Log in

Archive for January, 2013


January 29th, 2013 by


By Lynn Stuter
January 29, 2013

Last week I sent out an e-mail concerning the fact that the Social Security Death Index (SSDI) shows that Adam Lanza, the alleged Sandy Hook shooter, actually died on December 13, 2012, the day before Sandy Hook occurred. I outlined, step by step, how I obtained this information, so doubters could check the facts for themselves. The SSDI record shows Adam Lanza's birth date of April 22, 1992 which has been confirmed; his birth place of Exeter, New Hampshire, has also been confirmed. The same record shows Adam Lanza's date of death as December 13, 2012.

I even sent what I had found to a local news station, along with a note stating,

Maybe you can unravel the mystery of how it is possible that Adam Lanza was the Sandy Hook shooter when SSDI records show his death date as December 13, 2012, the day before Sandy Hook occurred.

As a mainstream media source, one would think they would be curious about how Adam Lanza could possibly be the shooter when he died the day before Sandy Hook occurred. However, the local news station, a CBS affiliate, wasn't interested. One has to question, as an alleged investigative agency, why they weren't. After all, isn't truth and accuracy in journalism important? Or is the agenda more important?

And one would think, if the date of Adam Lanza's death was in question, someone would have contacted the Social Security Administration (see GenealogyBank disclaimer on both pictures) long before now. And one would think, if the death date was in error, this record would have either been pulled or corrected.

Now, like so many other Americans, I have to wonder—Who was the real shooter or shooters at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut?

We know, from the SSDI records, that Nancy Lanza died on December 14, 2012.

And, of course, the fact that Adam Lanza died on December 13, not December 14, brings everything we have been told—by the mainstream media, law enforcement, and the medical examiner—regarding the shooting at Sandy Hook and the deaths of Adam and Nancy Lanza, into question.

How did Adam Lanza really die? Was he murdered? If so, by whom?

How did Nancy Lanza really die? Was she murdered? If so, by whom?

First, we were told that the shooter carried out his mission with two pistols; that the Bushmaster .223 was later found in the car supposedly belonging to Nancy Lanza; then the medical examiner claimed all the deaths were caused by the "long rifle", the Bushmaster .223. That was when law enforcement changed their story to the Bushmaster .223 being used in the killings and a shotgun being the gun found in the trunk of the car.

How could have experienced law enforcement personnel possibly mistaken a shotgun for a Bushmaster .223?

How could law enforcement have possibly mistaken a "long rifle" for a pistol?

Who was the man, wearing camouflage, chased in the woods behind the school, arrested, and taken away?

Who did the guns really belong to? Were they stolen from the Lanza house? Were they really registered to Nancy Lanza?

Who did the car, found parked close to the school, really belong to? Was it stolen from the Lanza residence by the individual who killed Nancy Lanza or was the car not even registered to Nancy Lanza but to someone else?

Is there any connection between the deaths of Adam and Nancy Lanza and the deaths at Sandy Hook? Or were these two incidents actually not connected at all?

Who did Principal Dawn Hochsprung really come face to face with at Sandy Hook Elementary? Who really killed her, five other adults, and 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14, 2012? How many shooters were actually involved? How many guns were really used? Remember that the children described the shooter as dressed completely in black including a black head covering. Would children, given the panic going on, be able to identify more than one shooter if they did not see them together and all shooters were dressed the same?

And, of course, looking at this very crucial piece of evidence, concerning when Adam Lanza died, I have to ask, Why are we being lied to?

Looking at all of this, I would even go so far as to entertain the probability that Sandy Hook was a U.S. Government false flag operation. How could I conclude that?

Beginning in late 2011, the scandal concerning Operation Fast and Furious was heating up. Operation Fast and Furious led right into the U.S. Department of Justice and implicated Barack Hussein Obama. Operation Fast and Furious was exposed as a government-led operation walking guns across the border into Mexico. At the same time, Obama and company (including "What difference does it make" Clinton) were alleging those same guns were being supplied, illegally, by Americans. It has been alleged that Obama intended to use Operation Fast and Furious as justification for passing a law banning assault-type weapons. His and Clinton's claims that guns were being supplied, illegally, by Americans certainly makes the case that such was Obama's intent.

Did Sandy Hook happen because Operation Fast and Furiouswas exposed as a government-led operation, thereby terminating its usefulness to Obama and company in pushing for an assault-type weapons ban?

When Obama made the allegation that the guns ultimately connected to Operation Fast and Furious were being supplied, illegally, by Americans, his allegations did not gain sufficient traction and were being vigorously denied by Second Amendment activists, who, it turned out, were right. Any despot, worth his salt, knows that common sense and fact cannot be overcome unless emotion can be engaged to overcome both.

And, golly, geez whiz, just look at what has occurred in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook incident — mass hysteria has been whipped up, augmented, at every turn, by the mainstream media. Pictures of the Sandy Hook children who died posted everywhere, blow-by-blow coverage of the funerals, impassioned news conferences by Robbie Parker who had to get into the role before beginning to speak, Obama and his fake tears, pictures of Obama and the families of victims, relentless coverage of every little detail all carefully wrapped in sadness and horror with the requisite outrage aimed at guns. It has been a three-ring circus intended, specifically to appeal to people's emotions, right down to the children surrounding Obama as he signed hispresidential actions in response to Sandy Hook, and Vice President Biden's dog and pony show on guns. It was not three hours after the blow-by-blow news coverage of the Sandy Hook incident commenced that Bob Schieffer of CBS news was calling for gun control. Coincidence, or is it closer to the truth that Bob Schieffer was just playing his role? That Bob Schieffer has since been inducted into the TV Hall of Fame certainly should leave people wondering – after all, doesn't one good turn deserve another?

And in the six weeks since Sandy Hook, there have been innumerable instances in which law-abiding citizens have successfully defended themselves, their wives, their children, their homes—with legally-owned guns—against the illegal acts of criminals. We have heard nothing of these incidents in the national media, only hearing about them from people who ferreted them out on the internet or heard of them locally and broadcast the news via e-mail or the internet.

At the same time, every incident in which guns have been used illegally to kill multiple people has made the news nation-wide right down to the local affiliates. This is what the mainstream media calls unbiased or balanced reporting.

On January 24, 2013, Dianne Feinstein, the Democrat (and Marxist to the core) Senator from California, introduced her bill, Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. As of this writing, the bill has been given a number – S.150 – but has not yet been entered at the Government Printing Office (GPO); at this time, the only copy of it exists on the website.

In her press release, regarding the same, Feinstein stated:

“The bill introduced today is the product of more than a year of work, with input from across the country,” Feinstein said. “Getting this bill signed into law will be an uphill battle, and I recognize that—but it’s a battle worth waging. We must balance the desire of a few to own military-style assaults weapons with the growing threat to lives across America. If 20 dead children in Newtown wasn’t a wakeup call that these weapons of war don’t belong on our streets, I don’t know what is.” (Underlining added for emphasis)

You did catch that, didn't you – "The bill introduced today is the product of more than a year of work, with input from across the country … If 20 dead children in Newtown wasn't a wakeup call that these weapons of war don't belong on our streets, I don't know what is."

What an interesting coincidence that this bill has been a whole year in the works, and Sandy Hook just happened to occur eleven days before Christmas; and one month after Christmas, Feinstein drops her bill. The old adage that nothing in politics is a coincidence definitely comes into play, supported by the fact that Adam Lanza died one day before Sandy Hook occurred.

And in light of all this, one has to ask – Why the Biden dog and pony show, being as how Feinstein had already spent a year working on S.150, a fact that Democrat colleague Biden undoubtedly knew? By all appearances, that dog and pony show was not for the purpose stated.

In her press release, Feinstein went on to say,

The legislation also protects the rights of law-abiding citizens who use guns for hunting, household defense or legitimate recreational purposes.

There is only one problem; and it's a very big problem—The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, contained in the Bill of Rights, is not limited to hunting, household defense or recreation; the Second Amendment states:

"Right to keep and bear armsA well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (Underlining added for emphasis)

In even proposing this legislation, Senator Dianne Feinstein has violated her oath of office to protect and defend the United States Constitution, as has every Senator who has signed on as a co-sponsor.

War has been declared on the law-abiding citizens of the United States of America. That war has been declared by the Marxist occupying the White House, socialist/communist Senators and Representatives in the House and Senate, and the mainstream media who is pushing the cause of these anti-American, anti-freedom loving traitors to the max, all the while ignoring two indisputable facts:

1) laws are for the law-abiding; criminals aren't law-abiding; 
2) this law, if passed, will not stop one criminal from obtaining a gun and killing people; this law will have no effect beyond curbing the rights of the law-abiding.

These two facts alone make the agenda of these gun-grabbing traitors apparent.

What can you do?

On January 25, 2013, I wrote and sent a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein, at her Washington, DC office. In that letter I outlined her violation of her oath of office and demanded her immediate resignation. A copy of that letter was sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, my State Senators (Murray and Cantwell), my State Representative (Cathy McMorris Rodgers) and Speaker of the House John Boehner, accompanied by a letter requesting Feinstein's benefits and privileges as a Senator be terminated. 

I would encourage every American, concerned about this war that has been declared on their Second Amendment rights, do the same. Additionally, if your Senator is a co-sponsor of S.150, demand their immediate resignation and termination of their rights and privileges as a Senator, as well.

If you believe, as some law-abiding gun owners do, that theAssault Weapons Ban of 2013 is not about your ability to protect and defend your freedom, you need to go watch this film: Obama to Top Brass: Will you fire on American Citizens?

The House and Senate have refused to deal with the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen; that he is not eligible, under Article I, Section II, Clause 5, United States Constitution, to the office he holds; that the United States of America has not had a lawful president or commander-in-chief for the past four years, and will not have a lawful president or commander-in-chief for at least another four years unless Congress acts, which does not seem likely. Our rights have been violated and denied.

The House and Senate have refused to deal with the fact that HB 3590, P.L 111-148, otherwise known as Obamacare, is unconstitutional and was signed into law by an individual not lawfully holding the office of president. Our rights have been violated and denied.

The House and Senate have refused to deal with the corruption emanating from the Oval Office as occupied by Obama, including the walking of guns across the border into Mexico under Operation Fast and Furious. Our rights have been violated and denied.

All of this happened while our duly elected, who took an oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution, have stood by and done nothing to stop it. The stench of the corruption emanating from Washington DC is worse than that of a pig sty on a hot day!

The one right that protects all others is the Second Amendment. We should not be surprised that it is now under attack. If we stand back and do nothing to stop the agenda of these gun-grabbing traitors, tyranny will soon follow.

© 2013 Lynn M. Stuter – All Rights Reserved

Activist and researcher, Stuter has spent the last fifteen years researching systems theory and systems philosophy with a particular emphasis on education as it pertains to achieving the sustainable global environment. She home schooled two daughters. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance, the sustainable global environment and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers and a growing body of citizens concerned about the transformation of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a participatory democracy. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.

Web site: www.learn-usa.com


Beginning with the George Bush Senior administration and through each following administration, America has been subjected to atrocities of unimaginable proportions, with all of the perpetrators landing in a pile of money, and no recriminations from the law.  In spite of all the available information on their involvement in these atrocities, each election produces more despotic dictator wannabees hell bent on the total destruction of freedom in all three branches of the federal government. As if this is not bad enough, Obama is now weeding out all military personnel who will not fire on American Citizens. Sandy Hook is destined to be the king pin of revolution, and the fires of hell our going to consume us all, if Americans don’t stand up and fight back NOW! Obama seems hell bent on becoming the most despicable dictator in all of history, and when he falls people will be lining up for miles to piss on his grave. Unfortunately, it may take millions of Americans losing everything before he falls. All of his predecessors are in hell waiting on him! All of the souls of Innocent Americans who have died due to these planned events are waiting for judgment day. Americans the unimaginable has become reality.

What are you doing about it!?????

10 13 11 flagbar

Feinstein Gun Control Bill to Exempt Government Officials

January 28th, 2013 by




Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein's gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.

"Mrs. Feinstein's measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel," the Washington Times reports.

The Huffington Post confirms these exemptions, and adds that guns owned prior to the legislation becoming law will be permissible, too. "[T]he bill includes a number of exemptions: It exempts more than 2,200 hunting and sporting weapons; any gun manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action; any weapons used by government officials and law enforcement; and any weapons legally owned as of the date of the bill's enactment."

The bill's measures include stopping "the sale, manufacture and importation of 158 specifically named military-style firearms and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. It would also ban an additional group of assault weapons that accept detachable ammunition magazines and have at least one military characteristic," according to the Huffington Post.

The left-leaning website adds: "Other new provisions include requiring background checks on all future transfers of assault weapons covered under the bill and eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original ban to expire." 


I’M FROM THE GOVERNMENT, SO YOU CAN TRUST ME TO HAVE A GUN, AND YOU DON’T! YEA SURE, JUST AS SOON AS ROCKS DON’T SINK IN WATER. If this bitch has the right to protect herself with a gun, so do we! And if you don’t think that’s fair, someone has stuck your head up your ass so long ago you like it.

10 13 11 flagbar



January 28th, 2013 by


By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

December 17, 2012


Well, Ladies and Gentlemen in the ethereal realm, once again another natural disaster—Hurricane Sandy in this case—has exposed the insouciance, ineptitude, and incompetence of America’s incestuously inbred political class. Not only have these worthies and their minions in all of the self-aggrandizing “homeland-security agencies” proven quite unprepared to protect Americans from the effects of the storm in an adequate and timely manner; but also over the years they have even actively discouraged common Americans from taking the steps to protect themselves that should have been obvious to anyone with an IQ higher than his age. And if a mere hurricane—a type of natural disaster with which Americans have long had experience—striking just one part of this country overtaxes the skills of these “homeland-security experts”, what will transpire when the monetary and banking systems collapse throughout the land?

The answer to this question is, of course, that unmitigated chaos will reign supreme, particularly in urban areas.

The way to deal with that problem is, however, not to blabber about how supposedly “this country is finished” (as all too many disconsolate patriots do)—or to propose such desperate expedients as “secession”, which will not by itself guarantee preparedness, and the possible success of which depends in the first instance upon the most heightened form of preparedness. Rather, the correct recourse is to start revitalizing “the Militia of the several States”, State by State, immediately if not sooner. In which event, this country will be preserved, and appeals to “secession” (and other pie-in-the-sky political panaceas) will be recognized as unnecessary.

As readers of my columns are well aware, I have been urging revitalization of the Militia for many years—and, each and every year, some new catastrophes wrought by Nature or outrages perpetrated by rogue public officials have proven the wisdom of, and the increasingly urgent need for taking, that course of action.

The American people, however, cannot be expected to do what they are not equipped to do. How can Americans revitalize their Militia, when they know next to nothing about the Militia? Well, everyone is familiar with the old saying: “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for that one day. Teach a man to fish, and he can feed himself every day thereafter.” In the spirit of that homespun advice, I have completed a definitive study, entitled The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of “the Militia of the several States”, which should provide every reader with all of the information requisite to understand the origin of the Militia, their special place under the Declaration of Independence and within the Constitution’s federal system, and why (as the Second Amendment declares) they are “necessary to the security of a free State”. Not optional, but necessary.

Among other topics covered in its 1,944 pages of text, The Sword and Sovereignty explains:

 how the Militia would serve as the ultimate embodiments and instruments of WE THE PEOPLE’S authority under the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution;

 how the Militia would enable to States to enforce federalism through constitutional interposition against rogue agents of the General Government;

 how the Militia would enable a patriotic President of the United States to fulfill his constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” against those combinations that now threaten this country’s independence and well-being, but are too powerful to be suppressed through the normal course of honest judicial proceedings;

 how the Militia would expose and punish usurpations of power and mal-administration by rogue and incompetent public officials at every level of the federal system;

 how the Militia would provide the indispensable “checks and balances” against a rogue “standing army” and “military-industrial complex”;

 how the Militia would eliminate all “gun control” that did not specifically promote “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”;

 how the Militia would put a stop to the present-day rampages of police brutality once and for all, in the most swift, sure, and severe manner possible;

 how the Militia would guarantee the conduct of honest elections; and, last but not least,

 how the Militia would establish in the most expeditious fashion an economically sound and constitutional alternative currency and structure of new free-market prices in anticipation of the inevitable collapse of the Federal Reserve System’s fascistic banking cartel.

Time being of the essence, and the costs of printing a first-quality book of this size being what they are, I have arranged for an electronic version of The Sword and Sovereignty to be produced on a CD. The disk contains the full 2,304 pages of introductory material, text, authorities cited in the footnotes, and endnotes in PDF format accessible with Adobe Reader 6.0 (or some later version). This presentation allows for use of the standard PDF search feature, which many people have suggested would be desirable.

The Sword and Sovereignty is now available exclusively through amazon.com.

© 2012 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volumePieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective.www.piecesofeight.us

He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes.www.crashmaker.com

His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary" … and Constitutional "Homeland Security," Volume One, The Nation in Arms…

He can be reached at his new address:
52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.

E-Mail: Not available 


Buy a copy or two of this PDF book, study it and give a copy to your local sheriff. It will be the smartest thing you can do to help save our country.


10 13 11 flagbar


January 28th, 2013 by


Carole "CJ" Williams


Before sitting down to thump away on the old keyboard, I reflected on many facts learned that lend credence to the hornet’s nest I uncovered a few years ago. What I stumbled upon then was preposterous, too outrageous to be true, but the facts keep hitting me right between the eyes, and the sad truth is that there really is a United Nations’ Agenda 21, a nasty old plan for the 21st century that will remake us into cloned, mindless worker have-nots. There really is a Wildlands Project to turn our country into a nation of sniveling and beggarly, Mother Nature worshipping Sheeple, apathetically willing to bow to the dictates of elite Fascists running the New World Order.

As messages of concern and informational enlightenment come into my inbox daily from a multitude of watchdog researchers, property and constitutional rights groups, outdoor sports aficionados, and individuals who give a damn about our future, I’m continuously reminded that America, as we know it, will soon become a thing of the past. There’s far too much documentation from too many sources for all these people to be so wrong.

The Wildlands Project (TWP) is actually a group of fanatic eco-sociopaths who are hell-bent on restoring our country to pre-Columbus times, and by this is meant restoration of both public and private property, regardless of what the majority of people may want for themselves. Their mission, which is rapidly coming to fruition, is to re-wild a vast percent of American land and eventually relocate the “humanely” reduced human population to highly regulated and minuscule “human use” areas near our states’ most metropolitan cities.

Like the multitudinous land trusts and conservancies that help government agencies get their glommers on land, the Wildlands Project is interconnected with countless environmental groups through partnership webs, many a result of their collective allegiance to the UN’s International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Because of these entangled webs, it’s often difficult to specifically link TWP to the various “restoration” projects. But, be assured, the Wildlands Project bunch is most definitely exerting their will and considerable weight on Mr. and Mrs. Joe Citizen and all their children who are now being environmentally brainwashed in our public schools.

In fact, a Wildlands Project agenda definitely exists for restoring the Great Lakes Basin through a bi-national program administered by organizations in the U. S. and Canada. And, while you won’t find too much overt evidence of TWP at the local level in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan or in Newmarket, New Hampshire, this eco-organization has assumed a guiding “umbrella” role, along with the Canadian Parks & Wilderness Society (CPAWS), to bring their agenda to fruition.

Under this cozy umbrella, cooperating regional-scale organizations, as well as government and tribal agencies, are busily carrying out the Wildlands Project’s re-wilding and bio-reserve building in the UP and elsewhere throughout the multi-state Great Lakes Basin, and all the way out the St. Lawrence to the Atlantic Ocean. At completion, there’ll be no Canadian border, and the northern tier of states and Canada will have become one huge bio-reserve.

According to information posted online through the Great Lakes United organization, there are eight major “landscape conservation” initiatives being attended to in the Great Lakes and Niagara Escarpment area. These include the Algonquin to Adirondacks (ON, NY), Bog to Bog (ON), Carolinian Canada (ON), Adirondacks and Northern Appalachians Wildlands Project (ON, QC, NY, VT, NH, ME, NB, NS), Heart of the Continent (MB, ON, MI, MN, WI), Niagara Escarpment (ON), NOAH (the Niagara escarpment, Oak ridges moraine, and Algonquin to Adirondacks Heritage project), and The Land Between (ON).

An older map found on a CPAWS Website shows that all but a tiny fringe of the southern Upper Peninsula boundary is included in the Heart of the Continent. However, bio-reserve boundaries are never stagnant, but, instead, fester outward from the core Biosphere area through public acceptance of more and more stringent land use control, generally garnered by “re-educating” people to buy into the ecosystem management globaloney so they’ll remove their human footprint without further ado.

The “landscape conservation” initiatives are being carried out by networking environmental groups, land trusts, agencies, and individuals working at a scale of a few thousand to hundreds of thousands of square miles. All work simultaneously on both public and private land sub-initiatives, attracting unsuspecting citizens into their web of deceit by promises of traditional land use forever. But, after they’ve sucked all the remaining fight out of Mr. and Mrs. Joe Citizen a few years from now, they’ll pull the strings tightly together and draw all private and public land and water resources into one humungous bio-reserve package, sans all but their “researchers”, “trainers and trainees”, and a few Native American guinea pigs who can perhaps show researchers how to make medicine from nature’s pharmacy, as tribal members freeze to death in the dark on their reservations.

The Wildlanders are targeting focused land acquisitions, particularly along any waterfront, be it a big river, swamp, or itty-bitty creek, and they’re getting a great deal of financial help through grants from government agencies, partnering environmental groups, and philanthropic moneybag donors. They also get help from some United States congressmen who commit themselves to finding additional funding for land acquisitions, such as the U. P. Big Deal, which is nothing more than a huge land grab scam by a bunch of Agenda 21 eco-con artists.

The sad part of all this is knowing that so few Americans realize how they’re being victimized every day of what remains of their lives as freedom-treasuring citizens, and also that so many do realize the terrible truth, but have no desire to do anything about it other than whine in their whiskey at the local watering hole.

Way back in 1954, Indiana Republican Senator William Jenner said, “Today the path to total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people…outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government, a bureaucratic elite, which believes our Constitution is outmoded and is sure that it is the winning side…. All the strange developments in the foreign policy agreements may be traced to this group who are going to make us over to suit their pleasure… This political action group has its own local political support organizations, its own pressure groups, its own vested interests, its foothold within our government, and its own propaganda apparatus.”

The bureaucratic elite, whom Jenner spoke of, was comprised of those people living in America as Americans, but whose “act local, think global” sympathy lay with an adherence to Marx, Lenin, and Stalin’s goal of world conquest and the replacement of Christianity by communistic atheism.

Jenner wasn’t alone is his abhorrence of these traitors, and one of several men who were also aware of this duplicity was John F. Kennedy, then a young Massachusetts senator who had already spent from 1947 to 1953 in the House of Representatives. Kennedy went on to serve our country in the Senate until he was elected as our 35th President in 1961, a term cut short by murderously plotting madmen in 1963.

Though we’ve not seen it since, nor likely will ever see it again, Congressman Kennedy, who usually backed bills sponsored by his party, also often showed his independence by casting his vote with the Republicans against measures sponsored by the Truman administration. He joined, too, with Republicans in criticizing that administration’s failure to throw its support behind Chiang Kai-shek’s National government, which lost the battle against Communist forces led by Mao Tse-tung, who then victoriously set up the People’s Republic of China.

Kennedy also took no guff from the Soviet Union, but all that changed when Nixon took office in ‘69 and made overtures to both Russia and China that made our country appear tolerant of Communism and dictatorships. Since Nixon’s less than scrupulous reign, all but Reagan have crawled between the sheets with the U. N. and its Commie/Socialist/Fascist comrades. And that, my friends, has given the green light to Fascist infil-traitors still immersed in our nation’s political arenas and bureaucratic agencies a full fifty-one years after Jenner spoke out.

Perhaps Senator Joe McCarthy, whom both Jenner and Kennedy supported, wasn’t entirely wrong in the ‘50s, and, in hindsight, we might have been much better off now had he refined his tactics to more effectively rid our government and its bureaucracies of commie sympathizers a long time ago.

America’s form of government is a Republic, not a Democracy. In a Citizenship Republic, government officials derive their power from the people through an election process by the people. Those elected must protect the rights of the people and collectively, as a government, conduct their business according to law. In a Republic, the People are the masters, and government is subordinate. Our Republic was formed on the basis of Christianity to withstand the winds of time, not Pantheism, which is founded in the worship of fickle Mother Nature. Our rights are bound between the pages of the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the Law of the People and enables us to control our government. Without it, we are naked and vulnerable.

