!!!!!

      • You should train with what you intend to shoot in a “live” scenario, yes, absolutely. Without a doubt.

        • I would echo what Nathan says here… ALWAYS train with what you intend to shoot. Different types of bullets can make your gun behave in different ways, everything from the recoil to the target grouping. So you need to be intimately familiar with your carry ammo.

        • Elijah,

          You say, “ALWAYS train with what you intend to shoot.”

          Well, yes and no. There is nothing wrong with training with the cheap stuff. Most of what I burn at the range is the cheapest Russian FMJ I can find. BUT!!!!! I also thoroughly test the ammo I carry to make sure it feeds and ejects flawlessly, and shoots to my point of aim. Revolvers are not picky eaters, but semiautomatic weapons can refuse to feed certain bullet shapes. Therefore I never carry a type of ammo I have not tested myself.

          • Semantics, we both agree. By “always” I meant you should not be carrying ammo you haven’t practiced with. Always practice with what you are carrying not when you practice only use what yu carry. That would just be silly expensive!

            If you are a government agent then I can see how it would make sense to only order one type of ammo for carry, qualifications, and practice (regardless of cost because, hey, the tax payers are footing the bill anyways).

    • And the link indicates that the bullets were ordered. It then opines on the reason – to put down domestic insurrection. The stockpiling is occurring. The why should be left for an exercise for the reader who was taught critical thinking skills, an admittedly scarce skill set.

    • What an obvious crock.

      You’re joking, right? For the special agents at the Social Security Administration as they investigate “fraud, waste and abuse”? What are they expecting to run into? Oldsters armed with AK-47’s?

      It’s clear that the different departments requisitioned the bullets as cover for their real destination, the DHS. They were hoping no one would notice.

      In addition, Snopes is no longer to be trusted.

  9. It is very unfortunate that we may have to resort to defending ourselves with lethal means. All those rounds ordered, to kill all men, women and children. OK! in the first place who said that the ammunition was to be used against all of us? Come On! this is BS thinking.

    Do you think I should worry about .40 cal JHP, when we have all the nukes all over this country.
    Yes, I do believe in carrying a weapon (legally), but in times of government collapse I will be able to defend my loved ones as much as I can with my weapons training.

    I worry about those who put a gun in their hands and don’t know which end the bullet comes out of.

    2nd Amendment Yes, NRA, Yes, When threatened by those individuals who killed the Ambassador and others, I believe I would have the right to defend myself and love ones plus my neighbors.

    As far as the Marines were not allowed to carry ammo, I had a similar experience when I stood guard over missiles with a .45 and only one clip of ammo in my pocket with giving the order to others – “Stop Who Goes There?” Yep, it did look like I was really able to protect those missiles!

    The heck with the Hague or N.A.T.O. or even the U.S. telling me what round I can use to protect myself and family in time needed. Just maybe supply our armed forces with pea shooters to defend us.

    As far a concerns for +Metropolitan Jonah I believe if youins want Him back go and march on Parma. Show those rascal Bishops they were wrong in their actions,

    Don’t forget others formed a million man march in D.C. why can’t we as Orthodox gather together and protest in Parma and get the media involved or do we just want to give arm-chair lip service and watch Monday Night Football? If you don’t stand up to some Bishops you get what you deserve!

    What a day overcast and irritable. Ugh

    May God forgive me and Bless our Arm Forces.

    • Joseph from L.A. says

      Let’s not forget that the USA had a bloody Civil War and will probably have another one unfortunately soon, just pay attention at the hate and division between Republican vs. Democrats, whites vs. non-whites and so on, a bunch of sikh worshipers couple months ago. The US population is under a FASCIST Regime but it is a Economic Fascist system that controls everything and the fools get angry at a black President and the government when the one that controls all are in the “Central Bank Club” that controls everything by controlling the wealth of the nation and who can have it. God have mercy on us and let’s pray that we can die in peace without having the blood of innocents in our hands.

      • Joseph, I trust you include Messrs. Soros, Gates and other wealthy supporters of the current occupant of the White House as part of the controlling “Central Bank Club.”