All who are elected to serve us recite an oath of office, which commits them to swearing an allegiance to the Constitution, as is proven in this oath to be sworn by members of the legislative branch of Congress: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

A Democracy is a government of the masses where authority is derived through a mass meeting or “direct” expression process. It results in “mob” rule and a communistic negation of property rights. In a Democracy, people are ruled by laws derived of passion, prejudice, and impulse without restraint or regard to consequences. Even in a Representative Democracy, mob rule can take over when citizens allow themselves to be socially engineered into adopting a Sheeple mentality, particularly when inherent constitutional rights and property rights are being usurped or rewritten.

Under Socialism and Communism, there is severe, but not absolute interference in economics. These sorts of government, operating under the One Party rule, engage in centralized planning and all people are lumped into one class, which is then governed by those in power. Examples include the former Soviet Union and some believe that China, mired in a Marxist/Dictatorship, is heading at a snail’s pace in this direction as a “developing” nation.

Under Fascism, a specific segment of the populace is separated and denied equality based on superficial qualities or belief systems. It’s a two-class system: the elitists separated from all others who don’t meet the superb quality criteria. Fascism promotes legal segregation in housing, as well as in national resource allocation and employment. It’s a system where the most desired humans who earn favors by kissing fascist keisters are finely rewarded, while the dregs of society make do with barely sustainable crumbs. It’s entirely possible for a nation to be both a Republic and a Fascist state simultaneously.

In the 20th Century, many Fascist countries started out as Republics, but through the use of fear, those societies gave up their rights under the guise of security, even though they knew this was wrong. As a result, the Republics morphed into Fascist states because people were loath to do anything about the wrongness, making them part of a consensual conspiracy that can best be summed up in the words of my former Latin teacher, “Silence is the voice of consent!”


With the exception of my wonderful wife, (Jean) there are only two other women in my 72 years who have made significant contributions to my world view, ( Marilyn Barnewall) and (Carole Williams, now deceased), both of which have done so by their exceptional expertise in journalism at News With Views, and other sources of the written word. Their archives of world class journalism may be found here http://www.newswithviews.com/Barnewall/marilynA.htm and here http://www.newswithviews.com/Williams/caroleA.htm Although I did not have the opportunity to become personally acquainted with Carole, I did have the honor of being accepted as a friend of Marilyn, which is without doubt, the most important element contributing to my intellectual development. Before we met on the net there was only one way to view things in my mind, (MINE)! It took her only one letter to change that, and she accomplished it without destroying my self esteem. If and when I encounter political atrocities that my mind cannot decipher, she has the ability to make them plain as day, but wait! There are other journalist who are world class researchers, and they can be found here, http://www.newswithviews.com/writers.htm . So, if your mind is reeling with confusion over the all too apparent destruction of America, you cannot do better to find a source of truthful information. Carloe, Marilyn, and a host of other writers at News with views have changed my life, and they can change yours as well. All you need is a pinch of interest in your future, and you will find nourishing mind food among these great journalists. Please support News with Views, and don’t let a day go by without reading the archives of Dr. Edwin Vieira , specifically this one, The Sword and Sovereignty. http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin254.htm Here you will find the only way back from tyranny in America.


God Bless C.J. (Carole) Williams…

May She Rest in Peace

It was a quiet Friday morning, January 25, 2013, and Mike Williams’ thoughtful telephone call could not have surprised me more.  His beautiful wife and my dear friend, Carole Jean Williams had just died.  Though she had been fighting cancer since before the holidays, it happened very suddenly.  C.J. and I had talked on the telephone just a few days earlier and she was feeling “pretty good,” she said.  A few days before that, she told me she felt better than she’d felt since she was told she had cancer.  So I was numbed by Mike’s call.

 No one in the world of journalism or category of “friend” had more impact on my life than C.J. Williams.  She and I had some of the most beautiful arguments when she helped me edit my News With Views columns… and then we’d argue about what the headline ought to be.  C.J. like longer sentences; I liked shorter ones – but we both loved and respected the truth and that served as the basis of our friendship. 

I don’t call a lot of people “friend” because to me that word means I respect you, your views and willingness to stand up and fight for them, your stance with truth and willingness to put your name on the line for your beliefs… to me, a lot of obligations go with the word “friend.”  C.J. lived up to all of my self-imposed definitions of the word. She agreed with me.

Carole Jean Williams, age 67 of Pelkie, MI passed away on Friday, January 25, 2013 after a short illness at Marquette General Hospital in Michigan.

Carole – C.J., to me – was born May 10, 1945 in Cass City, MI, daughter to Harold and Wanda (Karr) Huffman.  She graduated from North Branch High School in 1963 then attended Central Michigan University. She married Arthur Vasold in 1966 and taught school in North Branch and Perkins, MI. Carole raised her children and later married Mike Williams on September 13, 1991 and they resided in Laurium until 1994 when they moved to Prickett Dam (Pelkie), MI.

She so loved her Upper Peninsula of Michigan… “They call us ‘Yoopers,’” she told me in the early days when we were getting to know one another.  That was a very special category of people in C.J.’s book – Yoopers are the best, hardiest, most common sense people in the world.

It was in an email from C.J. that I found the email address for Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta.  She sent me a message about banking and as I scrolled down to the bottom of the email, there was the Ambassador’s email address.  Since I had without ever having heard of Wanta duplicated his life in my book When the Swan’s Neck Breaks and someone who read the book sent me an article about him, I was shocked to find the fictional character I created was a real human being.  I called C.J. immediately and asked where she had gotten Ambassador Wanta’s email address.  “I have no idea,” she told me.  “I’ve never heard of him.  It must have been on an email someone sent me and I didn’t get it deleted before I forwarded it on to you.”  She spent the next two or three months helping me research Leo/Lee Wanta… and no one could research anything better than Carole Jean Williams.  She was the best!

C.J.  wrote, spoke at events and rallies and on radio shows.  Her hard raspy voice was strong and provided her with a distinguishing characteristic.   When C.J. talked, you never doubted where she stood.  How many times she said “I will go to my grave fighting!  I won’t give these bastards an inch!”  And she never did.  When C.J. spoke at events, she kicked ass and took names.  Her views did not soften because she had an audience.  Rather, she felt the need inside her soul to do what she could to make sure people realized that America was being run by a criminal cabal.  She actively engaged in getting others actively engaged.

As J.C. Powers. Editor of the National Defender, said in his Memorial about her, “She was a vicious watchdog and her stature was reminiscent of the Marine Corps bulldog.  C.J. was not only capable of a painful bite, but when she latched-on there was no letting go.”

Powers also pointed out that C.J. “had no respect for individuals who were far more interested in padding their own self-esteem, wallets, or resumes than doing what’s right.  She especially exhibited a loathing for politicians who were willing to bend over to receive the dictates of fictitious movements like global warming, help promote other global agendas, and put forth their own impositions upon citizens of the nation which she devoutly loved and diligently served.”

I wasn’t part of C.J.’s sportsmen’s organizations but we both appreciated the great outdoors.  She amused me every spring with the volume of flowers and bulbs she planted so she and her husband Mike and the rest of her family and friends could enjoy the resultant beauty.  In that activity, we shared a love of nature.  She battled the Gang Green with an energy that could only be defined as “Wow!”  I invited her to be interviewed on Thursday Nights With Marilyn on Blog Talk Radio because no one knew more about Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development issues than C.J. and she could explain them and state her positions on them so succinctly and reasonably.

In addition to writing for News With Views, C.J. Williams also wrote for womenhunters.com, the Yooper Spectator, Michigan’s News and Views, and the Yooper Spectator and for Yooper Scooper’s National Defender.  She was active in the Calumet Ladies Elks and the Michigan Republican Party.  She belonged to sportsmen’s organizations and fought with a vengeance for the Second Amendment rights of the people to bear arms.  She was involved with men’s and women’s gun groups and loved hunting season each year.

C.J. considered herself a Conspiracy Theory Junky in one posting on Michigan’s News and Views. “But those who knew her, she wasn’t a paranoid consumer of tin-hat theories. She never entered the fray until all aspects were verified,” said J.C. Powers.   She exposed political corruption in her local area and sometimes faced substantial danger because of it. 

Carole Williams once wrote:   “Worse, I’ve no remorse over the fact that my fingers have typed the truth of many conspiracies during the past several years, verifying that my theories and some others’ theories, which I shared with readers of my newspaper column, have proved to be reality, not merely theory.

“Conspiracy theorists have been around for quite some time. It’s only of late – with the phenomenal growth of the TEA Party movement – that the label has received such thundering derision, particularly from the gaggle of far left-leaning, Mao-hugging ‘Progressives’, who appear to have taken over the Democratic Party at all levels.”

Surviving C.J. are her husband Mike Williams of Pelkie; son Mike Vasold (Ava Yang) of Luxemburg, WI, daughters Julie Vasold of Kiel, WI, Candy (Dan) Zerbst of Negaunee, MI; Mike’s children, Bobby (Angie) Williams of Mohawk, MI and Penny (Al) Marchionda of Memphis, TN; two sisters, Phyllis (Leonard) Ford of Caro, MI, Gayle Haas of Davenport, FL, many grandchildren; and several nieces and nephews.

A memorial service will be held on Tuesday, January 29th at 12:00 p.m. at the Jacobson Funeral Home, 200 L'Anse Avenue, L'Anse, MI 49946 (906)524-7800 info@jacobsonfuneralhome.com . The family will receive friends for one hour prior to the service. Rev. Judy Mattson will officiate. A luncheon and fellowship will follow the service in the Sharing Room at the Funeral Home.

C.J. sent me a beautiful set of windchimes for Christmas.  With them cam a note telling me that when the wind blew she hoped it would remind me of her and the wonderful conversations we’ve had over the years.  “So you will hear my voice when the wind blows…” she said.

As J.C. Powers said in his Memorial to C.J., “I’m sure we’ll hear her in the murmur of a brook and within the sounds of a cascading waterfall. She’s an icon of love, loyalty, patriotism, truth, and passion with a hint of ferociousness.

“Every now-and-again, as you walk through the woods and enjoy the aroma of the outdoors as the wind whiffs through the leaves or gently over the glistening white snow, think of CJ and mention her name out loud for God to hear.

“God had truly blessed us with knowing Thee—Rest in Peace good friend and colleague. Please continue to help us find truth in its purest form; Until then . . . “

I was one of those blessed with knowing Carole Jean Williams.  I will miss her.  Millions of Americans who have never heard her name will miss her because she spent a big part of her life fighting those who would harm them… and she often won those battles no one thought possible to win.

This is a woman to be remembered.  My tears over losing you will soon stop, C.J.  But my joy at having known you and my respect for you as a woman, a wife, a mother, a journalist and as a Patriot will only grow as I think back over the many discussions we’ve had about truth and how to find it.  Your soul now rests with your Lord and God and may the many blessings you have earned be heaped upon you with the great honor you deserve.

God bless and keep you.

Marilyn Barnewall

10 13 11 flagbar

Statist Thugs And The Rocks They Crawl Out From Under

January 26th, 2013 by



1-26-2013 6-38-01 AM PHOTOS.COM

By Brandon Smith

A mass exodus from ignorance and organized opposition to tyranny is the dream of every freedom-loving person within the liberty movement today. We would like nothing better than to put an end to the expanding establishment police state in the most peaceful manner possible. We dream of a day when a transition back to the Constitutional values that once made America brilliantly unique in the world is possible, and when it can be accomplished without incredible pain or terrible bloodshed. We long for that once-in-a-century uprising, that great march, that spontaneous eruption of the citizenry demanding a more truthful government. At the same time, though, we realize that such events are rare and that few, if any, great changes in the history of man are made without sacrifice and without direct confrontation.

The reason why peaceful and popular activism almost never occurs successfully, the reason why good people are made to stand and suffer, falls not only to the establishment elites who seek out and abuse power; others share in the blame. Regardless of the age, the culture or the social conditions, there is always a percentage of the general populace that embraces the totalitarian dynamic. There is always someone in our neighborhood, workplace and within our family who finds vindication or advantage in supporting the state, even if the state has turned viciously criminal. They are not only useful idiots; they are conscious participants in the process of pacification and enslavement of their own society. They understand their role perfectly, and they enjoy what they do.

In his examination of the rise of violent fascism in Germany as well as the collectivist surveillance state in communist Russia, psychologist Carl Jung theorized that there is in fact a certain percentage of people in any given epoch that carry within them a latent ability to abandon conscience. That is to say, there is always hidden within a portion of the multitude an inborn potential for sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies. These tendencies remain dormant for many people under most circumstances. But, every once in a while, a society falters to the point where such diseases of the soul are encouraged, and the monsters are allowed to come out and play.

Is it possible that some men are more apt toward truth and freedom while others take more naturally to dominance and deceit? Perhaps. I find that under certain circumstances even the best human beings can make catastrophic errors in judgment. However, there is a difference between those who misstep in life and those who savor destruction. For these people I reserve the label of the “statist thug,” a ghoul in common man’s drag just waiting for the opportunity to scrape out a spoonful of petty authority and assert his will over others. These folks are the day’s damned. And, what’s worse, though they may have been born with a predisposition towards despotism, they still had a choice and they chose villainy. They deserve no special treatment from us.

As America faces down wave after wave of fiscal difficulties, a government gone rogue with false left/right politics and policies that disregard civil liberties for the sake of centralized authority, I believe the statist thugs of our time will soon flow out of the dark recesses and rotten sputtering gutters of our society like a river of septic putrescence. We all know them when we see them, but do we really understand what makes them tick? Here are some common psychological attributes of the overzealous statist, the failings and inadequacies that make him what he is.

Statist Thugs Thrive During Immoral Times

The worst statists are utter screw-ups and failures in normal or semi-normal environments. They barely have the ability to function without constant surrounding chaos and desperation, which they use to camouflage their spastic and childish characters. They are often seen as the dregs of a culture during peaceful years and climb to prominence only when crisis overtakes the nation. When a social environment turns tenuous or explosive, the statist excels. Corrupt governments require the aid of questionable individuals in order to tighten control at the local level, so anyone willing to set aside morality and principle automatically becomes a highly valued commodity. Statists will flock to government employment during national “emergencies” or unjust wars and use the inbred system to their advantage.

Statist Thugs Want Respect, Even If They Don’t Deserve It

Statists demand respect, and they will pursue authoritative positions just so they can remind people of the respect they are supposedly owed. Some of them realize that legitimate respect is earned through valuable works, knowledge, experience and generous creativity. They know it cannot be bought and that it cannot be conned through clever talk, boastful discussion and theatrical chest-beating. So instead of attempting real achievement or taking the risk of falsely playing a part and being exposed, they look for a title and a uniform to fill the void. They eventually attain respect derived by force through institutions within the system. This title will likely be a miniscule part of the overall government conglomerate, but the statist will act as if he is the emperor of Earth once you wander into his narrow jurisdiction. The slightest hint of defiance will send him into fits of rage.

Statist Thugs Understand Only Violence

Keep in mind that not every person in a uniform is a statist; identifying a statist is more a matter of examining behavior than outward appearance. There is no such thing as reason, logic or even law in the realm of the statist thug. You cannot discuss a matter of conflict with him. You cannot point out that the legal structure he claims to represent does not support his views. You cannot calm him using words and solid philosophy. The only thing he understands is power, and the only thing that he regards is strength. When faced with overwhelming reason, the statist will attack rather than think. This attack, unfortunately, will be silenced only by an equal or greater display of force.

Statist Thugs Savor Weakness In Others

Show any signs of fear or weakness, and you have given the statist exactly what he has always wanted. He does not desire an equal fight. In truth, he avoids situations in which his opponents are fairly matched. This is because, deep down, all statists and powermongers are cowards. Anyone who is so desperate to control every aspect of his environment even to the point of hurting and enslaving others is obviously afraid of a great many things. Attempting to be quietly diplomatic or grasping for mercy only encourages them to take their maliciousness to the next level. Statists seek easy prey to satiate their thirst for dominance. They will abuse women, children, the elderly and the disabled, anyone who cannot defend himself. As soon as the goon encounters a person willing and able to fight back, however, his smug façade disappears and the hidden coward emerges.

Statist Thugs Love Law For The Law’s Sake

Statists revel in bureaucracy and red tape. They love laws and regulations regardless of application. They feel safe within a highly structured and contained system because most of them are followers, not leaders. The idea that they may one day have to blaze their own path without the aid of a vast government machine cradling them like lost infants is terrifying to them. Statists are not able to survive without someone telling them what to do and when to do it. On the other side of the coin, they also enjoy the manner in which the modern legal framework can be twisted to fit whatever disturbed logic happens to strike them. The more a society is cluttered with overt legalities, the easier it is to misinterpret and exploit the distraction and confusion they create.

Anyone Can Be A Statist

Many people (myself included) have never found much solace in the establishment and its parade of self-importance. For me, most methodologies of government have always been a sick kind of joke. Elaborate buildings and ceremonies, nice suits and uniforms, the money and the celebrity, the news shows and talking heads: It’s all costume. It’s a parade of drunken clowns and carneys dipped in glamour, glitter and pomp.

The very concept of government is in itself an abstraction. It is an artificial social edifice that seems to give weaker men a sense of security (or false security), even when it is at bottom a threat to them. The assumption is that the establishment (meaning the power elite) must exist at all costs. The statist cannot imagine otherwise. He is at once a fan of the totalitarian game and an avid bouncing, giggling cheerleader. His greatest dream is to be a part of the beast, to share in the “glory” of the empire and live vicariously through its conquests.

A statist thug can be anyone, from the overweight and overzealous Transportation Security Administration agent at the airport to the brutally nosy and vicious old woman next door. Some participate in tyranny directly by wearing the uniform and wielding the baton, while others participate behind closed doors and curtains by informing on their neighbors. Regardless of their demeanor, each statist has one thing in common: an obsession with the continuance of the system to the point of madness. There is absolutely nothing the state can do to make them second guess their love affair — no crime too shocking, no attack too unjust. During the blackest moments of mankind, they are the willing tools of oppression. They make revolution — physical revolution — necessary. With them, oligarchs take root. Without them, oligarchs take shelter or disappear altogether.

–Brandon Smith


At this stage of my life I would gladly give up my legs, and be wheel chair bound, if only I could write like Brandon Smith! If he had more of my anger, and I had some of his brains, we would be a hell of a team. As it is, in an effort to be green and save paper, I just call the people I hate a bunch of scumbag mother f@#$ers, and liberals deserve much more obscenity than that! The people Brandon is describing above deserve to be burned alive. Their intelligence is used in the same way a rifle is used to shoot innocent children. They are murdering freedom, which has the same value as life, as in “Give me liberty, or give me death”! I will piss on the ashes of statist thugs.

10 13 11 flagbar

Only rebellion can save America

January 25th, 2013 by



10-18-2011 7-10-19 PM

Written by Lawrence Sellin

The US federal government has strayed so far from the Constitution and the rule of law that it can now be considered rogue and illegitimate.

The thoroughly irresponsible rate of government spending projected over the next twenty-five years will drive federal debt to unsustainable levels. The country is heading for a financial meltdown and economic ruin.

The Republican Party is inept and impotent and cannot provide the necessary political opposition to the crimes and unconstitutional policies of the Obama regime or stand against the rampant voter fraud which is now polluting the electoral process. There is a report claiming that the Republican Party signed a legal agreement with the Democrat Party in 1982 not to pursue suspected vote fraud. If there is no guarantee of election integrity, then elections become only window dressing for tyranny.

Barack Obama is an illegal President and unindicted felon. Congress, the American media and the courts are engaged in a criminal conspiracy to conceal their complicity in perpetrating the Obama fraud on the American people. Law enforcement and our elected officials have chosen to risk the survival of the country rather than risk the truth.

According to recent reports, Obama continues to use a Social Security Number (SSN) not issued to him, in the process, committing numerous counts of social security fraud. The SSN Obama uses, issued in Connecticut, a state where he never lived, does not pass a check with E-Verify, the electronic system the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has created to verify whether or not prospective employees have the required authorization to work legally in the United States. It appears that the SSN Obama uses, was actually issued to a Harrison J. Bounel, born in 1890. Once issued, a SSN is never reissued to another individual. Why isn’t any of that evidence investigated? It is because Barack Obama is protected by a dishonest media and criminally complicit federal officials and, unlike ordinary Americans, he is above the law.

The US no longer has representative government. Members of Congress seek election not to uphold the Constitution and serve the American people, but to obtain power and to use that power to accrue professional and financial benefits for themselves and their major supporters. All the traditional means for the American people to seek the redress of grievances have now been blocked by a corrupt government composed of a self-absorbed permanent political elite unaccountable to the people.

The status quo is no longer defensible. Unless there is a significant reversal soon, it is only a matter of time that a catastrophe will be upon us, which will inevitably lead to national collapse and fragmentation.

All unconstitutional and unlawful policies of the Obama regime must be opposed, obstructed and undermined. The Democrat Party and their radical left-wing supporters must be aggressively and continuously confronted. The Republican Party must be defunded and its leadership replaced. The purveyors of disinformation and propaganda represented by most of the mainstream media must be professionally destroyed.

A county by county battle is the means by which the American people can restore the Constitution, establish responsible fiscal policies and take back control of the political process and the government. Patriots need to organize locally outside of the party apparatus to exert political pressure and prepare for armed defense, if necessary. No county officials, in particular the Sheriff, should be elected or maintained in office, who do not fully honor their oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Fundamental to this effort are the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment. Each county should establish elements of an organized and disciplined Constitutional Army with sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence and individual liberty from anyone who might attempt to abuse them.

It is indeed ironic that the Mexican border made maximally porous by the Obama regime may become the route of choice for weapon and ammunition resupply, a Fast and Furious in reverse, capable of making gun control about as successful as the national prohibition of alcohol (1920-33), another failed “noble experiment” undertaken to reduce crime and solve social problems.

Efforts should be directed towards decreasing the influence of the federal government in county affairs, cooperating with federal officials and agencies only when it benefits local citizens. Counties should maximize the consumption of federal resources and overburdening federal agencies administratively while at the same time reducing or delaying taxes paid to the federal government. County residents should forcefully shun, oppose or drive out of business, individuals or media outlets, which support the criminal Obama regime.

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” — Frederick Douglass, August 4, 1857.

Author Bio

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Afghanistan and the Culture of Military Leadership“. He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.




10 13 11 flagbar



January 25th, 2013 by

By Chuck Baldwin

January 24, 2013

The local FOX affiliate in Salt Lake City, Utah, has reported that the Utah Sheriff's Association has written a strongly worded letter to President Barack Obama regarding any potential federal laws that would restrict the citizens of the State of Utah from practicing their Second Amendment rights. The letter was signed by every sheriff in the State of Utah except one. The letter reads in part:

"With the number of mass shootings America has endured, it is easy to demonize firearms; it is also foolish and prejudiced. Firearms are nothing more than instruments, valuable and potentially dangerous, but instruments nonetheless. Malevolent souls, like the criminals who commit mass murders, will always exploit valuable instruments in the pursuit of evil. As professional peace officers, if we understand nothing else, we understand this: lawful violence must sometimes be employed to deter and stop criminal violence. Consequently, the citizenry must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including arms that adequately protect them from all types of illegality."

The letter also states: "We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights–in particular Amendment II–has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation."

In addition, Utah Representative Brian Greene, R-Pleasant Grove, has introduced legislation that asserts State power over federal power regarding gun control. Rep. Greene's bill "would go so far as to allow local police the authority to arrest federal agents should they try to seize any firearms."

The report added: "'Acting upon those will be a third-degree felony in this state, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $5,000 fine,' Greene said."

See the report.

Tim Mueller, the sheriff of Linn County, Oregon, has also written the White House a similar letter. Mueller's letter said in part, "Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the president offending the constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies," adding, "Nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Linn County, OR."

Read the report and Sheriff Mueller's letter.

Several sheriffs in the State of Oregon have followed Sheriff Mueller's example and issued similar statements: Sheriff Jim Hensley of Crook County, Sheriff Larry Blanton of Deschutes County, Sheriff Glenn Palmer of Grant County, Sheriff Craig Zanni of Coos County, Sheriff John Hanlin of Douglas County, and Sheriff Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County.

Read Sheriff Gil Gilbertson letter.

In fact, sheriffs from all over America have begun taking similar stands. One of the first was Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky. Also add Pine County, Minnesota, Sheriff Robin Cole. Sheriff Cole said, "I do not believe the federal government or any individual in the federal government has the right to dictate to the states, counties or municipalities any mandate, regulation or administrative rule that violates the United States Constitution or its various amendments." The sheriff said that the right to bear arms is "fundamental to our individual freedoms and that firearms are part of life in our country."

A news report on the story noted, "The Sheriff said he would refuse to enforce any federal mandate that violates constitutional rights, and that he would consider any new federal regulation on guns to be illegal."

Also include Madison County, Alabama, Sheriff Blake Dorning; Smith County, Texas, Sheriff Larry Smith; and Martin County, Florida, Sheriff Bill Snyder to the list of sheriffs who are vowing to protect their citizens from the unconstitutional overreach of the federal government.

See the report here.

This is exactly the kind of response that is needed! No law enforcement action of any kind (county, State, or federal) can take place without the approbation of the county sheriff. Constitutionally, he is the highest law enforcement officer of the county. This is why I have repeatedly said that ultimately our freedom will be won or lost at the State and local levels.

Big Government toadies love to quote the so-called "supremacy clause" in Article. VI. Paragraph. 2. of the US Constitution. It reads, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme law of the land." This clause, they say, gives carte blanche to federal lawmakers to usurp, negate, or expunge any local or State law–or even the Constitution itself. Such an interpretation is absolutely ludicrous!

Notice that those federal laws that are considered to be "the supreme law of the land" must be made "in Pursuance" of the existing Constitution. Nowhere is it written that federal laws that contradict the existing US Constitution are to be considered lawful. In fact, just the opposite is true. Laws, even federal laws, which contradict the Constitution, are deemed to be null and void.

In the Marbury v Madison Supreme Court decision (1803), the Constitution was firmly established as the "supreme law of the land"–not legislative acts which contradict the Constitution. In the landmark ruling, Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the majority, said, "So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

"If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

"Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure."

The decision concludes, "Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him.

"If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

See the Marbury decision here.

How could this decision be any more clear? The US Congress has no authority to pass laws, and the President has no authority to execute laws which contradict the US Constitution, and any such laws that are passed should be considered null and void.

In addition to the Court, the founders also expected that the states would serve as a check and balance on potential encroachments upon the people's liberties by the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.

At this point, allow me to quote my constitutional attorney son, Timothy Baldwin:

"One of the constitutional tools by which socialist and nationalist ideologues have incorporated political principles of centralization and state annihilation is through the 'Supremacy clause' of the U.S. Constitution, which states, 'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' (USC, Article 6) To many people, this phrase has been construed to mean whatever laws and treaties those in the federal government pass, execute and uphold are binding on the people of the states and their respective governments. Admittedly, this concept has taken a stronghold in America and has been treated as the accepted principle of constitutional law for generations. Undoubtedly, every law student attending an ABA accredited law school is taught this as fact, just as I was when I attended Cumberland School of Law at Samford University. Not everyone agrees with this construction, however.

"Big-government and monarchist himself, Alexander Hamilton sheds light on the error of this position in 1787 when he addressed the concerns of those Americans who rejected the U.S. Constitution because of the fear that the expected effect of the 'Supremacy clause' would be to subvert the sovereignty of the States to govern themselves according to their constitutions. Hamilton attempts to calm their fears, saying, 'It will not follow from this doctrine [of supremacy] that acts of the large society [i.e., the union] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land.’ (Federalist Paper 33) Perhaps everyone in America would concede this, but what is not agreed upon is what the States can and should do about those laws that are NOT PURSUANT to the constitutional powers of the federal government. Many place the burden of correcting that grievance on the U.S. Supreme Court, as if a body of nine judges appointed by the executive of the federal government are an adequate remedy for the machinations of that distorted philosophy broadly accepted by those in federal office. Contrarily, those who believe in the principles of a federalist system should recognize that each unit of the union (i.e., States) have the duty to do what Hamilton suggested in response to those laws contrary to the constitution: ‘These [laws] will be merely acts of usurpation, and WILL DESERVE TO BE TREATED AS SUCH.' (FP 33, emphasis added) These laws should be treated as no law at all, and moreover, as attacks on liberty, and should be resisted on every level of the union, from federal to state to local governments, as well as individuals."
See Tim's website.
Sheriffs Mueller, Peyman, Cole, et al. are dutifully fulfilling their oaths of office and are exemplary examples of what it means to be a constitutional sheriff.
I strongly urge readers to take a copy of Sheriff Mueller's letter to the White House to your own county sheriff and ask him where he stands on protecting your Second Amendment liberties. And if your sheriff balks at his duty of standing firm for your liberties, vote him out of office as quickly as possible and replace him with a true constitutionalist sheriff. Remember, without the approbation and cooperation of your county sheriff, no federal police agency has any ability to implement Senator Dianne Feinstein's semi-automatic rifle ban or high capacity magazine ban, should Congress pass such a ban.
Sheriffs are not elected to be paper pushers or attend Rotary Club meetings or a hundred other mundane tasks; primarily, sheriffs are elected to protect the liberties of the citizens in his or her county–even if that means defying unconstitutional laws handed down from Washington, D.C.
Kudos to the sheriffs of the State of Utah; kudos to Sheriff Mueller, Peyman, Cole et al. Come on folks! Find out NOW whether you have a real sheriff in your county or just a political opportunist who wears a badge. Your liberties hang in the balance.
And please visit my web site for past columns and much more.
© 2013 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. Chuck and his family reside in the Flathead Valley of Montana.

See Chuck's complete bio here.
E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Website: ChuckBaldwinLive.com

10 13 11 flagbar

Gun Control and Political Correctness + Obama only wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens

January 22nd, 2013 by


Recently by Robert Anderson: What Will the Doctors Do?
by Robert Anderson

Silence rarely conveys knowledge, especially when it’s the result of intimidation. There are moments when it’s prudent to remain silent, but hardly when you’re in the midst of a gun ownership debate. The political classes, and its anti-gun proponents, are today engaged in a massive legal assault on citizen gun ownership through regulation and/or abolition. Their arguments are well known and much has been written on the subject, both in favor and in opposition to the idea.

Unfortunately, silence due to "political correctness" is hampering a frank and honest discussion of the fundamental issue of citizen gun ownership. While gun ownership for personal protection or sporting uses are being heatedly defended, these are only secondary considerations to the more critical concern over citizen ownership of guns. The preeminent and fundamental case for gun ownership by citizens is to secure and preserve the means for individuals to safeguard their lives and property from a potentially threatening oppressive government.

Of course this tends to sound paranoid, for after all, most citizens today view our government as a responsive political institution, primarily engaged in helping its citizens to secure a better quality of life. Such common sentiments about one’s government are not new. Even the Germans shared such a view of their own government at the beginning of the 20th century. So, to express concerns today that our politicians and bureaucrats could someday turn against their own citizens and inflict violent harm upon them is harshly condemned by many as being ludicrous.

After all, many politicians and anti-gun proponents today are convinced no democratic government could ever become so oppressive and dictatorial, certainly not our own. But what we believe and what may prove true are not always the same. We know the face of the future is forever veiled by the hand of God and none of us can ever know with certainty where we’re headed. But acquiring an understanding of the past is another matter, and we’d all be wise to heed it. Too often the past is prologue to the future so it’s always prudent to remind ourselves of Edmund Burke’s famous line, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And it’s equally important to remind ourselves that the essence of government is a sovereign power with a monopoly over initiating force upon others, a coercive power which has become deadly and violent many times throughout the ages.

For anti-gun proponents to ignore the ravages of 20th century history and believe today’s citizens should be denied the means to protect themselves from the risk of future oppressive tyranny is both dangerous and foolhardy. Have we forgotten how Germany, Russia, and China disarmed their citizens in the 20th century, and shortly thereafter their governments slaughtered tens of millions of their own citizens? Have we forgotten the "killing fields" of Cambodia where disarmed citizens were slaughtered close to annihilation in the 1970’s by their own government? Those slaughtered were the helpless victims of their well-intentioned citizen ancestors who acquiesced to government mandated gun control.

Of course, today’s anti-gun proponents and their political allies will argue, those places were all different and such horrors could never happen in our country, so why do our citizens need to own guns? Indeed, citizens may not need guns to secure their lives and property from our government today, but can anyone argue with certainty that future citizens will never need guns for that purpose? After all, today’s anti-gun proponents are essentially betting on the lives of future citizens, and while making such a costless bet among themselves, do so by placing a deadly bet on the lives of future citizens, should their bet today prove horribly wrong tomorrow!

Every decision imposes costs in our imperfect world, and the issue of citizens owning guns is no exception. We all know gun ownership will surely bring some harm as long as evil and ignorance remain a part of the human condition. Without question, guns will continue to be used in many gruesome and horrible murders by deranged and evil people. But peaceful citizens must have the means to protect themselves from not only the isolated acts of criminals but also from an oppressive government tomorrow with the capacity for evil mass murder. These threats far outweigh any perceived "benefit" from permitting an intrusive government to disarm its citizens today. Such a threatened act, at the very least, would transform future citizens into helpless victims, should an evil authoritarian government someday try to subdue them.

Citizen gun ownership is ultimately a form of "insurance" for a future, unknowable risk. Switzerland, as well as our own country, has acknowledged and practiced this form of "insurance" for a long time. We all know gun ownership by citizens can impose heavy costs, but they are costs dwarfed by the greater horror of millions of future citizens being denied any means to defend themselves against an evil government slaughtering them with impunity.

We would like to believe such a future scenario unimaginable, but we know it’s not, as our violent 20th century history has tragically reminded us. Governments murdering millions of their own citizens have inflicted monstrous horrors in our lifetimes, and there is nothing in the history of the human experience to give absolute assurance it will not happen again. The drafters of our Constitution understood this, and hopefully today’s citizens will remember it, even though mentioning such a horror makes people uncomfortable, a reaction usually encountered when discussing unpleasant truths.

Finally, there are few instances in a citizen’s relationship with government where non-intervention in their personal affairs is more vital than with gun ownership. The Second Amendment was established as a safeguard for citizens, should the government they created ever become evil and oppressive, to have an effective means to defend themselves against that government. With that thought in mind, what would be more devastating than for a future evil government to possess individual records on every citizen who owns a gun, what kind of guns they own, and where he lives? Draw your own conclusions: Is it either prudent or wise to surrender individual gun ownership information to any government today which could become your evil oppressor tomorrow? Can’t happen? Tell it to the Germans and Russians a century ago!

January 14, 2013

Robert Anderson [send him mail] taught economics at Hillsdale Collage and was executive secretary of FEE.

Copyright © 2013 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.










Obama only wants military leaders

who will fire on U.S. citizens




Examiner – by Dave Gibson

On Monday, renowned author and humanitarian Dr. Jim Garrow made a shocking claim about what we can expect to see in Obama’s second term.

Garrow made the following Facebook post:

I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.” Those who will not are being removed.

So, who is the source?

Garrow replied: “The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.”

Understand, this is not coming from Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura, or from anyone else the left often dismisses with great ease.

Garrow is a well-respected activist and has spent much of his life rescuing infant girls from China, babies who would be killed under that country’s one-child policy. He was also nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his work.

His bio on Amazon.com reads:

Dr. James Garrow is the author of The Pink Pagoda: One Man’s Quest to End Gendercide in China. He has spent over $25 million over the past sixteen years rescuing an estimated 40,000 baby Chinese girls from near-certain death under China’s one-child-per-couple policy by facilitating international adoptions. He is the founder and executive director of the Bethune Institute’s Pink Pagoda schools, private English-immersion schools for Chinese children. Today he runs 168 schools with nearly 6,300 employees.

This comes on the heels of Sunday’s report in the Washington Free Beacon (WFB) that the head of Central Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis is being dismissed by Obama and will leave his post in March.

The WFB article states:

“Word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bum’s rush out of his job as commander of Central Command, and is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.”

Did Gen. Mattis refuse to “fire on U.S. citizens?”




Thanks to TransAm for this article.

10 13 11 flagbar


Fox News poll: Twice as many favor more guns over banning guns to reduce crime

January 20th, 2013 by





Does Obama's push for assault weapons ban stand a…

Power Play 1/18/2013

Should God be brought in the gun law debate?

Nearly twice as many voters say there would be less violent crime if more law-abiding Americans owned guns, than if guns were banned.

In addition, while American voters generally favor strengthening gun laws, 71 percent do not think tougher laws can stop shootings like the one last month in Newtown, Connecticut. Some 22 percent say new laws can prevent the next Sandy Hook.

These are just some of the findings from a Fox News poll released Friday.

Click here for full poll results.

Majorities of gun owners (81 percent), non-gun owners (58 percent), Democrats (58 percent), independents (72 percent) and Republicans (85 percent) say the people who do these kinds of things “will always find the guns” to commit violent acts.

The Fox News poll asked a similar question after previous shootings and the one-in-five believing that tougher laws could make a difference has mostly held steady.

After the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech, 19 percent of voters felt stricter laws could help. That went to 21 percent after the Tucson shooting involving Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (2011) and 22 percent in the new poll.

Twenty children and six adults were killed in the December mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown. Police identified two of the guns the shooter used as semiautomatic weapons, including one commercial model of the military M-16 rifle.

On Wednesday President Obama announced several gun-control proposals. Among them: requiring background checks for all gun buyers and banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

The poll asked about these as well as other possible ways to reduce gun violence. (A portion of the interviews were conducted before Obama’s formal announcement.)

The most popular suggestions are requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers (with 91 percent favoring this proposal), providing services for mentally ill people who “show violent tendencies” (89 percent) and improving enforcement of existing laws (86 percent)

Large majorities also favor mandating mental-health checks on gun buyers (83 percent) and requiring criminal background checks on anyone buying ammunition (80 percent).

Smaller majorities favor putting armed guards in schools (60 percent), banning high-capacity clips (56 percent), banning assault weapons (54 percent), and reducing “access to violent movies and video games” (52 percent).

The least popular suggestion tested — and the only one a majority opposes — is allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns on school grounds (42 percent favor, 52 percent oppose).

While large majorities of all demographic groups favor universal background checks, there are wide differences on other proposals. For example, on the bid to ban assault weapons, women favor it by a margin of 26 percentage points, while men oppose it by 4 points.

Democrats favor banning assault weapons by a 49-point margin, while Republicans oppose it by a 32-point margin. Gun owners oppose banning assault weapons by a 14-point margin, while non-gun owners favor it by 44 points. It is worth noting Republicans (65 percent) are much more likely than Democrats (38 percent) to be gun owners.

Most voters believe action will be taken on gun laws this year. They think gun legislation is much more likely to get passed (77 percent) than, for instance, immigration reform (48 percent), which is something Obama has said is a second-term priority.

Overall, voters are about twice as likely to say there would be less violent crime in the U.S. if more law-abiding people had guns, than if guns were banned (58 percent to 28 percent).

And by an 11 percentage-point margin, voters consider protecting the constitutional right to own a gun more important than protecting citizens from gun violence (51-40 percent).

Meanwhile, by an extremely wide 50-point margin, voters think gun permit holders have the right to keep that information private. A New York newspaper, not far from where the Newtown shooting took place, published the names and addresses of individuals with gun permits in its area. Voters have mixed feelings over who was more at risk after the information was published — those living in homes listed as having a gun (35 percent) or those not having a gun (45 percent). Another 12 percent said both were equally at risk.

In response to the post-Newtown push for new gun restrictions, the National Rifle Association suggested putting armed guards in schools and rejected most other proposals.

A 56-percent majority of voters have a favorable opinion of the NRA, up significantly from 43 percent in March 2000. The number having a positive opinion of the group roughly matches the number of voters who have a gun in their home.

The NRA’s favorable rating among gun-owning households is 71 percent, while among non-gun households it is 38 percent.

Finally, the 52 percent of voters saying someone in their household owns a gun is up from 45 percent in January 2011, and is the highest level of stated gun ownership in a Fox poll. Interviews conducted from 1999 through 2011 found between 42 and 50 percent of voters reported having a gun in their home.

If guns were outlawed, nearly two-thirds of gun-owners say they would defy the government and keep their guns (65 percent).

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,008 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from January 15 to January 17. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/18



So an Assault rifle was never used, imagine that!

January 19th, 2013 by

 So an Assault rifle was never used, imagine that!

But Feinstein and Obama press on.

So, it comes out today that Adam Lanza never used an AR or AK in the horrible slaughter of those kids.  Just as I heard the first couple days after the shooting, the AR never left the car.  Doesn’t change the outcome, just emphasizes that the Lame Stream Media will lie to push their agenda, even over the dead bodies of innocent children.  All we have heard for three weeks is how he killed everyone with an “Assault rifle”.
They knew it all the time.  Here is a news clip played on MSNBC.  I guess someone was going to spill the beans about the truth so they figured they might as well come clean.

NEVER trust a government, especially ours! 

Whatever happened to Manhood in Washington DC?

ANYBODY who or ANY BODY which is (or has been) moving closer to INSTEAD OF farther away from taking guns of any kind from We-the-Militia is making himself/itself ­ automatically! ­ my very own, oath-betraying Enemy #1.  That’s because violation of one part of the Constitution is tantamount to violating the entire contract.  Is that clear, Ladies and Gentlemen of the TN General Assembly?  Please reply.

JESSE VENTURA on Gun Control
Former marine Joshua Boston shows how to debate Piers Morgan
Piers Morgan’s Anti-gun Argument Destroyed in 4 Minutes by Ben Swann
COMPLETE: Ben Shapiro CUTS Piers Morgan DOWN
Gun Control Does Not Reduce Crime
Australians To US- Don’t Give Up Your Guns
Brits Warn US- Don’t Give Up Your Guns
Swiss- Guns Are Tools Of Freedom
The History of Gun Control – FULL LENGTH


Sheriffs and state lawmakers push back on gun control

January 19th, 2013 by


By JEFF BARNARD The Associated Press

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — From Oregon to Mississippi, President Barack Obama's proposed ban on new assault weapons and large-capacity magazines struck a nerve among rural lawmen and lawmakers, many of whom vowed to ignore any restrictions — and even try to stop federal officials from enforcing gun policy in their jurisdictions.

"A lot of sheriffs are now standing up and saying, `Follow the Constitution,'" said Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson, whose territory covers the timbered mountains of southwestern Oregon.

But their actual powers to defy federal law are limited. And much of the impassioned rhetoric amounts to political posturing until — and if — Congress acts.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said recently it's unlikely an assault weapons ban would actually pass the House of Representatives. Absent action by Congress, all that remains are 23 executive orders Obama announced that apply only to the federal government, not local or state law enforcement.

Gun advocates have seen Obama as an enemy despite his expression of support for the interpretation of the Second Amendment as a personal right to have guns. So his call for new measures — including background checks for all gun buyers and Senate confirmation of a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — triggered new vows of defiance.

In Mississippi, Gov. Phil Bryant, a Republican, urged the Legislature to make it illegal to enforce any executive order by the president that violates the Constitution.

"If someone kicks open my door and they're entering my home, I'd like as many bullets as I could to protect my children, and if I only have three, then the ability for me to protect my family is greatly diminished," Bryant said. "And what we're doing now is saying, `We're standing against the federal government taking away our civil liberties.'"

Tennessee Republican state Rep. Joe Carr wants to make it a state crime for federal agents to enforce any ban on firearms or ammunition. Carr instead called for more armed guards at schools.

"We're tired of political antics, cheap props of using children as bait to gin up emotional attachment for an issue that quite honestly doesn't solve the problem," Carr said.

Legislative proposals to pre-empt new federal gun restrictions also have arisen in Wyoming, Utah and Alaska.

A Wyoming bill specifies that any federal limitation on guns would be unenforceable. It also would make it a state felony for federal agents to try to enforce restrictions.

"I think there are a lot of people who would want to take all of our guns if they could," said co-sponsor Rep. Kendell Kroeker, a Republican. "And they're only restrained by the opposition of the people, and other lawmakers who are concerned about our rights."

Republican state Sen. Larry Hicks credited Wyoming's high rate of gun ownership for a low rate of gun violence.

"Our kids grow up around firearms, and they also grow up hunting, and they know what the consequences are of taking a life," Hicks said. "We're not insulated from the real world in Wyoming."

In Utah, some Republicans are preparing legislation to exempt the state from federal gun laws — and fine any federal agents who try to seize guns. A bill in the Alaska House would make it a misdemeanor for a federal agent to enforce new restrictions on gun ownership.

While such proposals are eye-catching, they likely could never be implemented.

"The legislature can pass anything it wants," said Sam Kamin, a constitutional law professor at the University of Denver. "The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes that clearly unconstitutional. Where there's a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme."

Kamin and other legal experts said such disdain of Obama's proposals is reminiscent of former Confederate states' refusal to comply with federal law extending equal rights for blacks after the Civil War. Bull shit!

The National Sheriff's Association has supported administration efforts to combat gun violence after the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings. President Larry Amerson, sheriff of Calhoun, Ala., said he understands the frustrations of people in rural areas with the federal government. But he feels his oath of office binds him to uphold all laws.

"Any sheriff who knows his duty knows we don't enforce federal law, per se," said Amerson, a longtime firearms instructor and hunter.

Some rural sheriffs view the federal government as an adversary, with gun ownership at the core of that belief.

In Minnesota, Pine County Sheriff Robin Cole sent an open letter to residents saying he did not believe the federal government had the right to tell the states how to regulate firearms. He said he would refuse to enforce any federal mandate he felt violated constitutional rights.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, based in Fredericksburg, Texas, encourages that point of view. Founder Richard Mack, a former sheriff of Apache County, Ariz., speaks regularly at gatherings of Tea Party groups and gun rights organizations.

"I will tell Mr. Obama and everybody else who wants to impose gun control in America, that whether you like it or not, it is against the law," said Mack. "Now we have good sheriffs who are standing up and defending the law against our own president."

Associated Press writers contributing to this report: Nicholas Riccardi in Denver, Ben Neary in Cheyenne, Wyo., Erik Schelzig in Nashville, Tenn., John O'Connor in Springfield, Ill., Amy Forliti in Minneapolis and Emily Wagster Pettus in Jackson, Miss.


Damn, I’m tired of these knuckleheads who more or less claim the government can subvert the constitution anytime they please, without blowback!             HERE IS THE TRUTH!

The Constitution is the supreme law of the country and cannot be changed in any way but a constitutional convention. No one! has the authority to re-interpret the second amendment or write, and enforce laws, that subvert the constitution, and all of their attempts are a conspiracy to commit treason. Sam Kamin is a stupid jackoff, liberal, butt sucking idiot. This national cluster-frick is only because our stupid citizens believe we are a democracy and the majority can rule the roost. NOT SO! We are a republic whether you like it or not! Even if it is true that we are ruled and owned by the UNITED STATES CORPORATION, and it has taken control of our country by debt owed, the bastards do not have our permission to enslave us as long as there is something swinging between our legs. They never had our permission to lie to us about our form of government failing, and we (I) will never submit to them! NEVER!



10 13 11 flagbar

Marksmanship and .308 Battle Rifles

January 19th, 2013 by



By Ulysses in Montana

Like a lot of guys I did some shooting and hunting while growing up, only to set it aside in early adulthood as the frantic task of making it in life overcame interest in such ‘boyish’ pursuits.  When I returned to shooting later on it was with an emphasis on self-defense, particularly pistol shooting, which provided a fresh and stimulating way to ease back into it, as I had previously never fired a pistol.  I quickly settled on the Glock models in .45 ACP, keeping it simple and relatively inexpensive, and have kept at it steadily ever since, wanting above all to maintain proficiency and competence should I ever need to defend myself, my family, or other innocents.

This along with a shotgun or two kept me busy and satisfied for a while, until I decided I should get a rifle to work with, and the AR-15 seemed the logical choice.  It was then I started to learn more about our rights and freedoms, our direct link to the American Revolution, and the threats we face by those hostile to the whole idea of citizens as ‘people of arms,’ and my responsibility and role in exercising, preserving, and defending those freedoms.  It was an eye opener.  In retrospect it’s easy to see I was naive, one of the ‘sheeple’ we often allude to, but having always hated and successfully avoided fighting situations in my adult life, like many modern people the idea of needing to fight with a gun seemed remote and distant, and years of martial arts training filled what would otherwise have been a void in my defense needs.  But suddenly I recognized that ‘gun rights’ are really human rights, rights that are always at risk by forces that never quit.

And so I got the bug and started reading a lot as well as shooting regularly, enjoying my new hobby and the educational experience, always with an eye towards what is practical, limiting my interest to common types of firearms in common calibers.  When I first picked up Boston’s Gun Bible by Boston T. Party, I figured I’d read only parts of it, treating it as a reference, as it is a large book and covers a wide range of subjects.  But I must have read the whole thing several times.  I was especially fascinated by the main body of the text, having to do with .308 (7.62x51mm) semi auto Battle Rifles.  He goes into it in exhaustive (and exhausting) detail, comparing the three main versions, and while some parts of it are more interesting than others, he explains his reasoning and motivations, and he’s a good writer.  Many of you, perhaps most, are already quite familiar with it, and I won’t rehash any of it here.  If you haven’t seen it, and are interested in Battle Rifles, it can serve as a good reference, particularly if you’ve yet to choose a particular rifle type (or ‘platform’) or make a first purchase.