  10. Was the source of this information ever verified? What is the source? The report looks as if the vast majority of the supposed orders went to the DOD. If so, war is war. If there is ever a major global conflict, (lets say with China) I would hope our military is prepared. Geneva convention all such aside, nations must be able to defend themselves. Lord know that the US has enemies.

    Does anyone remember Kansas City? There is a threat of domestic or foreign terrorism. Shouldn’t our Federal offices be defended? We was citizens own them and we should feel safe in them. If I’m in line at a federal office and some crazy starts shooting, I don’t want the security officer to use a pellet gun to take him down. I would want the security officer armed so he could quickly and efficiently stop the attacker, preventing the loss of innocent life. And I don’t want bullet fragments flying around the room. ‘Left’ or ‘Right’, most people would agree.

    What if, during a major weather event, someone with ill intent decided to take out a NOAA site. Innocent people in the path of the weather event could be harmed. I would want security officers able to protect the public good.

    Yes, most people in public service are their for the public good.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Any rationalization can be brought forth. However in a weather emergency in which there is widespread looting, it is the National Guard which is tasked with restoring order. They have the training.

    • You do mean Oklahoma City, correct?

  11. Shouldn’t we contact the NRA to get their help in sponsoring legislation to restrict the sale of this hollow-point ammo? If the SSA is buying it, do we want that loophole to be closed? If so, we should get the help of the NRA lobby, no?

    • Chris Banescu says

      Actually, hollow-point ammo is much safer for civilian self-defense and law-enforcement uses, especially in densely populated areas. When fired, the round usually stops inside the body of the criminal or the wall or other object it hits. The bullets are designed to dissipate the energy as quickly as possible to reduce the likelihood of endangering anyone else in the vicinity of the confrontation.

      Regular rounds on the other hand, especially higher caliber rounds like 9mm, 10mm, .357 mag, .44 mag or .45 mag, have a tendency, especially at close range, of going through the criminal’s body part, through a thin wall, window, or door, and lodging itself in a house or apartment nearby potentially injuring innocent bystanders.

      FYI – “American civilians use their firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year defending against a confrontation with a criminal, and that handguns alone account for up to 1.9 million defenses per year.”

      This is why it’s a very bad idea to ban hollow-point ammo.

    • That would only prevent law-abiding people from obtaining them: criminals would still get their hands on them.

  12. 174,000 rounds of ammo divided by 295 agents is only 590 rounds per agent. That info has been available online for at least a week now.

    Do you know how often cops / agents, etc. have to go to the range and qualify? Has anybody here ever gone to a range to go shooting? I don’t know about you, but a normal 1 hour trip to the range for me means I’ve shot 200-300 rounds and I do that quite often.

    I’m as paranoid as the next guy, but this is no cause for alarm. Seriously.

    • Regarding hollow points specifically, please read: http://www.lawofficer.com/article/tactics-and-weapons/short-history-hollow-points

      Here’s the bullet point version (no pun intended):
      Myth 1: Hollow-point ammunition was outlawed by the Geneva Convention.
      Myth 2: Hollow-point rounds (“dumdums”) are outlawed by international law.
      Myth 3: Hollow points cause more damage than other rounds.

      Long story short, you really don’t want cops running around with FMJ ammo. Or citizens using it in their home defense guns, for that matter. I don’t think there’s anything unreasonable about ammo being effective – these are *guns* after all, not play things. What’s both more effective at stopping an attacker and safer as far as minimizing collateral damage? You guessed it…not FMJ ammo.

  13. First, I am no fan of the government in general or of this administration in particular.

    That said, as an avid shooter, I do know a few things about ammunition.

    1) The more ammo you buy in one order, the lower the price per round.

    2) Properly manufactured ammunition has a very long shelf life. I buy and shoot rifle ammunition manufactured half a century ago, or more. The power used now is even more stable if stored in a cool dry place. Putting in an order for a ten or fifteen year supply makes perfect sense.

    3) Most of that ammunition will be use in practice and in yearly training and qualification.