As lengthy as Boston’s book is on the subject, it is not the final word nor does it provide a complete picture as to the options presently available to us.  New models and manufacturers have come on the scene since the book was written, and all of these have an evolving track record potential buyers should be aware of.  I actually own at least one version of each of the three types, as well as a couple of other types, all acquired in recent years.  And while I do have preferences I enjoy shooting them all.  I like getting to know them, understanding the different mechanisms, keeping them running, troubleshooting problems as they invariably arise, and learning their strengths and weaknesses.  They can all do the same job almost equally well.  It is the magnificent capability and proven track record I admire and appreciate; shooting comfort and enjoyment is secondary – choosing a good, solid weapon comes first, and then I learn to get comfortable with it.  So I won’t be praising one type of rifle and disparaging the others, as you often see on various forums.  I’ll do my best to give them each a fair shake.

Briefly, let’s look at some of the reasons why a citizen would consider a .308 Battle Rifle worthwhile or even essential to have at their disposal.  The rifle, in general, has been called ‘liberty’s teeth,’ and with good reason.  Just as we all have rights to life and liberty, we all have a responsibility to safeguard and defend our lives and our liberty: rights and responsibilities go together.  And while a pistol or shotgun may suffice for personal or home defense, any broader mission, whether it’s defending our immediate community or something larger, requires a group or populace armed with rifles.  So part of having a rifle – as a weapon – is just a matter of good citizenship.  And among the capabilities of rifles of all sorts, there is little that a semi auto .308 Battle Rifle cannot do.  Ballistically similar to the .30-06, the .308 can punch through cover that the 223 (5.56x45mm) cannot, and a Battle Rifle, with its 20-round magazine, can be used to hit man-sized targets in excess of 500 yards as fast as you can aim and fire.  Nothing else can hit that hard, that fast, and with such a reach.  In my opinion it is the ultimate hand-held weapon, the most powerful weapon a citizen can wield.

So the goal of this article is to provide a useful review of the rifles and my experiences with them, to help you navigate your options in order to find the right fit for you or your group, and in general hope to give you an interesting read, regardless of your level of shooting experience.  And while any prepping subject can seem overwhelming at times, with firearms and shooting it’s possible to keep it simple and fun as we acquire our expertise and our gear.  It’s the fun and thrill of a great discipline, a treasured freedom and legacy of our Revolution.  And even if you are working in isolation, as we often are in our prepping efforts, without a lot of helpful or sympathetic people around, you can make progress in your shooting.

Knowing how to shoot a rifle accurately is of course more important than what kind of rifle to get, so we’ll start here.  The road I took was instigated by a chapter in Boston’s book, where he recommendsFred’s Guide to Becoming a Rifleman, available atwww.fredsm14stocks.com.  In Fred’s Guide you will find instruction on how to successfully complete the Army Qualification Test (AQT) with a score ranking of Expert, making you a ‘Rifleman’ (and until then you’re just a ‘Cook’), along with a lot of other interesting information, articles, and some rudimentary targets.  (Shooting instructions are also available on the site for free: Shooting Tips and Errors.)  You can also order AQT targets which include reduced sizes allowing the course of fire to be conducted at 25m (or 25yd, as the difference is very slight), a service sling for the support arm, and a simple shooting jacket with padding for the elbows and shoulder.  You can find pictures and videos showing how to loop up with the service sling on the net.  This is the type of training taught in the excellent Appleseed Project shooting clinics that appear all over the country.  Due to restrictions of time and mobility I have not had the opportunity to attend one of these events, but I trained using the method with the materials and information available.  (There is also an online weekly Rifleman radio show.)  It can all be done with a semi auto 22lr at a range of 25yd; a timer is helpful for scoring.  You can do it too.  In fact, if you get a chance to go to an Appleseed, it would greatly improve your chances of making Rifleman if you do some work beforehand.

Marksmanship fundamentals for rifle shooting are well described in Fred’s Guide.  They include: physical posture to relax and achieve natural point of aim (NPOA), sight alignment, sight picture, respiratory pause, eye focus on the front sight (if using irons) while keeping the sight on the target, squeezing the trigger straight back (trigger control) to get a surprise break, keeping the eyes open so you can ‘call the shot’ when the hammer falls (taking a ‘mental snapshot’), and holding the trigger back (follow-through).  Fredtells you exactly what you can expect to achieve with a Battle Rifle and, by following the steps, exactly how to do it.  Equally important, he insists that you can do it and that it’s not that hard.  What more can we ask from a guide?
I got a shooting mat and set up for dry practice in the basement.  On the other side of the room I set a target, shrunk in size to correspond to a 1in square at 25yd, and learned to hold the sights steady inside it while prone, which is the rifleman standard.  One inch at 25yd is about 4MOA (minutes-of-angle), which would be about 4in at 100yd, 8in at 200yd, etc.  Other positions include sitting, kneeling, and standing, but the prone is probably the most challenging one to get into and get comfortable with.  It’s also the most satisfying since it is the steadiest and allows you to shoot the most accurately.  It just takes a little time to get used to.  I’ve had lots of trouble with neck and upper back pain, and was surprised I could stand it at all, let alone get reasonably comfortable with it.  I can’t do it for very long without getting fatigued, but I can do it long enough to make hits, as I’ve demonstrated at the range.

For most of my training I use a semi auto 22lr, what the Appleseed Project calls the ‘Liberty Training Rifle’ (LTR) at 25yd.  The 22lr ammo is of course much cheaper than .308, allowing us to put lots of rounds downrange economically, and also it has the benefit of letting us avoid sensitivity to recoil and flinching.  At 25yd we can develop most of our basic shooting skills.  Important factors left out are range estimation and wind drift.  To some extent range estimation can be simulated on reduced size targets, while windage effects cannot.  The classic example of an LTR is the Ruger 10/22, though just about any good semi auto 22lr rifle will do fine.  The 10/22 dovetails nicely with the Army tradition and feel of the M1 Garand and M14/M1A, and can easily be modified with aftermarket parts to operate almost identically to the M1A.  I have a 10/22 Compact Rifle with a Hogue OverMolded stock, which works okay but is a bit lightweight for precision work.  I think a better choice would be something like the full length Sporter, or maybe a Target.  The other 10/22 models have a band attaching the barrel to the stock (including the new Takedown), and if you put a rubber stock like the Hogue on it you might pull the barrel off zero when shooting using the tight service sling; it’s something to consider.  I always like to eliminate sources of shooting error where possible, and the rifle I have lets the barrel free float.

I wanted to train with a pistol grip rifle, so I got a dedicated 22lr upper for the AR-15.  A simple conversion kit for the 223/5.56×45 is cheaper than a dedicated upper, but not as accurate, and not accurate enough for our purposes.  So I got an upper, and put a free float tube on it so I could use a tight sling or bipod.  I bought it from a well-regarded manufacturer, and yet I had trouble – rounds wouldn’t go where I aimed them.  Part of my problem was just that I was naive about ammo; I thought the popular CCI Mini-Mags should give acceptable accuracy.  It just did not occur to me that ammo could be inaccurate enough not to hit a squirrel in the head at 25yd!  Silly me.  I went to the manufacturer’s forum and looked up the ammo threads, and found over half a dozen pages, virtually all of it dedicated to cycling, not accuracy.  But someone pointed out to me that the ammo was high velocity plinking ammo, and suggested alternatives for greater accuracy.  I tried CCI’s Target ammo, which helped some, but I needed better, and the manufacturer (Spike’s Tactical) kindly offered to replace the barrel, so I took the opportunity to upgrade to a more accurate barrel.  That did the trick.  Suddenly I was in the black, putting all my rounds in a 1in dot at 25yd.  I only recount this story here because you might find yourself in a similar boat, wondering why your rounds aren’t going where you think they should.  There are a lot of reasons why that can happen, and shooter error is usually considered the default culprit, but it’s not always you that’s at fault, and we want to zero in on the culprit and solve the problem and move on.

One piece of gear that has proven quite valuable for me is the 3-9x Leupold EFR Scope.  The Extended Focus Range feature lets you set the parallax anywhere from a range of 10m to infinity.  This eliminates any parallax error at the short range of 25m.  This can be important: I have a good quality 1.1-4x CQB (Close Quarters Battle) scope, and when I tested it by eye, looking through it at the target and moving my side to side to move the line of sight off the center axis, I could see the reticle move enough to affect accuracy on the 1in target.  This explained why my zero seemed to change when I’d take a break and come back to the firing line.  A little change in cheek weld position and parallax moved the reticle.  The EFR scope eliminates this source of error.  And although it is marketed as a rimfire scope, it is built to the same toughness as other Leupolds, and can be mounted on an AR-15 or a .308 Battle Rifle as well.  I use scope rings with quick-release levers, and a couple of quick-release riser rails, and this allows me to use the same scope on all my rifles.  I keep a data book so I can zero it quickly when I make a switch.  (The one thing I don’t like is the adjustments have to be made with a coin or screwdriver, rather than just turning the turrets by hand, but this is a minor quibble.)  The risers are a little pricey, but it beats buying a scope for each rifle, and getting the right scope height helps keep my neck and back from screaming at me.
With the scope I can not only call the shot, but I can see where the bullet went.  Calling the shot means you know where the sights/crosshairs were when the shot broke.  Provided your trigger pull and follow-through are good, the bullet should go pretty close to the point of aim if your rifle is zeroed.  Just how close depends on the accuracy of the weapon.  This is how I was able to diagnose ammo and equipment contributions to the error.  With the scope at 9x and the target at 25yd (the limit of my local indoor range) I could see exactly how steady my hold was, which is within about 1/4in, or 1MOA.  So now, for example, if my group size is 3/4in (3MOA), then I know the accuracy of the weapon (rifle & ammo combination) is 2MOA, since the group size is the sum of shooter wobble and weapon spread.

It’s important to be able to distinguish these two contributions to group size: weapon (i.e., rifle & ammo combination), and shooter.  It took me a while to shake the notion of blaming the shooter first.  This notion seems to be somewhat ingrained in our thinking, and my being a beginning shooter and lacking in confidence didn’t help matters.  But with the scope I had the feedback I needed, and I learned to believe what my eyes were showing me.  I should emphasize that ‘iron sight discipline’ and proficiency is always an important skill to maintain.  We should know how to use and adjust the irons for windage and range, out to the effective limits of our weapons.  But clearly the scope, besides being a force multiplier on the battlefield, can also be a very useful training tool.

A final word on use of the shooting sling.  There are other methods of training with a rifle, not all of which include a sling.  And in tactical prone shooting a bipod or rest of some kind is the normal type of support.  The few WWII and Korean War veterans I know, who carried the M1 in combat, trained with the sling but never used it in combat and never saw it used by others.  However, it is a good method of training, and the marksmanship fundamentals learned will carry over into any type of shooting.  The sling joins you ergonomically to the rifle in a way that a bipod or other rest does not.  There is less bounce of the rifle from shot to shot.  It can also be used in positions other than prone such as sitting or kneeling, which are often necessary when prone is not feasible due to terrain or other conditions.  In the field, a bipod is fragile and a rest is not always available, but a sling can be fashioned from belts, paracord, or even rags.  Moreover, there are ‘hasty’ methods of slinging up that are very quick and don’t require a tight cinch.  For example, one method I found makes use of the ‘Ching Sling,’ a sling that attaches to the rifle’s studs, but consists of a long loop extending from the front back to about the midpoint.  The shooting support is effected by simply slipping the loop up behind the upper part of the support arm; it’s very fast, and while not as tight or as steady as the service sling method, it does aid in accuracy.  I found a simple way to improve on this.  Rather than just slipping the loop up, I stick my left arm through it and then out to the left (I’m right handed), and up and over the top of the sling, and place my palm up under the rifle’s foreend.  Again, not as tight and steady as the service sling, but better than before, and more accurate than no sling at all.  It’s a good feeling, slinging up and steadying your aim, so if you haven’t tried it yet give it a shot, as it were.  It’s a good skill to have in our toolbox.  It’s also widely used in shooting competitions, such as NRA High Power Rifle.

The focus here will be on the three types of .308 Battle Rifles that were initially fielded by the Western powers.  (The powers have since replaced Battle Rifles with assault rifles such as the M4, and many of their Battle Rifles were subsequently sold off to third world countries.)  These were select fire (capable of full auto) weapons, but the ones chiefly available to us today are semi auto, and include: HK91/PTR91, FAL, and M14/M1A.  The major commercial manufacturers in the U.S. are PTR91, DS Arms FAL, and Springfield Armory M1A.  These are the ones I have and will discuss here, except that instead of Springfield’s M1A I have the LRB Arms M14SA (M14 Semi Auto).  I will also discuss the AR-10 types and the Saiga .308.  And although there are a number of other, more ‘modern’ semi auto .308s now available (FNAR, FN SCAR, SASS, etc.), we are mainly concerned with the three ‘traditional’ Battle Rifles, for several reasons.

First and foremost, they have been around a long time and are well proven in terms of ruggedness and reliability, and while like all rifles they have their weaknesses, we at least know what they are and how to compensate for them.  Parts and magazines are widely available and inexpensive relative to their more modern counterparts.  The rifles themselves are generally less expensive as well.  These are the considerations that are important to us as preppers and survivalists.  We can stock parts and magazines for weapons that are well understood, and keep them running even in times of stress, when outside support is not available.

It is particularly important to stock up on magazines, so price is definitely a factor.  The magazine is the weak link in any semi auto rifle; they can break, wear out, get damaged or bent, or discarded in the heat of battle.  How many is enough?  Well, the more the merrier.  You just never want to run out of them, ever.  At least a couple dozen per rifle is ideal, but you can get by with less.  As with everything else having to do with prepping, consider your mission requirements, and likely scenarios, to determine your needs.
A survival group can adopt a particular Battle Rifle type that all members use, ensuring uniformity of parts, mags, and expertise required to keep everyone armed and ready.  Using a common rifle platform among members has the same benefit as it would for an army in the field.  They can form rifle teams that can coordinate fire in a multiplying effect: the whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts.  In fact, this is one of the best ways to employ the Battle Rifle.  A three person team can send 60 rounds of .308 aimed fire downrange in 60 seconds at distances out to 500yd+  before the first mag change.  This is some pretty decent firepower.  Multiple teams firing from different directions multiply the effect even further.  Having a common rifle platform has obvious benefits.

Barrel Length.  While a 16in barreled carbine in .308 makes a great, hard hitting CQB weapon out to 300yd+, and they are quite popular these days, I do not recommend one as your primary Battle Rifle.  The reason is that too much velocity is sacrificed in going to such a short length.  It certainly has enough velocity to be effective at the ranges we are interested in (though you’re subject to greater drift from windage, and this effect is more pronounced the longer the range), but the trouble is that estimating the range and compensating for it becomes more difficult in the range window of 300-500yd, which Fredcalls the ‘Rifleman’s Quarter Mile,’ and he figures this is the ideal distance at which to engage targets.  Keeping such a distance from the enemy exploits your rifleman’s skill – something the rank and file shooters among the enemy may be unlikely to have, making their return fire less effective – while taking advantage of the full reach and effectiveness of the .308 Battle Rifle.  According to Fred, the three components involved in making hits on targets may be arranged in decreasing order of difficulty as: target detection, range estimation, and making the shot.  That is, range estimation is more difficult than making the shot, so it behooves us to reduce the margin for error as much as possible.  One way to work on range estimation is to carry a laser range finder: guess the range to an object, then see what the rangefinder says.  Trust me, your estimates will improve quickly!

On the other hand, an 18 in model gives up roughly only about 7% of velocity relative to a full length version of 21or 22in.  We can expect a comparable increase in bullet drop to go with the velocity loss, so the effect on range estimation is slight.  Moreover, all things being equal, the shorter barrel is sometimes more accurate than full length as there is less barrel whip.  While I wouldn’t count on better accuracy with the 18in, it makes sense for us to trade a little bit of velocity for a little bit more accuracy.  The .308 round is combat effective well beyond 500yd, but a rack grade Battle Rifle does not have the accuracy to exploit the .308’s full potential of 800yd+.  So if we can squeeze a bit more accuracy at the cost of a 7% loss in velocity I think it’s worth it.  And of course we also have a shorter overall rifle for ease of a handling, and we’re only talking about 2in longer than the 16in carbine.  Many people feel that 18in is the sweet spot.  What we have available is 17.7in for the HK91/PTR91, 18in for DSA FAL, and 18.5in for the M14/M1A.

If you already have a .308 carbine, and/or consider ranges beyond 300yd unlikely for your needs, you’ll still be well served with your weapon.  Also, mapping out ranges at your retreat in advance is a good idea in any case.  If you’re sure of your ranges then barrel length is less of a concern.  Bear in mind, though, that the carbine is quite loud, and if you have muzzle brake on it (instead of a flash hider) the muzzle blast will be downright brutal, especially for anyone who happens to be alongside you.  While the muzzle brake makes it easier to shoot (less muzzle climb), it does not help conceal your position the way a flash hider does, so a flash hider is much preferred in a combat weapon.  If you don’t have a Battle Rifle yet, consider getting one with at least an 18in barrel.

Weight.  The typical Battle Rifle is over 9lb unloaded, and a good scope will likely put it over 10lb.  Some commercial versions have heavier weight barrels (medium contour, bull barrel, etc.) for increased accuracy and steadiness.  The tradeoff is that the extra weight is a hindrance for carrying in the field, and for movement between positions during shooting engagements.  Most Battle Rifles should give acceptable accuracy without a heavier barrel.  Under rapid or sustained fire the barrel heats up, and the groups will tend to string slightly and/or expand more with the lighter barrels.  But whether this would really make a difference in a fast moving combat situation is debatable.

I have found I need to resist the temptation to go for the heavier, more accurate rifles.  In these pre-SHTF times we can go to the range and shoot at our leisure, we drive there and back, not needing to carry the rifle very far, and when we shoot we like to see tight groups on the target.  Tight groups are satisfying.  But I think of the Battle Rifle as a field weapon, something that can and may need to be carried all day, and can be handled effectively in combat even when the shooter is tired, weak, and scared, at times moving rapidly from one position to another, trying to stay out of harm’s way, trying to catch his or her breath.  And while a heavier rifle is easier to shoot accurately and more controllable, I don’t think it’s worth the drawbacks the extra weight imposes.  The rifle should be a friend to the shooter, not a burden.

So we are not just interested in range accuracy, but combat accuracy, which depends on a number of variables.  The shooting sports can provide a good testing ground for our combat capabilities, such as the 3-gun Heavy Metal competitions, where the rifle used is a .308 Battle Rifle.  This can help give you an idea what kind of rifle handles well for you in terms of weight, etc.  But be aware that competition rules don’t always conform to sound combat tactics.  If you use the competition to conscientiously train for combat your scores may suffer for it.  “Those motivated by a desire to improve their gun fighting skills, as opposed to a quest for trophies, must be willing to bleed ego on the match results to avoid shedding real blood in combat.”  – Andy Stanford, inSurgical Speed Shooting

Scope.  As mentioned, a good scope will likely put your rifle over 10lb.  You can keep the weight down using a CQB scope like an ACOG or a red dot sight with bullet drop compensator (BDC), but you want to consider the target detection advantage scope magnification gives you.  Remember that according toFred, target detection is the most difficult task: more difficult than estimating the range or making the shot itself.  Once the shooting starts, people will want to show as little of themselves to their adversaries as possible, and some decent magnification and field of view can go a long way toward helping you see what you need to see.  Considering the effective range and our combat needs, something like 3-9x40mm seems about right, not too much magnification, not too little; not too big a scope, not too small.  But as always, consider your mission requirements to determine what’s best for you.

Accuracy & Ammo.  Despite some of the wild claims you might see on the internet, any good Battle Rifle should give you 4MOA or better with military surplus or military grade ammo (147gr ‘M80’ ball rounds); that’s the basic standard.  While accuracy depends on a number of factors, a reasonable expectation is about 2-3MOA.  The ammo I use most often is Prvi Partizan.  (I have no financial stake in it.)  It is commercial production, almost always available, and fairly consistent from lot to lot.  Prvi also makes relatively inexpensive Match ammo in 168 and 175gr.  I get the best results with the 168gr; all my Battle Rifles do 1-2MOA with it.  You can experiment with different types of ammo to see what your particular rifle likes.  Visiting the forums can also give you some idea what to expect.  Much of the military surplus you see out there was produced years ago, probably being brought out now to be sold at a profit, and whether your rifle likes it or not is hit or miss.  And when the supply dries up you have to find something else.  That’s why I like something like Prvi, where there’s a steady supply.  Buying in case lots of 1,000 is by far the most economical, but the up-front cost is high, so try some before you buy, if possible.

Part of the enjoyment of Battle Rifle shooting is being able to put a lot of hard-hitting rounds downrange without breaking the bank, and the ability to sustain a rapid rate of fire against multiple targets is a vital part of our skill set.  The M80 ammo is the Battle Rifle’s meat & potatoes diet, accurate enough to hit a man sized target out to 500yd+, and among the least expensive choices available.  However, the effective range can be extended with match ammo or handloads. Excellent match ammo is more than twice as expensive as M80.  (Prvi match is not as good but costs only about 50% more.)  It’s a good idea to have at least a small supply of ammo of this type, either for extended range or increased accuracy, in case you need it.
Many people use steel cased ammo which, though often not as accurate as brass cased, is less expensive.  I’ve only used it in my Saiga .308, as the rifle was designed for this kind of ammo.  The only manufacturer’s warning I’m aware of is from DS Arms, which says not to use it in their FAL rifles, period.  People use it in the HK91/PTR91 and  M14/M1A apparently with no problems.  Steel is harder than brass (although the steel used is said to be ‘soft’), so it may put a little more wear on the extractor, but otherwise there seems to be little or no risk involved in using it.  Still, I’m only comfortable using it in the Saiga.  I suggest you do your own research on it before using it in your rifle.

.308 vs. 7.62x51mm.  For the most part we can consider these two to be equivalent, both safe to use in our rifles.  The only exception I’m aware of is some types of commercial .308 which use higher pressures than normal, hunting ammo for bolt action rifles, that would not be safe to use in our semi autos.  The military rifles were chambered for 7.62x51mm, which has looser tolerances and harder brass, as the rifles were designed to operate in full auto and with tracer rounds, and the ammo has been produced by a number of different countries, which varies in consistency with respect to the tolerances and general quality.  If you see a good deal out there for a case of this stuff, do a search on the forums before you buy – make sure it will cycle in your rifle, have decent accuracy, and not gum it up with tar, lacquer, or powdery filth (unless you think it’s worth it).

Most modern, commercially produced Battle Rifles are chambered in .308 Winchester, or just stamped ‘7.62.’  Similarly, much of the current production commercial ammo, such as Prvi, is in .308.  This corresponds to tighter tolerances than the military surplus, for generally better accuracy and consistency and, with few exceptions, no loss of reliability in cycling.  But there is still surplus ammo out there that could be quite accurate in your rifle.  For example, Santa Barbara works well in the M14/M1A.  So look around, know what you’re buying and know your rifle.

Ammo vs. Gear.  Most people I know are not preppers and do not stock up on cases of ammo.  But we recognize the importance of doing so – .308 ammo as well as 223/5.56×45, shotgun, and pistol ammo, etc. – any weapon we might trust our lives to must never be allowed to run dry.  You never want to run out of ammo or magazines; there is no such thing as too much of either.  And yet, dropping $500 for 1,000 rounds of .308 here and there hurts.  Perhaps the biggest impediment is thinking what else we might buy with the money.  There are always more guns we’d like to buy, scopes to put on them, all kinds of cool gear, items or ventures that give us pleasure.  Crates of ammo sitting around just isn’t very sexy.

But I find it satisfying.  Once acquired, it cannot be taken away easily, so there is some sense of security in that.  We could experience significant inflation in the near future; I do not have to worry about the price of ammo getting beyond my reach.  I have plenty for my practice, plenty for the future, whatever the future may hold.  And if the future turns out to be benign, and the ammo is not needed for fighting, it can be passed on to future generations of preppers and patriots.  It’ll still be good long after I’m gone.  Or it could be used for barter.  It’s like gold or silver, only I think it’s even better.  It has a function, it will do a job for you, and the price of ammo has not been bid up nearly so much as precious metals.  A home invader may be willing to smash my skull for a gold bar he can grab and carry off.  But half a ton of ammo?  Good luck with that.  Ammo may eventually achieve such precious status, but that will only mean my investment was sound in more ways than one.  Lead.  The other precious metal.
So I would say, don’t skimp on ammo.  Take the pain now and you will find lasting comfort knowing it’s there for you, just like your rifle, standing by, lending potency to your vigilance.

We will be concerned here with the modern commercial versions: PTR91, DSA FAL, and LRB M14SA (or Springfield Armory M1A).  Their pros and cons have been debated elsewhere.  But our focus will be through the eye of the prepper and survivalist.  Reliability, cost, ease and speed of operation during a firefight, are of first importance.  And while there is no perfect Battle Rifle, if you look carefully, you will likely find one that is close to ideal for you.

When it comes to Battle Rifle selection, most people seem to prefer the FAL or M14/M1A, with the PTR91 a close third.  The M14/M1A has the most accuracy potential; the PTR91, to the extent it reproduces the HK91’s quality, would be the most reliable; the FAL is often regarded as the sweet spot between the other two, with its ergonomic friendliness among its chief attractions.  However, the PTR91 has become popular with the prepper community, as it is a good value and can be counted on to keep working under tough conditions.
From a strictly utilitarian point of view all three rifles do pretty much the same thing and do it well.  And it is a matter of ‘respect and gratitude’ for what they do that guides this article.  You can find plenty of forums where people will praise one and bash the other two, but this is not the place for that.  I like them all because I deeply appreciate the job they can do for us.  These are survival tools, not weekend joy sticks.  If one feels awkward I just try to adapt to it and make it comfortable to handle and shoot.

At the risk of oversimplifying I would like to borrow a slogan from the real estate business, in which the value of a property depends on three things: location, location, location.  And that is that a Battle Rifle’s reliability depends on three things: parts, parts, parts.  We already know that the designs of these rifles are sound.  Usually they are assembled properly.  That leaves tolerances and quality of parts.  The manufacturers are all good and they all offer good warranties, but from a survivalist point of view this just means they can afford to replace defective parts and still make a profit.  Sometimes military parts dry up and new ones have to be made, some parts get outsourced, or production errors happen.  So it’s a good idea to keep up with any news on the user forums and the manufacturer’s web site.  (I found a recall notice for one of my FAL lower receivers just by chance on DSA’s site; even though I am the original owner I was not notified of the recall.)  If you’re buying used, review the history for the serial number range of the rifle before you buy.  Some details on PTR91 changes are discussed below.

I first bought one of these because it was such a spanking good deal.  It was not my first choice in a Battle Rifle, but it shares the ruggedness, durability, and reliability of the HK91, and magazines are inexpensive (sometimes only $1 each).  Its poor ergonomics are well known, but it does its job and doesn’t complain, and I’ve wound up liking it more than I thought I would.
Like the FAL it was initially designed to be used with a bipod, and the charging handle is on the left side.  And like the DSA FAL, the barrel is not chrome lined.  I got one with the Bull Barrel, which seems more like a medium than a heavy weight barrel, and metal handguard which is drilled and tapped for rails.  This allows mounting a bipod, vertical grip, sling stud for use with a service sling, or other accessories.  Tension applied to the handguard through the grip or sling does not affect the point of aim since the barrel is free-floating,  an attribute that contributes to the excellent accuracy of the HK91/PTR91.

[There is some confusion in the web-sphere over the free-float nature of this rifle, but this can be explained fairly simply.  First of all, there is no gas system so there is no need to attach anything (such as a piston tube) to the barrel (‘delayed blowback’ mechanism).  The only thing that is attached is the ‘tri-ring:’ the bottom ring is on the barrel, the top ring encloses the front sight post, and the middle ring encircles the end of the cocking tube –  but is not fastened to it.  You can see this by removing the end cap from the middle ring, exposing the hollow end of the cocking tube, to verify this.  Now, the handguard is attached to the cocking tube, not the barrel, and while tension on the handguard will cause the cocking tube to flex slightly, it is not enough to bring it into contact with the tri-ring and affect the point of aim, at least not on any of the rifles I looked at – PTR91F, PTR G.I., PTR32KF.  (However, a laser mounted to the handguard could be pulled off zero by the tension.)]

Now on to the shooting.  The forward sling loop is attached to the barrel, so to avoid putting tension on the barrel I attached a rail to the underside of the handguard, and a sling stud (from Yankee Hill Machine) to the rail.  When I first started shooting it, slung up and using iron sights, the feeling I had can best be described as claustrophobic.  The way I tend to shoot, with my nose down and cheek well forward on the comb, I was treated with a good stiff punch to the cheekbone by the hump on the buttstock.  The first time I just kept firing anyway, since the range was about to close and I didn’t want to take the time to find a new groove.  I got a decent bruise out of it, but my groups showed I did not flinch, even though I knew it was going to hurt me – a challenge for my ego I couldn’t resist.

So obviously I have to keep my chin up and head back away from the hump, which feels claustrophobic and awkward.  Even with that I still got a slap on the cheek, rather than a punch to the cheekbone.  It was an improvement, but I was still in an abusive relationship with my rifle.  However, when I put on a Brügger & Thomet scope mount, and a canvas cheek riser pad, presto!  No more pain.  In fact, it’s quite a comfortable shooter in this configuration.  The felt recoil may be stiffer than for the other Battle Rifles, but shooting a few mags at a time is not bothersome, nor is there any noticeable pain afterwards.  (I weigh 175lb so I don’t have much natural padding.  The only padding I have is on an inexpensive shooting ‘jacket’ from Fred’s.)
This rifle is plenty accurate with good ammo (sub 2MOA groups with Prvi Match 168gr), and the setup I described is solid, comfortable, and versatile.  I thought I would just buy this rifle and then forget it, save it for when I might need to be humping a rifle through the swamp for months on end.  And here it turns out to be the cat’s meow!  I guess you just don’t know until you give something a fair shake.

The ‘PTR’ in PTR91 stands for ‘Precision Target Rifle.’  I always thought this was odd, as the HK91 was designed to be a Battle Rifle, not a semi auto sniper rifle.  Then again, I’m not in charge of marketing the thing, and I suppose ‘Pretty Darned Accurate Battle Rifle’ doesn’t have quite the same ring.  The rifle differs from the HK91 in one important respect: the barrel.  It’s a heavier profile for one thing, and although it’s called a ‘bull barrel’ it seems closer to a medium weight.  But more important, it has shallower chamber flutes than the original design.  This may have been to reduce felt recoil, and/or to tighten tolerances for better accuracy.  (The flutes are grooves cut into the chamber to aid extraction; it’s a necessary part of the blowback mechanism.)  But from our perspective the important question is whether this makes it less reliable than the original.  The answer is apparently no, unless you’re using lacquer coated, or particularly tar-sealed ammo.  Many of us may not care to use this type of ammo in our rifles, as it produces a gummy residue that’s hard to remove, but a ‘true’ HK91 can handle it and we expect a PTR91 to do so as well.  In response to this PTR91 recently came out with the GI version.

Aside from the furniture it appears virtually identical to the HK91.  They were offered on CDNN for $900 new (compare this to a used HK91 for around $2300).  It’s easy to see the difference in the chamber flutes between the different PTRs: the GI’s are much deeper and more distinct.  This is a welcome development, as many people regard the HK91 as the ultimate TEOTWAWKI weapon: no matter the ammo, the environment, or the duration of the crisis, it won’t quit on you.  So, for good reason, the PTR91 GI is getting a lot of attention among survivalists and preppers these days.

I thought all PTR91 models were now being made with the deep chamber flutes, not just the GI version, but I have been unable to confirm this.  (Note, chamber flutes are not to be confused with barrel flutes, which are on the outside of the barrel, for aesthetics and heat dissipation.)  I know for a fact the new PTR32 (in 7.62×39) has them.  The issue is important, because some folks might want the heavier barrel for better accuracy and heat dissipation, but only if they can get it with the deep flutes.  [Can JWR or someone else chime in here with a reference and settle this question?]  Also, some PTR91 models come with a scope rail welded to the receiver, which is better than the bolt on type, but I haven’t seen it on the GI version.
I haven’t scoped the GI rifle yet, but the groups I get are similar to what I get with the other PTR91 using iron sights, and in any case the GI should give whatever accuracy we can expect from the HK91.  The GI is lighter and felt recoil is naturally stiffer but I didn’t find it uncomfortable (with padded jacket); it just needs a little padding on the shoulder or buttstock.  I like the challenge of using it just the way it is brutal, tough, simple – with iron sights, even though I’m a little nearsighted.

Reloading the PTR91 can be a bit slow, at least in comparison to the other Battle Rifles.  A paddle mag release can be installed, but this is a gunsmithing job.  There are good quality 50 round drums available which look great, but they’re expensive.  Are they worth it?  It depends.  If you’re light on riflemen (or working solo) and you think the drum would help sustain fire in the fight, then maybe.  It’s a heckuva capability.  As always, balance your mission requirements with the resources you have.

Okay, some of the cons.  Bore is not chrome lined, but this is in the interest of greater accuracy.  It’s the stiffest recoiling of the Battle Rifles, due to the blowback mechanism.  However, this can be tamed in a number of ways, chiefly with a little padding and optimal positioning on the shoulder.  As a general matter I don’t think recoil should be a game changer when it comes to selecting a Battle Rifle, unless you have some special need (shoulder problems, etc.).  There’s a huge industry out there serving the needs of shooters, and they’re always trying to dream up new types of gear to make our lives better, and it’s probably just a matter of time before someone makes a new buttstock or other gizmo that helps with the recoil.  Remember, the actual momentum transferred to your shoulder is the same no matter what rifle you use (the momentum is the bullet mass times muzzle velocity).  What we want is to smear out the forcetransferred to us during the recoil impulse, making it more like a shove than a kick.

I had a couple of minor problems with my rifles.  The first one suddenly started failing to extract.  This was due to a bent extractor spring, which was probably bent during factory installation (which is pretty easy to do).  I straightened it out and put it back in and it worked fine until I got some new springs.  They are inexpensive, and a necessary item in your spare parts kit.  Another thing that happened was both rifles had the flash hiders come loose, easily remedied with blue loctite.  Though minor, these are pretty stupid problems to have.  PTR91 really ought to do better.

There are more serious issues to be aware of.  A limited number of rifles were manufactured using wrong sized pins which could result in cracked trunnions.  Check the serial number of your rifle against the serial number range posted on PTR91’s web site, and if yours matches, check your trunnion for hairline cracks.  If you’re buying used, avoid those in the affected range.  I’ve also seen one or two reports (with photos) of cracked bolt heads, and while it appears to be rare it’s a very serious failure.  There is some question as to whether the metal being used is hard enough.  There may have been a change in manufacturing, or a shift from surplus to domestic made bolt heads (my GI’s bolt head has ‘PTR91’ stamped on it, while the one from the older rifle has no markings).  Some people like to swap out parts for original German ones (bolt head, carrier, trigger parts, etc.), but this can be expensive.  It’s a good idea to keep an eye on the ‘bolt gap,’ which is related to the head space, and it’s easily checked using a feeler gauge set like we use to check spark plug gaps.  If it’s shrinking rapidly, and goes under spec, that would indicate a problem.  On the good news front: in 2012 PTR91 announced a lifetime warranty on these and all other internal parts.

Before leaving the subject of PTRs entirely I want to mention the PTR32.  This is a new model rifle chambered in 7.62x39mm, with a 16in ‘bull barrel,’ aluminum handguard, and deep chamber flutes.  While it does take AK47 mags, most of the common steel ones do not work well – polymer mags are recommended.  Though I like AKs well enough, I like the PTR32 because of the better sights, the handguard is all ready to go for rail attachments, and the barrel is free-floating as with the PTR91.  It’s heavier than an AK (a GI profile barrel might have been better) but feels well balanced.  Shooting it is a dream, as the recoil is more like a spongy push than a kick.  It comes with a fixed stock, but can be fitted with one of those retractable stocks which, while quite a punisher when used on a .308, would work nicely on this one and make it more portable.  If you like the PTR platform and you’re looking for something to throw in the truck, it’s something to consider.

This was my top choice, at least initially.  It was a bit of a toss-up between a DS Arms FAL or an M14/M1A.  My preference was tilted toward the FAL for several reasons.  (1) I was impressed with the quality of DSA, which offers FAL models as good or better than the original.  (2) Scoping the FAL is simple: just order it with a railed top cover (I like the extended scope rail version).  (3) The ergonomics is similar to the other rifles I have, such as pistol grip and safety position.  (4) It can be cleaned from the breech end (I’m spoiled).
Before I really got into Battle Rifles I got a DS Arms SA58 16in carbine with the medium contour barrel.  Those of you who have had the chance to shoot one of these know what a sweet, handy little piece it is.  And although it’s only a 16in and therefore not technically a Battle Rifle as defined here, it’s a good hard hitting CQB weapon.

My first DSA FAL Battle Rifle had an 18in medium contour barrel, fixed stock, and Robar NP3 coating on the bolt & carrier, which has a silky, teflon-like feel, requiring little or no lube, something which could be important in a SHTF situation.  The heavier barrel adds a little bit of weight, which I thought I would not mind for the sake of greater accuracy, but as we’ll see I eventually settled on a different model.  I still like this one but it is better suited for shooting from a fixed position with a bipod.

To further enhance accuracy and to allow the use of a tight service sling, I installed an aluminum “free float” foreend.  While not strictly free float, since it clamps to the thick base of the barrel instead of the receiver, it does the job required of it, which is to isolate the barrel from sling tension and contact with the bipod.  However, the foreend as provided by DSA suffers from several drawbacks, the most serious being the open top design, which exposes the piston and spring.  The tube is open on top so it can clear the front sight block on installation.  But instead of an uninterrupted piston tube, DSA’s has a long gap which, while good for ventilating fouling gas, exposes the piston and spring.  With the foreend attached this is actually visible, not only exposing this part of the action to the elements but also allowing gas and barrel heat to rise into the line of sight and in front of the scope.  This is absurd – DSA really needs to get its act together on this.  I would have preferred a (ported) solid piston tube instead of the open design, but all that’s actually needed for the foreend is a top cover, and so I made one from a galvanized steel cable organizer.  Bending it into a suitable shape took some doing (a vice and set of aluminum barrel blocks came in handy), but it came out nicely.  Another drawback of the foreend is the lack of any drilling and tapping and supplied rails, but this is easily remedied.  I put a small (Yankee Hill) rail segment on the bottom front for a quick detach (QD) bipod, a sling stud farther aft, and a pair of screws securing the tube to the lower barrel clamp to prevent the tube from rotating.

The result is a bit heavier than I would like – what’s really needed is a lighter free float foreend – and while it would be hard to find a more accurate FAL, like many accurate semi auto rifles it’s too heavy to be considered a ‘carry friendly’ field weapon, which is our main focus in this article.  Still, I love the damn thing and I’m keeping it.

I’ve since picked up a DSA PARA FAL rifle – folding skeleton stock, Robar NP3 coating on internals, sand cuts on bolt carrier (now standard on all new DSA FALs), extended scope rail.  The barrel is 18in, but unlike the other rifle it’s standard weight.  I’m considering putting my free float tube on this one but for now I think it’s heavy enough and fine the way it is.  The primary advantage of the folding stock is enhanced covertness and ease of portability – you can put it in a suitcase instead of a gun case, for example – and yet, unlike a partially disassembled rifle, the stock can be unfolded and the rifle brought into action quickly.  If you think that feature would be important for you it’s worth considering the PARA.  Also, in the event of a jam the PARA action can be opened up immediately, but this may not be the case if you have a fixed stock, which has the ‘rat tail’ (a thin rod attached to the back of the carrier) extending into the buttstock during cycling.

However, folding stock is an additional expense over the fixed version, and while it looks ‘cool’ it is not as comfortable to shoot.  For one thing, the recoil spring mechanism is different (note that it is not easy, nor is it inexpensive, to interchange folding and fixed stocks on a rifle), and for another, the folding stock butt is all aluminum and thus hard as a rock – definitely could use some rubber back there.  In fact, the difference between shooting the PARA and shooting my Saiga .308, which has the ACE folder that includes a hollow rubber pad on it, is substantial; the Saiga is much milder.  If you do put on a thick rubber pad, the PARA stock can be cut shorter by the user, in order to maintain the same length of pull.  Something like this will probably be necessary, at least for me.  It’s a superb weapon, don’t get me wrong, and I really like it.  But if someone asked my advice about getting a FAL, I would  say DSA’s 18in, standard weight barrel, fixed stock, with or without Robar, would be a good bet.

Besides the extended scope rail option, I like the Hampton lower, which has a rear sight just like that on the AR-15.  All my FALs have Hampton lowers, as well as the Speed Trigger upgrade.  I haven’t had a chance to fire a rifle with a stock trigger, but I can tell you I would not want anything less than the Speed Trigger, which gives a lighter, shorter, crisper pull for enhanced practical accuracy.  I consider the trigger upgrade and scope rail to be the most important upgrades you can get for the FAL.

And finally, some pros and cons.  The FAL is unique in that it has an adjustable gas system, allowing you to tune it to your particular ammo, and this is generally regarded as a good thing.  It helps reduce wear and tear on your gun as well as your shoulder.  But you wouldn’t want to go into battle with it on the wrong setting, which could render it a single shot rifle. [JWR Adds: Ditto for assembling the rifle with the gas plug installed upside down.] 

Like the HK91/PTR91, it has the charging handle on the left side (which is what most right handed shooters seem to prefer), as it was designed to be used with an integral bipod.  It is a ‘non-reciprocating’ handle, meaning that it does not move during cycling (unlike the M14/M1A), and consequently does not allow for a forward assist should it be needed (which could happen if the rifle gets dirty enough).  Last time I talked with DSA in mid-2012 I was told a forward assist option (similar to that on the Israeli heavy barrel FAL) might be offered in the future, as a number of people had been asking about it.  You might be able to make this mod yourself (or you might consider getting an M14/M1A).  Most people don’t seem to think it’s necessary, but like a lot of things, having it and not needing it is better than needing it and not having it.

The charging handle knob itself is made of hollow aluminum, and it can break (don’t ask me how I know).  Just don’t drop it on a rock.  Barrel is not chrome lined, but this is in the interest of better accuracy.  DSA ordered a recall on a range of lowers a few years ago.  I was not notified (I noticed it on their web site), even though I’m the original owner and they have my email address.

Having decided in favor of the FAL I figured I had no need to get one of these.  Besides the expense of the rifle itself, I like to stock mags and parts for the rifles I have, and the cost for this system is unfortunately high.  But it was the one thing missing in my collection, and in many ways it can be considered the best of the bunch.  So about every six months I would get a real hankering for one, even start having dreams about it.  Finally I could take it no longer.  I bought an M14SA, LRB Arms hammer-forged receiver, the rest of it is USGI M14 parts except bolt (TRW) and barrel (Criterion, chrome lined).  This is not a match rifle, but it’s about the best plain Jane semi auto M14 you can find, and at the risk of comparing apple to oranges, I consider the quality on a par with DSA’s FAL.

It came with a beautifully restored USGI walnut stock, which I immediately replaced with a fiberglass one.  Being able to swap stocks is one of the advantages here, and the USGI fiberglass can be repainted in any number of camo patterns.  Because I like the extra rigidity and strength of the old ‘big red’ birch stocks I bought one of these too, and refinished it.  I had to get several new tools for cleaning and working on the rifle.  I will accumulate more mags and parts as opportunities arise.

Because I’m a little nearsighted I installed a National Match (NM) rear sight, and dropped in a corrective lens from B Jones Sights.  This allows me to see the target well enough while still keeping the front sight in focus.  I also put in a front globe sight, which shrouds the front sight in a small cylinder, reducing eye fatigue and minimizing the effects of lighting.  (As a side note: the rear sight with lens is legal in NRA Service Rifle competition, but the front globe sight is not.)  This allows me to shoot almost to the rifle’s potential (less than 1.5MOA with Prvi 168gr).  If you like shooting with iron sights this is a great setup.  Being able to shoot this rifle very accurately using iron sights is one of the most fun things about it.
I was not planning to scope this rifle, due to the high cost of the better mounts, and the reported problematic nature of doing so.  But then I heard about the Bassett Machine mount ($150).  The High model allows use of the iron sights.  It goes on and off easily with a hand tool, with minimal torque needed – only the weight of the rifle is used to tighten it – and boasts a return to zero within 1MOA.  It sounded too good to be true, but I read enough endorsements from users to take the plunge.  Though my experience with it is not very broad thus far, it does perform as advertised, so if you’re shopping for a mount check this one out.  Naturally, whatever mount you may choose, if you are using a scope you’ll probably want a cheek riser to help raise your line of sight.  I use a removable soft pad on my birch stock so I can switch back to using iron sights easily.

This rifle is a very comfortable shooter, the softest recoiling among the three traditional Battle Rifles, and with the familiar feel of the hunting rifle and shotgun.  Probably the biggest drawback is the lack of a pistol grip.  Particularly in prone, where the elbow of the trigger arm is down, the angle the trigger finger makes with the trigger is not ideal.  Also, the wrist is bent back – not good for relaxing.  However, it doesn’t bother me as much as I thought it would, and the rifle delivers exceptional accuracy.  Many a good sniper, after all, has made do with this type of traditional stock on a scoped bolt action, so it should be no obstacle to most of us on our Battle Rifles.  There are of course after market stocks that feature a pistol grip, but good ones are expensive, often require bedding, such as the McMillan (and occasional rebedding, depending on how much you shoot), and may add substantial weight, such as the J Allen Enterprises stock.

For a “field grade” stock I like the USGI fiberglass.  (Some shooters reinforce the foreend to make it more rigid, but I haven’t yet found this necessary, even when using a tight sling).  The only mod I made was to install a Sadlak heavy duty bipod rail in front of the sling loop.  With this setup using a bipod, scope, and cheek riser, you’d essentially be equipped just as many of our troops are fighting overseas with the M14.

As far as available ‘upgrades’ for this weapon – stocks, parts, accurizing, etc. – the sky’s the limit, but then so is the price.  I plan to do some basic accurizing, but that’s about it.  It already does what it needs to do, and what I need to do is spend time shooting it.
It’s easy to see why people’s objectivity breaks down when it comes to this rifle.  It has the look and feel of a traditional rifle; it’s designed for use with the service sling, with controls on the right hand side; iron sights are superb; recoil is gentle; and it has the home team advantage, as it is the only American Battle Rifle, and a direct descendant of the revered M1.  Very much a rifleman’s rifle, user friendly in all important respects.

More recently I got a tanker version, built on an LRB M25 receiver which has the scope rail built in, with a number of upgrades.  This was to be my go-to Battle Rifle, my pride and joy.  But it doesn’t work – numerous cycling problems, and I have to send it back.  It’s an excellent builder that made it so I have no doubt they’ll make it right.  But it just goes to show that you can run into problems no matter what you buy, even in the high end market.

AR-10 & Variants
This platform has a lot going for it – the same excellent ergonomics of the AR-15, outstanding accuracy, modularity, ease of customization.  The rifle has gotten better, as more manufacturers have come out with more choices, and magazines aren’t as wildly expensive as they once were.  It is unfortunate that, unlike with the AR-15 parts, particularly mags, are not standardized, but this is a fairly minor concern.

It may be argued that it also shows some of the weaknesses of the AR-15.  But as long as we know what they are, we can make an informed choice as to whether the AR-10 is appropriate for our mission.  Certainly we would want to make sure we have plenty of lube since, while fouling may be an issue with the direct impingement mechanism, it can get pretty dirty and not quit, provided you can keep it wet.  Keep plenty of spare parts on hand, and know how to rebuild a bolt.
But I think where the AR-10 really shines is as a semi auto sniper rifle.  You can easily build one with sub MOA accuracy, and if you have a need for such a capability this would be an excellent option.

SAIGA .308
This is a good, robust budget Battle Rifle, but with certain drawbacks.  It’s available only in 16 in and 21in barreled models; many say the 21in is markedly less accurate due to barrel whip.  It is not threaded for a flash hider, and with the front sight positioned all the way out at the muzzle, no easy way to thread it (see instructions at Dinzag Arms), though some sort of bolt on device may be possible.  No pistol grip, crummy trigger.  Mags – both factory and hi-cap – are expensive.  But factory mags are 8-rounds, so you could think of this as roughly equivalent to a .308 M1 with detachable mag, which ain’t bad, unless of course you lose the mag.  And though it can be upgraded (see below), for the cost involved I would suggest you take a hard look at a PTR91 instead.  If you like the Saiga the way it is you’re in good shape, though I consider a trigger upgrade a must.  It has a side mount for a scope rail which is inexpensive, so scoping it is simple.  The iron sights are the usual lousy AK type, so for excellent aftermarket peep sights check out Tech-Sights.