    4) Unless the populace is willing to line up and be shot one at a time from close range, you can forget about that “1 bullet = 1 corpse” prediction. In the heat of the moment, expect no fewer than half the rounds fired to miss. If the target is shooting back, fewer that one out of ten rounds will hit the intended target. In combat, the ration is close to 10,000 rounds fired for every hit.

    5) Hollow points are designed to kill quickly without overpenetration. This sounds cruel, till you remember that there may be a mother with children on the other side of the crazed gunman you’re trying to stop. Solid, round nose, full metal jacket bullets not only over penetrate, but they are very ineffective at stoping the bad guy. In combat the FMJ ammunition is used for a very practical reason: It takes seven people to care for a wounded soldier, but only two to bury a dead one.

  14. David Axelnerd says

    I think Obama is planning to use the ammo on Mexican illegals and Muslim terrorists that are receiving social security and Medicaid benefits. Of course, it would be less expensive and less bloody if he just waits for the government takeover of the healthcare system and in a short time the illegals and terrorists would be dead from the lack of and meager healthcare they will receive.

    Got to run, there are black helicopters landing in the front yard.

    • Unless the SS administration was planning to just shoot all us oldsters (you are included, Bishop Tikhon!) to save on paying us until we turn 90 or so…Me, I’m only 76!

    • You’re witty. Do you do bachelor parties?

    • Maybe the bullets are to scare off the Baby Boomers coming to enroll for SS/Medicare for the first time to keep the cost of those programs from “going out of sight.”

  15. Michael Kinsey says

    There is only 1 scenario that would be a possible reason for the massive unrest the government is preparing.for. A default bankruptcy which cancels, food stamps, SS, Medicare and Medicaid, Veteran retirements, Hud Housing, coupled with handing over economic sovereign control of the USA to the UN, which enacts, the mark of the beast, with it’s tattoo or chip. The only privacy will be the privacy to murder your own children with impunity by abortion and to die with dignity, enforced by euthanasia medical professionals. Any American who remembers any real freedom will protest this, and the Gov knows this. The Holy Scripture is infallible, and this will happen, and soon. Glory be to God for all things, it won’t last long. God has told us of his Total War against this.

    • Michael Kinsey says (September 14, 2012 at 3:58 pm):

      ‘There is only 1 scenario that would be a possible reason for the massive unrest the government is preparing.for. A default bankruptcy which cancels, food stamps, SS, Medicare and Medicaid, Veteran retirements, Hud Housing, coupled with handing over economic sovereign control of the USA to the UN, which enacts, the mark of the beast, with it’s tattoo or chip. The only privacy will be the privacy to murder your own children with impunity by abortion and to die with dignity, enforced by euthanasia medical professionals. Any American who remembers any real freedom will protest this, and the Gov knows this. The Holy Scripture is infallible, and this will happen, and soon. Glory be to God for all things, it won’t last long. God has told us of his Total War against this.’


      This is paranoid and alarmist at the same time as SOME of the points which Michael Kinsey makes are true.

      Let us be ‘as cunning as serpents yet innocent as doves’.

    • The Holy Scriptures are infallible, but those who quote them are not.
      However, even I, Bishop Tikhon, am absolutely infallible when I speak the truth, as is anybody else who speaks the truth, when speaking it.

      • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

        How do you define “infallible”? What do you mean by the term?

        • Fr. Hans, why are you doing this? You and I know that infallible means incapable of error. The most common referent of the word in our world and time is the famous dogma of the Roman Church, where it is limited to utterances of the Roman Pope when speaking ex cathedra. In other words, the Pope is infallible when, and only when, he pronounces a statement ex cathedra. He is fallible, capable of falling into error, at all other times. in other words, it is not a permanent condition or property.
          I, too, Fr. Hans, am incapable of error when I speak the truth. This is a tautology, yet factual.
          Every human being becomes infallible during the time that human being utters the truth. No error at all can be found in him while speaking the truth.
          From Benjamin Whorf through Noam Chomsky and beyond, though, one may, if sufficiently energized/motivated, make absolute hash out of any such declaration, and going even further, beyond all linguistic science, one may find rest and comfort in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s wonderful and uplifting pronouncement: “Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schweigen!”