Like the AK47, the Saiga .308 has relatively mild recoil.  However, there is one difference in the action that bears mentioning.  There is an extra lug on the bolt to handle the higher pressures of the .308.  It’s on the bottom, and it rides directly over the case of the top cartridge in the magazine, and depending on how sharp the lug is, it puts a good dent in the case shoulder on the return stroke, particularly when the top round is on the left side.  This could be an issue in performance, especially if you’re using brass cased ammo (steel cased won’t dent nearly so much), as the case could be punctured before firing.  There is only one way to see this effect.  Firing the round irons out the case and removes the dent.  Therefore, start with a full 20-round mag (for maximum upward pressure), making sure the top round is on the right.  Load, and fire the first round.  Then remove the mag, extract the chambered round, and inspect.  My rifle made such a severe dent I sent the bolt back to the distributor to have it filed down.  When it still made a big dent I sent the whole rifle back and they worked on the bolt some more.  They did it free of charge, although with a note saying it shouldn’t have been sent in since it had been converted to the pistol grip configuration – voiding the warranty.  As if the pistol grip has anything to do with the bolt!  Anyhow, it helped, enough so that I’m no longer worried it might actually punch a hole in the brass.  I’m still not too crazy about the design, with the lug riding over the case and bumping the shoulder.

As for the pistol grip conversion, there are a few differences from the Saiga 7.62×39.  The mag well is farther aft due to the longer round, and the trigger guard I got for it needed to be squeezed and shaped a bit, and a new hole in the receiver for the front screw.  If you’re putting in a fixed stock there’s not much too it.  But for a folding stock, where you cut off the rear tang, you’ll need to drill and tap holes in the receiver to secure the receiver block, as the two holes on each side used for this purpose when converting the 7.62×39 or Saiga 12 are absent on the .308.  I used the block that comes without these holes already in it; that way I could just drill the receiver and block together so things line up easily.  I also needed to cut the cross bar off the bottom of the block, and do some grinding on top edges to provide clearance.  Lastly, there was a hole in the bottom of the receiver near the back where I put another screw into the block.  I used an ACE folding stock.  The result is very solid and looks great.

One other thing I should mention about this rifle is that I had to grind the receiver rails a little bit in order to get the bolt and carrier group in and out smoothly.  It works smooth as grease now, but when I first got it I couldn’t see why it didn’t behave just like all the AKs I was used to handling.  So if you have trouble with yours, take a careful look at the receiver rail clearance, and if you must take a dremel to your receiver, go slow, taking off only a little bit at a time, trying the bolt & carrier insertion and removal as you go.
Overall I like this baby (I have a 16in).  It shares the good traits of an AK-47 – simplicity, reliability, light weight, mild recoil – in a semi auto .308.  With the folding stock, it’s hard to see how you could get more firepower in such a small, light weight package.  So if you like the AK platform, and don’t mind doing a little work and tweaking to get it the way you like, give it a look.

No Battle Rifle is perfect, but it’s possible to find something that is ideal or suitable for you, your group, your family.  All of those discussed here will do the job and will serve you well.  Selecting a Battle Rifle is like becoming part of a club or community.  You can avail yourself of the tremendous amount of information and help online from others using the same platform.  There is so much experience and expertise on these weapons out there, and it’s constantly being updated on the forums.  Being a part of it is one of the most satisfying benefits of Battle Rifle shooting.  But the best of all, of course, it the shooting itself.

One final note.  As preppers, we have long been concerned with the state of our world, its fragility, and the various means and trends that threaten it.  Now suddenly we have a new threat to our freedom and culture, to our right to life and liberty, the specter of infringements to our right to keep and bear arms.  We have already seen a lot of panic in the marketplace.  But as preppers we do not panic, we take heart.  Despair is not an option for us.  While we may have to adapt to new circumstances, we are secure in our faith and our mission, and remain active in the face of change and adversity.  We all know this won’t be the last crisis we’ll have to deal with.  But we are here now, in this time and place, for a reason.  We are the beginning of a new America and a new freedom, remembering and recapturing the old, but with an eye to building a new future, a vision to be admired and remembered to the end of days.  The way is tough, but that is always the way of the pioneer.

10 13 11 flagbar

White House petition for disclosure of the collective government investment wealth

January 18th, 2013 by

01 17 13 CAFR1 NATIONAL POST White House petition for disclosure of the collective government investment wealth

Many wanted the short link to the CAFR1 White House petition for disclosure of the collective government investment wealth held which also had the note to use a percentage of the return there from (a percentage of the 5-trillion generated each year) to offset taxation.

They needed the short link to use on twitter and other social media sites;

So here it is  http://wh.gov/Qh8Z

Walter Burien – CAFR1.com
P. O. Box 2112
Saint Johns, AZ 85936

Tel. (928) 458-5854
To update your information regarding getting email posts from Walter Burien – CAFR1, please use the following link:



Government promotes debt and never the scope of their global investments. "Collective" Local and Federal totals held are?

Government, Local and Federal promotes debt and "never" mentions its "collective" investments held globally.

Investments held in the US, China, Soviet Block, South America, etc.


"Collective" totals from both Local and Federal government held domestic and globally are estimated as of 2007 to be a conservative 110-trillion dollars having generated a return of over 5-trillion dollars.

The return from these investments is rarely dedicated to offset taxation.


Should law be passed to mandate a certain percentage say 10% to 30% of the return from these investments be dedicated by every local government and federal agency to offset taxation?

The City of Mesa, AZ has been doing this for 30-years creating on the city level the lowest taxation rate in the state of Arizona..

Created: Dec 29, 2012




Top of Form

Thank for signing this petition!

You can help ensure that this petition will be reviewed by the White House and receive an official response by asking your friends and family to sign the petition as well.

Send an email to your friends and family or use social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to help promote this petition.

Bottom of Form

Email this link to your friends and family: http://wh.gov/Qh8Z

Or use social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to help promote this petition.


You first timers will have to create an account, but don’t let it bother you, they surely already know who is dissatisfied with the government. If you are uninformed as to the importance of this petition, go to  http://cafr1.com/ and study it!

What St. Augustine had to say about what we now call government:

"A gang is a group of men under the command of a leader, bound by a compact of association, in which the plunder is divided according to an agreed convention. If this villainy wins so many recruits from the ranks of the demoralized that it acquires territory, establishes a base, captures cities and subdues peoples, it then openly arrogates to itself the title of kingdom, which is conferred on it in the eyes of the world, not by the renunciation of aggression, but by the attainment of impunity"

Your Choices in the Political arena:

 Indeed, the plunder has become so common, and the plunderers so smug and self-confident, that their predations are taken for granted, and the thieves themselves treated with extraordinary deference! It is something akin to the Stockholm syndrome. You encounter the same mugger at the same spot every day, and eventually establish a sort of bizarre relationship with him—-even, eventually, thanking him for not taking more. When you are given the opportunity to replace him with another mugger, you vote for the incumbent—sticking with the devil you know, unless his opponent offers to share more of his loot with you.

Paul Hein 10-19-2010   http://strike-the-root.com/just-say-no

What brought these thoughts to mind involves the bailouts and other forms of stimuli now being inflicted upon us. I have not counted the times when some pundit on television has bemoaned these extravagances, saying something like, “And our children and their children will have to pay for all this,” or “pity the poor taxpayer, who must pay for all this,” but they must be legion. Wait a minute!  What do they mean, “HAVE to pay for all this,” or “MUST pay for all this?” If productive Americans accept the idea that they must accept financial responsibility for government largess to its cronies, then what can be the objection to the bailouts?

How refreshing it would be to hear those same pundits who bemoan the absurdity of government bailouts bemoan with equal logic and passion the idea that we, the people who produce this country’s wealth, can be saddled with the debts of strangers!  I assume they fail to notice the injustice of it because it has become so common that, as St. Augustine pointed out, the hapless victims have become subdued and demoralized, and the thieves, now well-established and empowered, have assumed the roles, if not the titles, of nobility.

When you think about it (and wouldn’t it be wonderful if people did!), you can only be struck numb with amazement. Can you go into a store, order thousands of dollars worth of goods, and then tell the clerk to send the bill to assorted strangers? Obviously, you cannot do such a thing, and, in fact, it would probably never even occur to you to attempt such a preposterous act. Yet your elected “representatives” do it regularly, with impunity, spending not thousands, but billions, based upon the power which, we are told, we have delegated to them, although in fact they somehow gave themselves the power they use.

But not to worry! Everything is entirely legal and above-board. Overlook, please, the fact that the plunderers themselves write the “laws” which enable them to plunder! While you’re at it, overlook as well the fact that when existing laws might hamper their activities, those laws are disregarded. Indignant victims could sue, of course, but the issue would be settled in a court owned and operated by your opponent, with one of his gang–with a vested interest in the outcome–on the bench. All entirely legal, of course!

So: what to do? One could learn a lesson from the experience of Prohibition. Massive civil disobedience overwhelmed the rulers, although in that instance, the massive disobedience involved the public doing something it wanted to do–drink alcohol. True, today’s public no doubt wants to hold onto its earnings, but merely being allowed to retain a portion of those earnings, by a government much more powerful than that of Prohibition, satisfies many. It’s that Stockholm syndrome, again.

Perhaps state legislators might be persuaded to question how the states (and the citizens thereof, of course) can be made parties to the debts of the federal government that is, after all, to be the servant of the people and the states. State government is closer to the people, and, perhaps, less intimidating than the federal government. If the states still consider themselves sovereign, how can they stand by while the residents of those states are impoverished by the federal government? Somebody call the sheriff!

Simplest of all, surely, would be the simple “I’ve had enough” uttered by the poor, beleaguered citizens. It wouldn’t take a majority of fed-up victims to put the fear of the voter (they don’t fear the Lord) into the houses of Congress.

A few days ago I saw a TV news program showing thousands of people lined up to get applications for federal housing assistance. What they wanted, of course, was to use the government to obtain your money for their benefit. They didn’t seem at all ashamed of their demands, and the reporters at the scene found nothing remarkable about it except the large numbers at the turnout, which reflected, they said, the sad state of the economy. Unfortunately, they didn’t equate the sad state of the economy with precisely the sort of activity being documented.

If the tax-feeders can congregate in the thousands to demand more benefits from the productive, surely the productive can do the same thing to demand that the plunder cease!

10 13 11 flagbar





January 17th, 2013 by


By J.B. Williams
January 17, 2013

Without your Second Amendment Rights, you have NO other Rights, which is exactly why Obama and his band of Democratic Socialists want your guns. Obama and Biden are prepared to disarm American citizens by Executive Order with 23 orders ready to go, and congress should make sure that they make this move all alone by refusing to pass any new gun control legislation through congress. (Obama signed these 23 EO’s as this column was in editing.)

Make no mistake, almost every Democratic Socialist (aka progressive) member of congress will support Obama’s rush to disarm law abiding citizens. Just like Hitler, Obama will exploit children to push his anti-American agenda, using innocent babies as human shields to protect Democrat Marxists as they attempt to strip Americans of their God given and constitutionally protected Right to keep and bear arms.

It’s not guns in the hands of the “lawless” that Obama & Co. are after. The lawless don’t care what laws we pass, and most of them voted for Obama & Co. It’s the guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens who oppose Obama’s march to Marxists that they worry about.

“…to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

“… whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (Life, Liberty and Freedom), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The NRA (National Rifle Association) will put on a dog and pony show for members, presenting a public opposition to the massive assault of Constitutional Rights, and in the end, they will cave (compromise away rights) as they have done many times before, allowing Marxists to shove the nation towards a second Civil War.

Gun Owners of America has no plan on the table to stop the gun grab either, “We don’t think there is much likelihood Congress is going to move to change gun laws,” Larry Pratt, executive director for Gun Owners of America, told “Fox News Sunday.” – WRONG! Obama just signed 23 EO’s today!

The American news rooms are 100% on-board Obama’s Marxist march off the cliff and they know they have to disarm Americans before they finish off American sovereignty and security in their planned economic collapse.

Even faux conservative entertainers like Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck will push for “reasonable” gun control measures, and tell citizens “not to resist” – “do what Jesus would do,” – allowing themselves to be disarmed, enslaved and crucified before fighting against Marxist corruption and tyranny.

US lawmakers will do whatever it takes to disarm American citizens leaving all American power in the hands of criminals and corrupt politicians. They will exploit children – offer tax deductions if you voluntarily disarm yourself – use your churches to disarm law abiding citizens – and shove citizens into a financial corner where they will sell their guns to keep food on the table.

In a radio interview yesterday, I explained how they will disarm American citizens and why.

In short, Obama & Co. have no intention to “save America.” They intend to destroy America and all they have to do is spend the nation deeper and deeper in to unsustainable debt, regulate business out of business (including gun manufacturers and distributors), drive society further into an immoral abyss and federal dependency, and disarm the people just ahead of the final fiscal collapse.

We have seen all of these things before, in pre-World War Germany and countless other nations around the world.Governments have killed more “defenseless”

people throughout history than all the wars and criminals combined, more than 170 million through genocide and always following the disarming of their citizens.

Simply stated, there is nothing these people won’t do to destroy America, but they have to disarm American citizens in order to be successful. Their idea of a “sustainable society” is a society of like-minded communists, free of any resisters. The truth about Gun Control is well covered in this 

one hour video.

If members of congress go along with any new effort to restrict or regulate the Second Amendment Rights of law abiding citizens, they will deserve to hang beside the 

Marxist criminals pushing this anti-American agenda.

Let’s be very clear here… “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

 “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1776.
 “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason
 “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” – Zachariah Johnson
 “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”– Samuel Adams
 “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence …” – George Washington
 “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee

It is not within the power of the government, federal, state or local, to disarm the American people. It is not even within government powers to regulate or restrict the American people’s God-given and constitutionally protected Rights. Democratic Socialists in New York and

 Connecticut are also leading the gun grab.

Read those words again – “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” – From the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, without which, the people have NO rights.

The bottom line is that the American people must draw a final line in the sand at the Second Amendment. If the people forfeit their Second Amendment rights, they will forfeit all of their rights. They cannot count on anyone but themselves here. They MUST take affirmative actions that are carefully crafted within the boundaries of Constitutional Rights and they must do it immediately.

1. Light up the Congressional switchboard (202)224-3121 and tell ALL members of congress to STAND DOWN on gun control, forcing Barack Hussein Obama to come after your guns all alone through Executive Order. Use this congressional directory to look up your members of congress and demand that they pass nothing concerning gun control.

2. JOIN OTHERS with a track record of doing the right things and support the only 

Law Center in America formed for the sole purpose of representing the will of the true American people. Unite with constitutionally grounded and angry military and law enforcement veterans HERE! Divided, we will fall, but UNITED, there is nothing we can’t accomplish.

3. Forget pet issue initiatives at this stage. There aren’t enough hours in the day to react to every assault on freedom and liberty item by item. Work with ALL Americans in your state to pass 

The Balance of Powers Act IMMEDIATELY! Big problems demand big solutions and immediate action! This model legislation has been circulated via more than 99,000 web pages and people are working to pass this in EVERY state. GET ENGAGED! Without this broad-based solution in your state, you have no viable state solutions.

If the American people allow Marxists to disarm them without a battle, they deserve to live under the boot of this Marxist scum. Obama just stood on international television moments ago and signed 23 Executive Orders, usurping the US Constitution and circumventing congress as he announced the most massive assault on God-given inalienable rights in US history, all in the name of “saving kids.” [2012 assault weapon related deaths, approximately 300– number of US children murdered by their mother, protected by Democrats, 1.2 million]

Take these matters into your own hands. Unite with others already doing it. No excuse is good enough. America does not exist as it was formed 236 years ago. If the American people want it to exist again, they must act now under the principles of E Pluribus Unum – out of many, ONE!

Every American citizen who is not an active part of the solution IS a part of the problem. The future of freedom and liberty is not in the hands of Obama or his Marxist minions…. It is in YOUR hands!

Last on this matter, NO American citizen is morally or legally obligated to abide by any law or executive order which is issued in direct violation of the US Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Before this criminal cabal of Marxists initiates even one universal background check on a single American citizen, I demand to see a full Top Secret Security Level universal background check on the people trying to issue unconstitutional laws and dictatorial orders, to include Barack Hussein Obama, all of his Czars and each of his department heads.

Until we fully vet these criminals in public, they have no right to investigate anyone or order the American people to do anything.

May the God, who endowed us with all of our inalienable rights, protect the defenders of those rights at the dark hour in American history.

© 2013 JB Williams – All Rights Reserved

JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a twenty-year span. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, writer and a business owner. He is co-founder of action organizations 

The United States Patriots Union, a civilian parent organization for 

The Veteran Defenders of America. He is also co-founder of 

The North American Law Center, a citizen run investigative legal research and activism organization preparing to take on American's greatest legal battles. Williams receives mail at:


Web site 1: www.PatriotsUnion.org

Web site 2: www.VeteranDefenders.org


The best thing to come of this present rage over gun control is to be found in the article below, because the one thing that has not ignited the fuse of revolt is the confusion that has resulted in the minds of the uninformed masses, from being lied to all of their life, by people they trusted. If you long for an intelligent explanation of how it was possible for the government to get away with ignoring their oath of office, I implore you to read CAREFULLY, the oath of office. It is the key to believing what you are about to learn. Hint! Just who are they swearing their oath to?

Acts of the Forty first Congress Section 34 Session III chapters 61 and 62

the Act of 1871

1871, February 21: Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871.

With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see,

Acts of the Forty-first Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).

The act – passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War — was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and neck of America. Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States.

The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was defaced – in effect vandalized and sabotage – when the title was capitalized and the word “for” was changed to “of” in the title.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the constitution of the incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does not! Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring to a legal document. This seemingly “minor” alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generation of Americans. What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government. This Act of 1871 newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original (organic) Constitution.

Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic Constitution, we the people now have “relative” rights or privileges. One example is the Sovereign’s right to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a “privilege” that requires citizens to be licensed. (Passports) By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution.


The Act of 1871 became the FOUNDATION of

all the treason since committed by government officials.]

The UNITED STATES isn’t a Country; it’s a Corporation! In preparation for stealing America, the puppets of Britain’s banking cabal had already created a second government, a Shadow Government designed to manage what the common herd believed was a democracy, but what really was an incorporated UNITED STATES. Together this chimera, this two-headed monster, disallowed the common herd all rights of sui juris. [you, in your sovereignty]

Congress, with no authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten-mile square parcel of land. WHY and HOW did they do so? First, Lisa Guliani of Babel Magazine, reminds us that the Civil War was, in fact, “little more than a calculated front with fancy footwork by backroom players.” Then she adds: “It was also a strategic maneuver by British and European interests (international bankers) intent on gaining a stranglehold on the coffers of America. And, because Congress knew our country was in dire financial straits, certain members of Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone’s pie)… There you have the WHY, why members of Congress permitted the international bankers to gain further control of America. [To avoid total financial collapse!]

“Then, by passing the Act of 1871, Congress formed a corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, shoved the organic version of the Constitution aside by changing the word [‘for’ to ‘of’] in the title. Let me explain: the original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers read: ‘The Constitution for the united states of America.’ [note that neither the words ‘united’ nor ‘states’ began with capital letters] But the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’ is a corporate constitution, which is absolutely NOT the same document you think it is. First of all, it ended all our rights of sovereignty [Sui Juris]. So you now have the HOW, how the international bankers got their hands on THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”

To fully understand how our rights of sovereignty were ended, you must know the full meaning of sovereign: “Chief or highest, supreme power, superior in position to all others; independent of and unlimited by others; possessing or entitled to; original and independent authority or jurisdiction.” (Webster).

In short, our government, which was created by and for us as sovereigns – free citizens deemed to have the highest authority in the land – was stolen from us, along with our rights. Keep in mind that, according to the original Constitution, only We the People are sovereign. Government is not sovereign. The Declaration of Independence say, “…government is subject to the consent of the governed.”

That’s us – the sovereigns. When did you last feel like a sovereign? “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a constitutional historian to figure out that the U.S. Government has NOT been subject to the consent of the governed since long before you or I were born. Rather, the governed are subject to the whim and greed of the corporation, which has stretched its tentacles beyond the ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the District of Columbia. In fact, it has invaded every state of the Republic. Mind you, the corporation has NO jurisdiction beyond the District of Columbia. You just think it does. “You see, you are ‘presumed’ to know the law, which is very weird since We the People are taught NOTHING about the law in school. We memorize obscure facts and phrases here and there, like the Preamble, which says, ‘We the People, establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’ But our teachers only gloss over the Bill of Rights. Our schools (controlled by the corporate government) don’t delve into the Constitution at depth. After all, the corporation was established to indoctrinate and ‘dumb-down’ the masses, not to teach anything of value or importance. Certainly, no one mentioned that America was sold-out to foreign interests, that we were beneficiaries of the debt incurred by Congress, or that we were in debt to the international bankers. Yet, for generations, Americans have had the bulk of their earnings confiscated to pay a massive debt that they did not incur. There’s an endless stream of things the People aren’t told. And, now that you are being told, how do you feel about being made the recipient of a debt without your knowledge or consent? “After passage of the Act of 1871 Congress set a series of subtle and overt deceptions into motion, deceptions in the form of decisions that were meant to sell us down the river. Over time, the Republic took it on the chin until it was knocked down and counted out by a technical KO [knock out]. With the surrender of the people’s gold in 1933, the ‘common herd’ was handed over to illegitimate law.

(I’ll bet you weren’t taught THAT in school.)

“Our corporate form of governance is based on Roman Civil Law and Admiralty, or Maritime, Law, which is also known as the ‘Divine Right of Kings’ and the’Law of the Seas’ – another fact of American history not taught in our schools.

Actually, Roman Civil Law was fully established in the colonies before our nation began, and then became managed by private international law. In other words, the government – the government created for the District of Columbia via the Act of 1871 – operates solely under Private International Law, not Common Law, which was the foundation of our Constitutional Republic. “This fact has impacted all Americans in concrete ways. For instance, although Private International Law is technically only applicable within the District of Columbia, and NOT in the other states of the Union, the arms of the Corporation of the UNITED STATES are called ‘departments’ – i.e., the Justice Department, the Treasury Department. And those departments affect everyone, no matter where (in what state) they live. Guess what? Each department belongs to the corporation – to the UNITED STATES.

“Refer to any UNITED STATES CODE (USC). Note the capitalization; this is evidence of a corporation, not a Republic. For example, In Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C), it is unequivocally stated that the UNITED STATES is a corporation.

Translation: the corporation is NOT a separate and distinct entity; it is not disconnected from the government; it IS the government — your government. This is extremely important! I refer to it as the ‘corporate EMPIRE of the UNITED STATES,’ which operates under Roman Civil Law outside the original Constitution. How do you like being ruled by a corporation? You say you’ll ask your Congressperson about this? HA!! Congress is fully aware of this deception.

So it’s time that you, too, become aware of the deception. What this great deception means is that the members of Congress do NOT work for us, for you and me. They work for the Corporation, for the UNITED STATES. No wonder we can’t get them to do anything on our behalf, or meet or demands, or answer our questions.

“Technically, legally, or any other way you want to look at the matter, the corporate government of the UNITED STATES has no jurisdiction or authority in ANY State of the Union (the Republic) beyond the District of Columbia. Let that tidbit sink in, then ask yourself, could this deception have occurred without full knowledge and complicity of the Congress? Do you think it happened by accident? If you do, you’re deceiving yourself.

“There are no accidents, no coincidences. Face the facts and confront the truth. Remember, you are presumed to know the law. THEY know you don’t know the law or, for that matter, your history. Why? Because no concerted effort was ever made to teach or otherwise inform you. As a Sovereign, you are entitled to full disclosure of all facts. As a slave, you are entitled to nothing other than what the corporation decides to ‘give’ you.

“Remember also that ‘Ignorance of the law is no excuse.’ It’s your responsibility. The corporation counted on the fact that most people are too indifferent, unconcerned, distracted, or lazy to learn what they need to know to survive within the system. We have been conditioned to let the government do our thinking for us. Now’s the time to turn that around if we intend to help save our Republic and ourselves — before it’s too late.” As an instrument of the international bankers, the UNITED STATES owns you from birth to death. It also holds ownership of all your assets, of your property, even of your children. Think long and hard about all the bills taxes, fines, and licenses you have paid for or purchased. Yes, they had you by the pockets. If you don’t believe it, read the 14th Amendment. See how ‘free’ you really are.

Ignorance of the facts led to your silence. Silence is construed as consent; consent to be beneficiaries of a debt you did not incur. As a Sovereign People we have been deceived for hundreds of years; we think we are free, but in truth we are servants of the corporation.

“Congress committed treason against the People in 1871. Honest men could have corrected the fraud and treason. But apparently there weren’t enough honest men to counteract the lust for money and power. We lost more freedom than we will ever know, thanks to corporate infiltration of our so-called ‘government.’ “Do you think that any soldier who died in any of our many wars would have fought if he or she had known the truth? Do you think one person would have laid down his/her life for a corporation? How long will we remain silent? How long will we perpetuate the MYTH that we are free? When will we stand together as One Sovereign People? When will we take back what has been as stolen from the us?

"If the People of America had known to what extent their trust was betrayed, how long would it have taken for a real revolution to occur? What we now need is a Revolution in THOUGHT. We need to change our thinking, then we can change our world. Our children deserve their rightful legacy — the liberty our ancestors fought to preserve, the legacy of a Sovereign and Fully Free People." [Posted 8/27/02, www.babalmagazine.com/]

From a speech in Congress in The Bankruptcy of The United States. United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303. Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

"Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913)"Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve – in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend THE FEDERAL United States CORPORATION [emphasis added] all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn't have any assets, they assigned the private property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another. 



For questions regarding American Memory or the Library's other digital resources: 

http://www.loc.gov/library/libarch-digital.html, please use the following Web form: 


For questions regarding materials from other Library divisions, please select the appropriate

Web form from the Ask a Librarian Service home page:


10 13 11 flagbar



The Impeachable Offenses of Barack Hussein Obama

January 16th, 2013 by


Part I 
by Terence James Mason (One American Voice) 


A tribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

When L. Neil Smith approached me about starting what is planned as an ongoing series on the impeachable offenses of the current president, my first response was "there aren't enough electrons in the Internet to contain them all." And I should commend to you the following books which explore this area in extreme detail: 
     David Limbaugh, Crimes against Liberty and The Great Destroyer; 
      Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny and Ameritopia; 
      Mark Steyn, After America; 
      Glenn Beck, Broke, The Original Arguments, Cowards, and the novel Agenda 21. 

     L. Neil Smith, Lever Action, the novel The Probability Broach, and virtually every word combination he has produced in the last thirty years.

But I do want to establish a few ground rules first (subject of course to revision by our humble publisher and editor for future installments). For the purposes of this series, an impeachable offense is:

1. An overt act, including a verbal or written act. It's still a free country, and anyone can express an opinion without retribution. However, "verbal and written" acts includes the introduction or execution of illegal, unconstitutional, and/or anti-constitutional legislation, executive orders, regulations, and/or judicial findings; instances of known or suspected fraud; and, statements which implore or initiate such action or inaction on behalf of others.

2. As regards impeachment of the President, an impeachable act must be performed either by the President himself (or herself, when appropriate), or by one of his appointed officers or other subsidiary officials and with the President's implicit consent (as by not firing the appointee and reversing the action). Actions performed by the Congressional leaders or members on the President's behalf might and should be cause for said member's impeachment, but they are answerable directly to the people; their actions cannot be cited for the President's impeachment.

3. The action must be responsibly documented in reputable media. Charges which are reposted from blog to blog but which never appear on a reputable web site should not be considered in the absence of a source document—or at least should be documented as "rumored" or "unconfirmed." We cannot impeach the President for something we fear he might do, but will clearly update this list as soon as he acts (a candidate list is provided for such actions). Perhaps not surprisingly, many of the President's impeachable acts have been widely documented as triumphs by his party and supporters.

4. Last, but not least, the action must be either (a) explicitly unconstitutional (in excess of the President's power and authority) or anti-constitutional (violations of the Separation of Powers and the Bill of Rights of the People and States); or (b) an explicit violation of established law. In the latter case, law in question may itself unconstitutional or anti-constitutional; this can get convoluted, but the President CAN be in the wrong for opposing an existing law on the grounds its unconstitutional, but he can also enact orders with consequences which are even more damaging to the Constitution, the states, and the people.

Examples should be evident below. The Publisher and Editor wish to grow this effort, so please respond with any information which supplements the charges laid, or which identifies new charges which should be added to the list. For this first edition, I have proceeded to work primarily from memory documenting things that most people either know about or can easily find on the Internet. I hope to revise this in the future with better documentation.

Matters of Birth. I am generally agnostic regarding the question of whether President Obama was born in the United States or in his father's country. From all I have read about the subject, it is my understanding that, if he were born in Kenya, he would not be a natural-born citizen of the United States under the laws in existence at the time of his birth, due primarily to the fact that his mother was still below some threshold age. Had his mother been older at the time of his birth, or had he been born a few years later under different laws, it is my understanding that these objections would not have applied, and so I consider them of little consequence one way or the other. However, it is amusing to watch the dance, particularly since it was revealed earlier this year that he claimed Kenyan birth as late as the early-1990s in order to enhance his credibility as an author. Which begs the question, if he were in fact born in Hawaii and would lie about his place of birth just to sell books he hadn't even written at the time, what would he lie about to remain President?

More to the point, it is established that he was enrolled in school in Indonesia as a citizen of that country, and I give considerable credence to the belief that he enrolled in college in the United States, knowingly and as an adult, as a foreign student. Consequently, his current legal status might well be that of illegal alien. Whether he is, in fact, natural born makes the further determination fuzzy. However, while citizenship is a requirement of the Presidency, if he were disqualified for the presidency on any such basis, he would still be subject to Impeachment prior to Removal from Office.

Unfortunately, under current law, Obama has more than enough collaborators in Congress to avoid impeachment, no matter his crimes. In fact, his supporters seem to revel in some of his most objectionable actions. As President Gerald Ford said, "What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body [the Senate] considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office." That is one reason why No Loopholes seeks to make impeachment less discretionary on the part of Congress when it becomes necessary.

Call to Action. I implore any readers of this essay who believe that impeachable offense have been conducted, and in particular who have a Democrat representative or Democrat senators, to contact them, diligently laying out the case for impeachment. As a matter of practical politics, any charge of impeachment would have to be sponsored by a majority of the President's own caucus to avoid the charges of partisanship rampant during and after the impeachment of William J. Clinton, not to mention the charges of racism that would permeate the response. Besides, even if 100% of Republicans were to vote for impeachment, we would need about one third of the Democrat caucus in the House and almost half of the Democrats in the Senate to reach a two-thirds majority in each chamber. That's not going to happen without a loud clamor from the people of conservative-libertarian districts who have still voted a Democrat into office. Otherwise, I do not urge or recommend any action other than "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"—in the most vigorous and visible fashion possible. And not to comply with any unconstitutional or illegal order or law which impacts you.

The Impeachable Offenses of United States President Barack Hussein Obama

1. The General Motors and Chrysler Bailouts

This item has been very well documented. In summary, when General Motors and Chrysler were faced with bankruptcy and a reorganization which would of necessity lead to the breaking of their United Auto Workers contracts, the President, through various appointed office (which avoided Congressional oversight), intervened and dictated a solution which stiffed the secured creditors who should have been left with ownership of the companies under current Bankruptcy law, rewarded the President's Union supporters with continued unviable contracts and partial ownership of the companies, and also left the government with substantial partial ownership of the residual corporations. It's also noteworthy that after acting to protect the pension of Union members, the President and his appointees explicitly denied pension to 20,000 non-union "white collar" employees of the Companies. It is also reported that Obama (or his representatives) openly threatened the secure bondholders with retaliation if they sought to recover their rights under the law.

Thus with this one action, the President violated the separation of powers and equal protection clauses (by unilaterally rewriting bankruptcy law for two cases), unconstitutionally assumed partial ownership of the companies (there is no provision in the Constitution permitting the government such a right), and, apparently, contributed to the violation of state laws regarding threats of violence, which certainly in and of itself falls under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause. Further, as these actions were to the benefit of organizations (auto unions) which contributed heavily to his campaigns, his actions were at best unethical and possibly illegal under federal and/or state law (certainly federal officials who took such money personally would be dismissed immediately).

I lead off with this because for some time my mantra has been "for this alone he should have been impeached." But it also illustrates how the deafening applause of his caucus makes impeachment impossible for even extraordinary levels of corruption.

2. Operation "Fast and Furious"

We all know the story: The Holder Justice Department, under the guise of "tracking gun sales to the Mexican Drug Cartels," allowed known cartel agents ("starw buyers") to purchase firearms at US gun stores and turn them over to the Cartels. Except that the tracking part never happened, and at least one US Customs Agent and hundreds of defenseless Mexican citizens (denied self defense by their own government, and we should remind the US Gun control lobby that this is coming to the US if they disarm us) have been murdered.

It is widely reported, not refuted, and in part consistent with e-mails between Justice Department Officials, that one purpose of Fast and Furious was to develop a case for regulating US gun sales to prevent the Cartels from getting access to them. That even seemed to be working in some corners until Officer Terry was shot by a program gun.

Attorney General Holder and the officers under him should be impeached and imprisoned as accessories before the fact to murder. So should Obama as an accessory after the fact in permitting the cover-up and keeping Holder in office. (Unless, of course, he was complicit, in which case the charge should also be accessory before the fact.) In this case, the implicit effort to justify judicial overturning of the Second Amendment is (almost) secondary to the actual crimes involved.

3. Obamacare

"It's constitutional," according to Chief Justice Roberts. But that is because the penalty for not buying insurance was reclassified as a tax by rewriting the legislation in his finding. So yes, he should be impeached also.

In addition, "Obamacare" is a massive federal power grab not authorized by the Constitution; while the Administration claims some traceability to the "general welfare" and "commerce" clauses, "general welfare" does not give the federal government authority track every individual citizen, or monitor their health and maintain their health records. It violates the 1st Amendment (by requiring that employers and insurers pay for "reproductive health services"—an Orwellian term for contraception and abortion—that is contrary to their personal religious beliefs). It apparently skirts violation of the 2nd Amendment only because of NRA vigilance (thank goodness, for once). By giving the federal government control over health records, it violates the 4th Amendment right to be secure in your papers. It violates the 10th Amendment because the Constitution gives the Federal government no role in public health other than the general welfare clause, not to mention mandating numerous actions on the State. It's a gross expansion of the already tortured commerce clause.

And that's just off the top of my head.

Everyone involved in it, from Obama, Pelosi, and Reid on down, should be impeached and removed from office for violation of their oath and directive to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

4. The "Flexibility" Statement to the President of Russia

During an international conference in March, Obama was caught by an open microphone in a discussion of missile defense with then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, asking him to carry the message back to strongman Vladimir Putin, "This is my last election. After my election, I will have more flexibility." As I'm sure is well known, Russia opposes the United States placing missile defense in Europe to protect against ballistic missile attack on US forces in Europe and on the Continental United States from launch points in the Middle East, a program that was started under former President Bush. Russian's objection is that such defenses could also be used to inhibit Russia from attacking the United States (under the Cold War "Mutual Assured Destruction" policy).

The implication is that Obama sought to set foreign policy and defense spending priorities before the election with an intent to be re-elected, and change them afterward. At best this was defrauding the American people, and failing his responsibility to provide for the common defense. At worst, his actions may have risen to the standard of "providing aid and comfort."

I realize that many readers of TLE are probably not concerned about missile defense, or convinced of the need for missile defenses. That is a subject for a different essay. The point is that Obama is lying to the American people about his commitment to defend the United States. Morally, this is just another effort to disarm the American people—one with nuclear stakes.

Candidate Offenses and Suspicious Events. This section discusses items which might move onto the Impeachable Offenses list given more information or future developments.

1. Executive Order Gun Control.

As outlined in Point 1 above, speech is free. The Vice-President's comments on executive order gun control may well have been "sticking his finger in the wind" to sense the political climate. I sincerely hope that he found the wind shear not to his liking. That said, if such an executive order is executed, it is Unconstitutional and will merit impeachment of both the President and the Vice-President as his agent in this matter; and, being illegal, there is no legal obligation to adhere to it. (The nature and extent of opposition is, of course, a matter of individual choice). But if such an order goes further, into the confiscation of even one legally held gun, or the attempted disqualification of any person or persons from gun ownership, the executive order becomes an act of war against the United States, as does any effort to prevent the successful prosecution of such charges for impeachment and removal from office, and similarly any effort to enforce or comply with such order. Again, you have to make your own decisions in this regard. Just, whatever you do, make sure you have a firm justification, both moral, and legal in terms of Constitutional law—even if your justification is not considered acceptable to the majority (or more likely, a very vocal Anti-Constitutional minority), the Constitution is supposed to support your rights also. I strongly hope that a "clamor" will be sufficient in this regard.

Author's note: I am philosophically closer to Heinlein than to Rand, a minarchist rather than an anarchocapitalist, who believes that there is a proper and necessary Constitutional role for government in the national defense, one which I have benefitted from during my professional career (see No Loopholes for additional discussion). If you will, feel free to discount any observations I make which appear to be a conflict of interest as regards that relationship.

Terence James Mason is the author of No Loopholes: Getting Back to Basics, an assessment of the meaning of the Bill of Rights and a suggestion of additional Constitutional Amendments to restore the Framer's vision for the Republic. No Loopholes is electronically published by Twilight Times Books (http://twilighttimesbooks.com) in Kindle, Nook, and other popular electronic formats. Mason tweets on the need for #NoLoopholes @OneAmericanVoice. 
Web site: www.oneamericanvoice.me

10 13 11 flagbar


January 15th, 2013 by


By Attorney Rees Lloyd
January 15, 2013

The demagogic efforts of the Liberal/Progressive political regime of Barack Hussein Obama to find some mechanism to attenuate or eliminate the Second Amendment right “of the people to bear” arms, without allowing a vote “by the people” on whether to amend the Constitution pursuant to the procedures provided by the Founding Fathers, raise many questions, including:
Would the Liberal/Progressives who are frothing at the mouth to take away the arms possessed by Americans have taken the same position to strip the Second Amendment right to bear arms from such Americans as, for instance, famed Christian Minister and abolitionist Henry Ward Beecher, who, pursuant to the Second Amendment, openly bought and provided guns to abolitionists to defend against the tyranny of government-approved slavery? (Author William J. Federer details Beecher’s arming abolitionists in Federer’s www.AmericanMinute.com, Jan. 13, 2013.)
Would modern Liberal/Progressives who are so willing to strip this generation of Americans of our Second Amendment rights, tell Henry Ward Beecher’s sister, Harriet Beecher Stowe, that she really should not have a Constitutional Second Amendment right to have a gun in the house while she was writing “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” or after its publication?
Would they take away the arms of the anti-slavery Americans who risked their lives to save the lives of escaping slaves through the “underground railroad?”
What about anti-slavery Americans in the South — should they have had their Second Amendment rights taken from them to bear arms to defend themselves in the years before, during, and after the Civil War when they were at great risk of harm?
What about John Brown? If anybody gave evidence of being mad as a hatter, an utter fanatic loosed from reason, it was John Brown. But would modern-day Liberal/Progressives say that America would be a better place if “strict gun laws” had been enforced and prevented John Brown from having guns when he raided the Harper’s Ferry Arsenal to get guns to fight slavery?
It would be difficult if not impossible to find such a Liberal/Progressive. Yet, today, the same Liberal/Progressives who celebrate John Brown as a hero who stood against the tyranny of slavery, gun in hand, bellow, pound their breasts, weep tears, demagogue, that we must attenuate or limit the right to bear arms guaranteed to all Americans in the Second Amendment.
As is their wont, Liberal/Progressives lament that we must limit the Second Amendment Right to bear arms to “protect the children.” How many black children of slaves were “protected” without guns? How many of their parents were freed from the tyranny of slavery without arms?
If Liberal/progressives of today would not strip the Second Amendment right of Americans to bear arms of that era who opposed the tyranny of government as expressed in slavery — and, remember, slavery was government policy North and South, after all, even upheld by the high priests of the judiciary up to an including the lawyers on the Supreme Court, e.g., Dred Scott Decision– then those Liberal/Progressives should not attenuate or strip away the Second Amendment right to bear ams of Americans of this era who are willing to defend the nation against the slavery of political totalitarianism.
Every American veteran has sworn to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Every American veteran knows when the obligations of that oath end — never. Every American ought to live that same oath if we are not to submit Americans of this and future generations to the slavery of political totalitarianism.
One of America’s greatest military heroes, General Norman Schwarzkopf, who lead our forces against the tyranny of Sadaam Hussein and who died most recently, succinctly stated an enduring truth:
“Some things are worth living for. Some things are worth dying for. One of those things is freedom.”
Freedom. That is what the Founding Fathers created for us and bequeathed to us by force of arms against a tyrant abusing his office and power, King George III of England. The Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment right “of the people to bear arms” knowing how fragile freedom is, and how awful tyranny is.
The Founding Fathers enshrined that right of the people to bear arms not as “an executive order,” not as a law,” not as anything which could be taken away as temporary political winds might blow this way or that depending on who held governmental power through the ages. Rather, the Founding Fathers made the Second Amendment Right of the people to bear arms an enduring right inuring to all future generations of Americans, as long as the nation existed or the Constitution itself was not amended to eliminate or attenuate the Second Amendment as the Founding Fathers provided — that is, only by a vote of the people in three-fourths of the States to ratify any amendment.
Now, Liberal/Progressives, from Barack Hussein Obama down through Joe Biden to Harry Reid in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House, want to diminish, attenuate, limit, weaken, and render impotent if possible, the Second Amendment right to bear arms, by “executive order,” or “statute” or other means, without a vote of the people themselves on the question of whether to amend the Constitution.

Simply stated: If Americans of this generation should allow the right to bear arms to be diminished or destroyed without following the amendment process provided by the Founding Fathers, they will be allowing themselves and future generations to become “subjects” rather than “citizens,” no longer free Americans under a government existing by the “consent of the governed” but, rather, subject people existing by the consent of the government.
It is a truism, proved true by history itself, that those who create freedom arm the people to protect the people from the government; for example, the American Founding Fathers. Those who create totalitarianism disarm the people in order to protect the government from the people; for example, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Saudi Islamic Wahabists and all Islamist governments under Shari’ia Law, Sadaam Hussein, and Barack Hussein Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the modern Liberal/Progressive Democrat Party politicians and members who would disarm the American people they would govern.
Gen. Schwarzkopf was right: “Some things are worth fighting for. Some things are worth dying for. One of those things is freedom.” Slaves, whether literal or political under totalitarian all-intrusive governments, do not have guns — or freedom.
Thank God and the Founding Fathers that Americans still have arms, and freedom–and will as long as they have the courage to fight for them, and die for them, if necessary. Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.
© 2013 Rees Lloyd – All Rights Reserved
REES LLOYD is a longtime civil rights attorney and veterans activist whose work has been honored by, among others, the California Senate and Assembly, and numerous civil rights, workers rights, and veterans rights organizations. He has testified as a constitutional expert at hearings before the U.S. House and Senate representing The American Legion.
He has been profiled, and his work featured, by such varied print media as the Los Angeles Times and American Legion Magazine, and such broadcast media as ABC’s Nightline and 20/20, Fox News In The Morning, and, among others, by Hannity. His writings have appeared in a variety of national, regional, and local newspaper, magazine, and other publications. He is a frequent radio commentator, and a sought after speaker.*
[*For identification only. The views expressed here are solely Rees Lloyd’s and not necessarily any person, entity or organization he may otherwise represent. ]
E-Mail: ReesLloydLaw@gmail.com


January 12th, 2013 by


By Chip McLean

January 12, 2013


The death of innocents is always tragic. To feel empathy for those who lost their lives and their grieving loved ones is a normal, healthy reaction. To feel any less would be less than human. Unfortunately, a far less noble part of humanity – the “never let a good crisis go to waste” mindset of those who see human suffering as a means to an agenda – always display their ugly faces at such times. So it is with the recent Sandy Hook shootings.

Predictably, before the mourning families could even make funeral arrangements, the usual suspects were already inundating the airwaves with a cacophony of anti-gun gibberish. People such as Michael Bloomberg were already demanding “immediate action.” Naturally by “immediate action,” Bloomberg and others of his ilk mean to strip gun owners of their right to bear arms.

The gullible that rely on emotion rather than logic are easy prey for such opportunists as Bloomberg, Dianne Feinstein, Eric Holder and of course Barack Hussein Obama. Governmental anti-gun types are shameless in their efforts to exploit a tide of mindless emotionalism by advocating what they euphemistically refer to as “sensible gun laws”. While they bend over backwards attempting to sell their notions as “sensible,” there is nothing sensible about it. To these control freaks, the only solution to gun shootings is to disarm the law abiding. Take for example Obama’s flippant response to the NRA’s idea of posting armed guards in schools:

“I am not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me. I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.” (emphasis added)

Such vapid “reasoning” and presumptuousness are unfortunately typical of this administration… Apparently it hasn’t dawned upon Obama et al, that high profile school shootings such as the recent Sandy Hook incident, occurred in “gun-free” zones. Ever since the passage of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, students and faculty alike have become sitting ducks. By 1995, the law was found to be unconstitutional by the USSC, but in 1996 Bill Clinton, with assistance from his anti-gun zealot attorney general Janet Reno, found a “creative” means of simply bypassing the constitution and keeping this horrendous law in effect. Based on the exponential increase in school shootings (can you say Columbine, Virginia Tech and yes, Sandy Hook) it is more than safe to say that this “gun free zone” idea has been an abject failure – and has actually led to an increase in school shootings. Armed guards – or better yet – faculty members who have concealed weapon permits would provide a far more effective deterrent to lunatic Columbine wannabes, than leaving our children and teachers defenseless against such attacks.

How about rephrasing “more guns in schools” to “more guns in the right hands” Mr. Obama? That would be a “sensible” gun policy.

Here’s the dirty little secret – for all their hysterical anti-gun rhetoric, the gun grabbers really don’t care about saving lives – what they care about is power. They use tragedies like Sandy Hook to pursue their real goal, which is to disarm American citizens. They attempt to disguise their real intents, and in some cases even give lip service to the second amendment. One especially comedic example is that of John Kerry, who during his unsuccessful 2004 presidential campaign went on a photo-op “hunting” trip, complete with camos in order to show he supports “hunters”. Understand – and this is a crucial point – the second amendment isn’t about “hunting.” It never has been. The fact is that the right to bear arms was put into place by the founders as a means of protecting the citizens from tyranny. That is why would-be governmental gun grabbers hate that pesky second amendment. An armed populace is the one thing standing between them and what they want – an omnipotent central government accountable to no one and free to impose its will on a defenseless public. Sound harsh? Consider the gun policies of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung and think again…

Reading the founders’ own writings about the right to bear arms makes it quite clear what their intent was when adding the second amendment. Chuck Baldwin wrote a recent column that addresses this issue and I will repeat here two quotes he used from Thomas Jefferson and George Washington:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence… From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable… The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes.” – George Washington

In Baldwin’s follow-up column, he puts forth a three point plan of action for combatting these assaults on our freedom. I agree strongly and recommend you read Chuck’s complete column on this, but allow me to boil it down here with a couple of observations:

1) Make phone calls to our representatives and senators on Capitol Hill. It is imperative that our congress critters hear from us regarding our complete and total opposition to any new gun control measures. They need to hear from us NOW and en masse.

2) If Congress passes any new gun bill, the states themselves need to stand up to Washington – therefore our state governors and legislatures need to hear from us as well…they need to be reminded that the federal government serves at the pleasure of the people – not the other way around. When the federal government oversteps its bounds and tramples the very constitution that limits its scope, it is incumbent on the states to preserve the rights of its people. I would say that governors need to prevent the enforcement of any unconstitutional seizure of firearms by the federal government using every means at their disposal, including arresting and incarcerating any federal agent who attempts such action on the individual state’s soil.


3) Baldwin’s third point is that we as individuals must be prepared to draw a line in the sand… “(I) refuse to comply with any law requiring us to register or surrender our firearms–including our semi-automatic rifles. Ladies and gentlemen, whatever the consequences might be, and whatever anyone else does or doesn’t do, I am prepared to become an outlaw over this issue! I don’t know how to say it any plainer: I will not register my firearms, and I will not surrender my firearms. Period. End of story. It’s not just a saying with me: when my guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw!”

Amen Chuck Baldwin! Freedom is worth fighting for – now, as it was in 1776. Our right to bear arms is the one freedom that preserves all of the others. It is time to let the Obama-coms and any spineless representatives who would simply cave in order to “get along”, know that enough is enough. It is time to let them know that their days of shredding our constitution are over, and that their idea of a socialist utopia with the elite feeding at the taxpayer trough – all the while issuing unlawful edicts to the rest of us that threaten our liberties – is not going to happen. There are millions of law abiding gun owners in this country…but an out of control federal government coming after them will do so at its own peril.

© 2013 Chip McLean – All Rights Reserved

Chip McLean is the editor/publisher for Capitol Hill Coffee House. Chip is a former broadcaster.

His interest in politics began at the age of eight, when his parents took him to a Barry Goldwater rally during the 1964 presidential election. In addition to his work at CHCH, Chip's columns have appeared in a number of online conservative publications.

Website: CapitalHillCoffeHouse

E-mail: chipmclean@capitolhillcoffeehouse.com

gun control

Consent: Why The IRS, Domestic, And Homeland Security, Have No Lawful Power

January 11th, 2013 by


Is Domestic Security a lawful department of the U.S. Government?

The answer to this question lies within the U.S. CODE that gives the Department of Domestic and Homeland Security its power in the first place…

But what gives this CODE its power?