          • It’s your choice of the other words, in your phrase above ‘in other words’ that makes the rest seemingly nothing. To actually make the point, you have to show that ‘ex cathedra’ means exactly ‘when speaking the truth’. But ‘ex cathedra’ has debatable various shades of meaning, all different than ‘when speaking the truth’.

            After all, they didn’t bother to innovate a new dogma just to say ‘1 = 1’.

          • The only objective truth and infallibility that I know of is The Father’s Word, and I don’t know how to “utter” or “speak” Him.
            ALL other truth and infallibility is subjective.
            objective |əbˈjektiv| adjective
            • not dependent on the mind for existence; actual
            subjective |səbˈjektiv| adjective
            • dependent on the mind or on an individual’s perception for its existence.

            • When I say God is love, I am infallible.
              When I say Charlize Theron has a beautiful grin, I am infallible.
              However, the Roman Catholic dogma skirts around the concept of truth, and states that the Pope’s pronouncements of doctrine ex cathedra are infallible

              Jesus Christ is spoken by God the Father. He is God’s Word.

              The Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ. That is God’s pure truth, PdnNJ. That is objective truth.
              And whenever I utter “The Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ,” PdnNJ, I am infallible.

              • Vladyka: Sounds to me like you take credit for God’s truth and infallibility just because you speak it when if fact you are just a “communications channel” for it when you speak it.
                P.S. “Love” means different things to different people.
                Whether or not “Charlize Theron has a beautiful grin” depends on “the eye of the beholder” so you cannot be infallible when you say that.
                It would have been better to have said “Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.”

                • I’ve changed my mind; It would have been much, much better to have said “Jesus Christ was incarnate of the Virgin Mary.”
                  How about this: Only the Father’s Word Himself is the Father’s infallible truth.

                • George Michalopulos says

                  PdnNJ, I must agree with Bp Tikhon here. Charlize Theron has an exquisitely beautiful grin. All kidding aside, I’ve read Catholic theologians say the same thing: truth is infallible and when one speaks it, he speaks infallibly.

                  • George Michalopulos says:
                    September 18, 2012 at 10:30 pm

                    I’ve read Catholic theologians say the same thing: truth is infallible and when one speaks it, he speaks infallibly.

                    We know why Roman Catholics want to believe and teach that!
                    But they are just trying to appropriate for themselves that which belongs only to the Holy Trinity, i.e., absolute truth and thus, infallibility.

          • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says:
            September 17, 2012 at 2:54 pm

            “Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schweigen!”

            Your Grace, you’re “speaking in tongues” again!
            Shall I remind you of what St. Paul advises about that?

  16. cynthia curran says

    Well, Illegal Hispanics are a group are poorer than the native population. Some have come up by their bootstraps like Loretta Sanchez whose parents I believe were legalized by Ronald Reagan and she is a democratic rep in California. Center for immigration studies shows legal and illegal immigrants in the US taking some kind of welfare program compared to the native born- illegal immigrants children received free and reduce lunch programs, so yes Obama is trying to use Mexican and Central America immigrants and their children. How ever, many of them that do maids jobs and have children benefit more from the Democratic since they offer more social welfare programs to help them. This is similar to Hilary Clinton appeal to waitress that don’t make a lot of money either.

  17. What blog am I on? I thought this was OCA business. “Paranoia runs deep. Into your mind it will creep. It begins when you’re always afraid. Step out of line the man’ll come and time you away.”

  18. Ivan Vasiliev says

    Reading all this is sort of like stepping into an episode of the Twilight Zone. Its both funny and terrifying at the same time. What is happening here, lately?

  19. They’re doing it again!

    DHS Purchases 200 Million More Rounds of Ammunition

    Additional purchase includes bullets designated for snipers

    The number of bullets purchased by the DHS now adds up to a staggering 1.4 billion over the last six months alone. Although all those bullets won’t be delivered at once, the DHS’ commitment to purchasing such an arsenal of ammo is both worrying and ironic given that Americans are being harassed and treated with suspicion for buying a couple of boxes of ammo at their local gun store.

    Following a barrage of questions about why the federal agency has purchased so many bullets, the DHS has refused to respond and even gone to the lengths of censoring information relating to solicitations for ammunition.