In this article, I will be referencing the U.S. CODE of the government of the UNITED STATES – a private corporation. All CODES referenced are sourced below each reference.

If you still have any doubt that your government is a corporation, see the indisputable proof here:http://thecorporationnation.com/ or just keep reading… For those skeptics and doubting Thomas types, here is some instant gratification showing the ‘UNITED STATES’ non-representative corporate structure:





§ 3002. Definitions

15) ‘‘United States’’ means—

(A) a Federal corporation;


uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003002—-000-.html )

First, let’s look at the most important word in legal code. This powerful and lawful word is the only reason that the majority of our U.S. CODE has any power over us at all…


CONSENT: (v) (law) To acquiesce, agree, approve, assent, to voluntarily comply or yield, to give permission to some act or purpose.Voluntary Acquiescence to the proposal of another; the act or result of reaching an accord; a concurrence of minds; actual willingness that an act or an infringement of an interest shall occur. Consent is an act of reason and deliberation. A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another. Consent assumes a physical power to act and a reflective, determined, and unencumbered exertion of these powers. It is an act unaffected by Fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistakewhen these factors are not the reason for the consent. Consent is implied in every agreement. 

(Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent

ACQUIESCENCE: Conduct recognizing the existence of a transaction and intended to permit the transaction to be carried into effect; a tacit agreement; consent inferred from silence. Acquiescence relates to inaction during the performance of an act.

If you understand the definition of consent, you have a legal weapon more powerful than any physical weapon you can ever carry. For consent is the very act that gives much of our legal statutes and codes their power… and in turn, our code enforcers (police) power over us.

Consent, for legal purposes, is a verbal or attitudinal contract. If a police officer (CORPORATE CODE enforcement officer) tells you that you must obey a code that is not statutory law, you must voluntarily give that police officer power (consent) by agreeing (voluntary acquiescence) to obey him; for your compliance with his request is strictly voluntary. You must volunteer to follow and obey non-statutory law (CODE).

But as we read above, consent can be “inferred from silence”, or even from “inaction”. Therefore, silence does not constitute a lack of consent. Your unwillingness to acquiesce must be made known in a verbal statement (non-contractual denial of authority). For instance:

I do not consent to an unlawful search and seizure.

I do not give you consent to unlawfully search my vehicle or my person.

I do not consent to a full body scan or a full body pat-down.

I do not consent to your Prima Facie code requiring a permit for free speech, as it is my statutory and constitutional right to express free speech and travel unencumbered while on public property, which overrides the non-statutory code that you have just quoted me.


Public Property: (n) property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. Commonly a reference to parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, schools, libraries and other property regularly used by the general public.

(See: common property http://legal-dictionary.


Public Property refers to roadways, highways, sidewalks, airports (the entire airport), and any government held or owned building or business that is paid for by tax-payer money. Technically, all government property should be considered public property. After all, why should government have secrets from the people it represents, let alone property that it owns? It only owns property due to its corporate status. Complete transparency should be an integral part of a just and constitutional republic government…

Since the entirety of the airport was built with tax-payer money, and since the airport is a government building, the entire airport is public property. This means that the passageway to and from the entrance to the ticket counter to the bathroom to the gate all falls under one category: Public Property. Because of this, you have the absolute natural and constitutional right to travel on this public property, without permit, license, or any other form of legality. Law trumps legality every time. The only way you can loose this right is if you consent to the non-statutory CODE, which limits your God-given right to travel, and which requires your voluntary acquiescence to give up this right in lieu of a codified permit, license, or contract.

Statutory Law


Prima Facie Law

This is not to say that all code is non-Statutory. In fact, of the 50 “TITLES” in UNITED STATES CODE, only 23 of those TITLES have been enacted into positive law; i.e. legal evidence of law (Congressional Statutory Law). These TITLES are as follows:

1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36,37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, and 49.

(Source:http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html )

Statutory law: Laws, or statutes, enacted by legislatures, such as the New Jersey State Legislature or the United States Congress.

(Source: www.judiciary.state.nj.us/njcourts-09.htm)

Statutory law: Law enacted by the legislative branch of government (congress), as distinguished from case law or common law. A statute (i.e. statutory law) is an act of the legislature declaring, commanding or prohibiting something. (Source:www.mnbar.org/mocktrial/2007-08/


All other TITLES within the federal U.S. CODE (the topic of this writing) are what is called “Prima Facie” evidence of law. Prima facie is not statutory law (not made into law by congress), which means that it is only enforceable via your voluntary consent.

Prima Facie(Latin) A legal presumptionwhich means on the face of it or at first sight. (Source:http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/PrimaFacie.aspx)

Prima Facie: At first view; on first appearanceabsent other information or evidence — (Source: S. L. Lynch)

Prima Facie: Sufficient to establish a fact or case unless disproved < prima facie proof.  (Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.)

So, now that we have established that more than half of federal U.S. CODE is in fact not statutory law by congressional decree, and is instead a legal presumption which requires voluntary consent, and with an understanding that legal andlawful are two completely different concepts with regards to your consent, lets take a look at the U.S. CODE that covers federal airport security operations: DOMESTIC SECURITY.

The Domestic Security and Homeland Security offices are Federal Executive Agencies (see below), meaning they are Departments created and appointed by the Executive branch of the government (the President). Part of the lawful measures that protect the freedom of the American people against the always evident tyranny of government corruption and absolute power is our system of checks and balances. Because of these checks and balances, any act of the president of the UNITED STATES (Executive Branch) alone or through any Executive office or officer he appoints does not have power over the Free People of America. In other words, the president is not a dictator, and cannot act as one through his appointed officers without congressional authority. This is the greatest of checks and balances…



§ 103. Government corporation

For the purpose of this title—

(1) ‘‘Government corporation’’ means a corporation owned or controlled by the Government of the United States;

(2) “Government controlled corporation” does not include a corporation owned by the Government of the United States.


uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000103—-000-.html )

§ 105. Executive agency

For the purpose of this title—

‘‘Executive agency’’ means an Executive departmenta Government corporation (see above), and an independent establishment.


uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000105—-000-.html )

§ 301. Departmental regulations

The head of an Executive department or military department may prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the conduct of its employees, the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use, and preservation of its records, papers, and property. This section does not authorize withholding information from the public or limiting the availability of records to the public.


uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000301—-000-.html )


First, we must note that TITLE 5 is indeed Statutory Law.

SECTION 103 (above) confirms to us that “Executive Agencies”, regardless of their TITLES, are in fact CORPORATIONS – and in paragraph (2), that the federal government does indeed “control” corporations and also “owns” corporations.

SECTION 105 (above) then confirms that “Executive agencies” are the same as and are defined as “Executive Departments”, which are in fact “Government Corporations”.

SECTION 301 (above) then tells us what these “Executive Departments” (Government Corporations) have authority to do by this Statutory Law (as defined in TITLE 5 of U.S. CODE). And so we can see that these Presidential appointed “Executive Departments” only have the authority by congress to make regulations within the bounds of the Presidents’ own appointed Executive Agency, and not outside of said Executive Department, and definitely not for or over the free American people without their consent. “Executive Departments” and their appointed officials have no authority over the free people granted from within this TITLE (5), and only have been granted power over the “employees” within that Executive Department.

In other words, the law (CODE) states that the head of an Executive Agency or Executive Department can only make regulations for and within his own agency, not for and within the Free People of America.

And this is where CONSENT comes in to play. For it is simply your consent that gives these codified non-statutory presumed laws and the code-enforcement officers who enforce them authority over you. Without your consent, they are literally powerless. They have no authority without your consent.

Executive DOMESTIC SECURITY Department

DOMESTIC SECURITY and most of its presumed authority and legality, and therefore its power, is in TITLE 6. Title 6 is not one of the 23 TITLES of U.S. CODE enacted into “Positive” or Statutory Law. So, nothing in TITLE 6 is in fact statutory law, and therefore it requires voluntary compliance through your consent. Also, in TITLE 6, you’ll find much of the regulation and power related to “HOMELAND SECURITY”.

TITLE 6—DOMESTIC SECURITY (remember, TITLE 6 is not Statutory Law)




      Ex. Ord. No. 13416, Dec. 5, 2006, 71 F.R. 71033

§ 1101(c) ‘‘security guideline’’ means any security-related guidance that the Secretary recommends, for implementation on a voluntary basis, to enhance the security of surface transportation


Note: An Executive Order is an order that is not approved by Congress. It is an act solely of and by the President of the Corporation of the UNITED STATES that is not Staturtory Law nor constitutional. Since we have already established that the President is not a Dictator, these Executive Orders and Presidential Directives only apply to the Executive branch of the corporate Federal government and departments within, and only have authority over the Free People with their (your) consent!

Here in black and white it is written in U.S. CODE that the TSA’s security-related guidance is in fact voluntary, meaning its power derives from your consent to give up your constitutional rights and allow this Executive Department to have the power to violate your God-given and 4rth amendment rights.




§ 111 Executive department; mission

(a) Establishment

There is established a Department of Homeland Security, as an executive department of the United States within the meaning of title 5.


uscode06/usc_sec_06_00000111—-000-.html )

§ 112. Secretary; functions

(a) Secretary

(1) In general; There is a Secretary of Homeland Security, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(2) Head of Department – The Secretary is the head of the Department and shall have direction, authority, and control over it.


uscode06/usc_sec_06_00000112—-000-.html )

Section 112 states that the Department of Homeland Security is an Executive Department of the United States, as defined in TITLE 5. This means that the Department of Homeland Security is a Government Corporation, appointed by the President, who is not a dictator, and therefore this Executive Department requires consent by the Free People to have power and authority over those people. The Department of Homeland Security is not constitutionally lawful, as it is not consented to and made Statutory by congress.

Since the Secretary of Homeland Security is appointed by the President (with only the Senates’ consent), and indeed not the consent and approval of the Congress, and since this appointment is in TITLE 6 which is not Statutory Law, this tells us that there is no Congressional power behind the Secretary of Homeland Security over the actual Free People of America. In fact, the “Executive Departments” known as Domestic and Homeland Security has no authority over anyone outside of their own agency and employees. Remember… Washington D.C. (the Federal Government) is a 10 mile patch of land in the District of Columbia, and it is not located in and is not a part of the united states of America. It is a separate entity. A corporation. A country within a country.

To put this into perspective… let’s look at another Executive appointed office within the Executive branch of government. The President of the corporation of the UNITED STATES has appointed an executive department for the care of current corporate President Obama’s dog (the “first dog”). This department has the job of taking care of and grooming this dog, and is paid an over $100,000 salary plus $45,000 in benefits. But that is where his and his Executive appointed Departments’ power ends. He does not have the power to take care of your dog, and he certainly doesn’t have the power to force you or your dog to do anything you don’t want to do. But then, he might ask you or even tell you forcibly that he is going to feed, brush, and groom your dog! And if you wanted him to, all you’d have to do is to give Him and his “Executive Department” permission (consent) to do so, be it by verbal permission or lack of declaration of non-consent (inaction). Likewise, the Executive Departments of Domestic Security and of Homeland Security have no power to force you to do anything, especially to grope and hand-rape you and your children or to force you to walk through radiation expelling DNA destroying cancer causing devices… unless you give them permission (consent).

Remember, the President is not a Dictator due to governments checks and balances! And because of this, the President cannot dictate power over the Free People through any appointed office or political appointee. He is only in charge of the federal government as President of the CORPORATION. There are only two persons in the Executive Branch of government who have the peoples authority over the Executive Branch, but not over the people themselves: The President and the Vice President of U.S. INC. Every other officer, office, department, military branch (army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard, national guard etc…), and any other political appointment by the President has no authority over you, a free and natural man or woman – without your consent.

I cannot stress this enough. Your consent is the only thing that gives these bullies any power. This single word is the most powerful weapon in your arsenal against mislaid tyranny. It is a shield against the presumption of law, known as legality, or Prima Facie law.


TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION     (TITLE 49 is Statutory Law)


§ 102. Department of Transportation

(a) The Department of Transportation is an executive department of the United States Government at the seat of Government.

(b) The head of the Department is the Secretary of Transportation. The Secretary is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

…….Note: Also very interesting in this section…….

…….An office to mitigate the effects of Climate Change (Chemtrails?)…….

(g) Office of Climate Change and Environment.—

(1) Establishment.— There is established in the Department an Office of Climate Change and Environment to plan, coordinate, and implement—

(A) department-wide research, strategies, and actions under the Department’s statutory authority to reduce transportation-related energy use and mitigate the effects of climate change; and

(B) department-wide research strategies and actions to address the impacts of climate change on transportation systems and infrastructure.

(2) Clearinghouse.— The Office shall establish a clearinghouse of solutions, including cost-effective congestion reduction approaches, to reduce air pollution and transportation-related energy use and mitigate the effects of climate change.

(h) The Department shall have a seal that shall be judicially recognized.


uscode49/usc_sec_49_00000102—-000-.html )



§ 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public

right of transit through the navigable airspace.


/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00040103—-000-.html )

TITLE 49 is in fact Statutory Law by order of Congress, according to the list of U.S. CODES that are law above.

SECTION 102 states plainly that the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION is in fact an “Executive Department” – meaning it is a corporation that was appointed by the Executive Branch. And in Paragraph (B) it states that the Secretary of Transportation is an Executive (Presidential) appointed office with only the consent of the Senate, not of the congress. This makes the office of Secretary of Transportation Executive non-Statutory Law, and assigns no power over the Free People to this office or its Secretary.

SECTION 40103 in SUBTITLE 7 states that it is Statutory Law that transit through the “navigational airspace” is in fact a right, and not a privilege. This is important, because it reinforces the natural and constitutional right to travel freely by the American people, without permission, permit or regulation, throughout the land (and airspace). This TITLE is actually beneficial to the Free People, as this CODE recognizes the Free Peoples’ ability to travel as a right, not a privilege, and makes that a law – which severely cripples the “States” authority over you!

What is a RIGHT?

Public Right (as quoted in SECTION 40103):(n.) a right created by the legislature that may be exercised against the government.



Right: (n.)  – 1) an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process, or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include various freedoms, protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property, civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts, natural rights accepted by civilized societies, human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor, and such American constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.

2) (adj.) just, fair, correct.

Right: In an abstract sense, justice, ethical correctness, or harmony with the rules of law or the principles of morals. In a concrete legal sense, a power, privilege, demand, or claim possessed by a particular person by virtue of law… In Constitutional Law, rights are classified as natural, civil, and political. Natural rights are those that are believed to grow out of the nature of the individual human being and depend on her personality, such as the rights to life, liberty, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness.



So in general, a right can never be restricted. If it is restricted by your consent to a contract, legality, etc… then it is no longer a RIGHT, but a PRIVILEGE granted by government (the State). Again,CONSENT must be given to turn a right into a privilege, through verbal contract or a lack of verbal non-consent, or through a written contract (permit, license, etc…) which you sign, giving up your rights for the privilege to do something, like traveling freely in a car as a natural right -vs- driving a car with a license, which is a contractual permission to drive from the state and permission (consent) by you to be punished for not obeying their rules under contractual law.



The Republic and the 50 states united

It is important to understand what the corporate U.S. CODE defines as “the State”, and how that relates to the 50 states that form the Republic of the united states of America.

You must remember that U.S. CODE is the code writen for the corporation that is UNITED STATES INC. It is the system of law set up for the federal corporation to follow. This corporate structure was created to build a legal bridge over the lawful constitution for the united states of America, whereas the corporation of the same name, UNITED STATES INC, can operate outside of that constitution. And they created the corporate equivalent of the constitution through such tools as U.S.CODE.

Read the following very carefully…





§ 3002. Definitions

(14) ‘‘State’’ means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory orpossession of the United States.

(15) “United States” means—

(A) a Federal corporation;

(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or

(C) an instrumentality of the United States.


uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003002—-000-.html )



Sec. 110. Same; definitions

(a) The term “person” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3797

of title 26.

(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

(e) The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.


uscode04/usc_sec_04_00000110—-000-.html )

Once again, the U.S. CODE states irrevocably that the term “United States” is defined as a Corporation – In this case a “Federal Corporation”. ThisFederal Corporation was created strategically, to build a legal bridge over and bypass the real lawfuldeclaration of independence and the constitution. This is not to say that the original constitution for the united states of America is not still in effect, but it is to say that as consenting citizens of the UNITED STATES as a corporation, we are bound by the corporation of the UNITED STATES and by its corporate rules, codes, legalities, and therefore its punishments, taxes, and fines as long as weconsent and continuously enter into voluntary acquiescence of IT’S contracts, licenses, permits, and other contractually binding documents via our social security numbers (which are our livestock informational ownership ID’s)…

The word “State” is being defined here as anything other that the actual geographical land and Free People of the united states of America, and is being defined as all territory and PROPERTY of the corporation of the UNITED STATES. Here the “States” are not any of the 50 states of the constitutional republic. “States” in this CODE refers to something which belongs as property (a corporate term) to the UNITED STATES INC, the corporation.No state of the union is owned by the federal government according to the constitution, and no part of any of the 50 States is owned by the United States, for that would be against the precepts of the Constitution and the very foundation of the republic and the intentions of and enumerated powers of the federal government.

Paragraph (a) states that a “person” is defined elsewhere. After following the breadcrumb trail, I finally arrived here:




§ 7701. Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(1) Person


The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

(14) Taxpayer


The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.


uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007701—-000-.html )





Wow! This is the big one!!!

TITLE 26, which holds the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE that is used by the Internal Revenue Service as the basis to tax, steal, imprison, subjugate, and ruin the lives of many Americans… IS NOT STATUTORY LAW. IT REQUIRES CONSENT!

This means that the entire basis for the Income Tax levied on the people of America is strictly voluntary! You enter into an agreement with the IRS tax forms you fill out.

If  the word “taxpayer” as defined above in paragraph (14) is any “person” as defined above in paragraph (1) that is “subject to any internal revenue tax”, and if the U.S. CODE requires consent for the so defined “person” to be subject to any authority presented by the IRS and it’s non-Statutory, Prima Facie INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, then no individual Free Man or Woman in America is required to pay and income tax on their wages earned, unless they consent to doing so by signing the corporate IRS and IRC paperwork that binds them to the tax.

This is not the case with individual “persons” who own corporations, for the corporation is an artificial person, which is not a Free Man or Woman, given permission to exist by the U.S.CODE, and must obey these CODES as required in the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE listed above. It is not the individual “person” that owes the tax, but is instead the corporation for which that real “person” owns.

The question is, can that individual “person” be held responsible for paying Income Taxes to the IRS for their Corporation out of their own income from said Corporation. Is this not just a paycheck similar to every other “person’s” income, written by a separate entity called a corporation – an artificial person?

This is an interesting paradox… Can you be held accountable for your corporation’s debt to the IRS if the corporation is not you, a Free Man or Woman, but indeed a separate (artificial) “State”-created person altogether?



§ 103. Government corporation – For the purpose of this title—

(1) ‘‘Government corporation’’ means a corporation owned or controlledby the Government of the United States

(Sourced above)



§ 103. United States – In this title, ‘‘United States’’, when used in a geographic sense, means the States of the United States and the District of Columbia.


uscode31/usc_sec_31_00000103—-000-.html )

TITLE 5repeated here from above, once again shows that the United States, for which TITLE 28 defines as a Federal Corporation, now helps to define what the word “State” means in this U.S. CODE. TITLE 5 helps to define the word “State” as a Government Corporation.

TITLE 31 is statutory Law. This TITLE declares that the “United States” are the 50 “States” (government corporations) of this “Federal Corporation”.




Sec. 2236. Searches without warrant

Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, engaged in the enforcement of any law of the United States, searches any private dwelling used and occupied as such dwelling without a warrant directing such search, or maliciously and without reasonable cause searches any other building or property without a search warrant, shall be fined under this title for a first offense; and, for a subsequent offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This section shall not apply to any person–

(a) serving a warrant of arrest; or

(b) arresting or attempting to arrest a person committing or attempting to commit an offense in his presence, or who has committed or is suspected on reasonable grounds of having committed a felony; or

(c) making a search at the request or invitation or with the consent of the occupant of the premises.


uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002236—-000-.html )

TITLE 18 is Statutory Law. Simply stated, paragraph (c) tells us that we have no recourse against the Agency Agent (TSA, Policeman, etc.) if we give our consent to be searched, meaning they can touch us anywhere and however the want if we consent to a search, and the fact that you do not deny your consent means that you are indeed granting consent to search and seizure, by which consent eliminates this protective CODE – as stated above in paragraph (c): “This section shall not apply to any person–making a search at the request or invitation or with the consent of the occupant of the premises.” This cancels this statute in court for use as in your defense, because your consent relieved any protective aspect of this statutory law. They could rape you because you gave consent, and this Statutory Law (CODE) would stop a courts’ ruling of rape, calling that rape or molestation a “consensual search”. VERY IMPORTANT!!!

By denying consent to be searched and/or to have your property seized by this Government Corporation/Executive Department, IT has no right or authority to interact with you, detain you, or block your way to freely travel without reasonable proof of a commitment of a felony, or in order to serve a warrant for your arrest (and a warrant would take a long time to acquire from a court).


Nobody has the right to see or check your plane ticket or ID but the airline in which you are doing business with. Only an airline representative can request your ticket. Unless the TSA and police have probable cause to detain you, you are not bound by these corporate code enforcement officers if you do not consent and acquiesce to their presumed authority. Consent and non-consent must be verbally stated, as inaction and silence can be considered as consent. Do not be intimidated by these power-hungry thugs in Federal Corporation U.S. INC  uniforms. Remember, their power is delegated by Statutory Law only to the 10 mile non united states of America piece of land called Washington D.C, and only within their own federal department – not over you as a Free and Sovereign man or woman. Stand your ground. Fear and intimidation are the only power they have. Without it, and without your consent, they are powerless – but only if you so declare.

If these Executive appointed federal government corporate workers threaten or try to intimidate you by standing in your way or telling or asking you to wait for a supervisor, do not comply. Simply state that you are a Sovereign man or woman, that you do not consent, that you do not give that federal employee any authority over you or your children (or property), and that they may not impede your God-given and constitutional right to travel nor violate any of your natural rights. Then politely ask if you are being detained, and am I free to be on my way.

You may also let the federal corporate employee know that you intend to sue them and their department head’s bond at a certain dollar amount ($100 per minute, for example) if they interfere with your free right to travel on public property by contractually and forcibly detaining you (by verbally claiming authority to halt your free travel despite your non-consent to their authority to do so).

Film this process. A video camera is your best defense and offense, and these thugs do not like being filmed. Video footage of this exchange is your record and evidence of your lack of consent in a court of law.

If they still intimidate you, follow up with a taste of their own medicine… State that you are warning them that anything that you say and do to me or my family can and will be used against you in a Court of Law, a Common Law Court, and as evidence for a Grand Jury.

And most important, do not answer any questions posed to you by these Federal Employees. You have the right to remain silent! Remember, they have no authority or rule of law on their side to interact or ask you anything without your consent. Answering their questions could be construed by them and by a corporate judge in a court of law as consent.

And remember, your local police and Airport Police work for the municipal corporation that is acting as a government in your city or county. They are corporations as well, making them corporate police or code enforcers. They need your consent too. They cannot detain you or restrict your movement without violating the warning you just gave them. You are a free traveler. You do not consent to their questions or their unlawful interference with your freedom of travel in a public place. Again, you are not required to answer their questions as you have the right to remain silent. Your answers can be misconstrued as consent to their authority over you, and you must verbally acknowledge that you do not consent (the only reason to break your silence).

Be polite. Never become confrontational, rude, or arrogant. A confident attitude mixed with a polite and straight-forward attitude is a winner every time. Do not get tricked into a “friendly conversation” or banter with a corporate code enforcement thug. It will only lead to frustration, argument, and possible unwitting consent. These guys are trained to trip up people like you – free people claiming their rights above corporate tyranny.

If you do not let the situation escalate, and instead control the conversation by simply not consenting to have a conversation or answer any questions, you are free to go by law and Statutory Law.

Warning: they may not step out of your way. They may stand in front of you and not say anything or that you are free to go to intimidate you further. They will tell you, however, if you are being detained. It is a chess game. If they step aside or if they do not, you should just start walking to your destination. Their consent to your rights is their inaction to detain you.

Remember, the courts are private corporations, often owned outright by the very judges who rule the court, and rent that court to the corporate government municipality unlawfully. These “judges” are corporate attorneys in fancy black robes, who work for the corporate government of the United States, and will always rule in favor of the “city”, “county”, or “state” corporation he works for. An attorney will never represent you in court. An attorney is there to ensure the continuity of court procedure, and by taking an attorney as representation for yourself in court, you have just contractually admitted to the corporate court that you are unfit and too mentally unstable to represent yourself in court. You are then a ward of the court. This is consent of the judicial system, which again is part of the corporation. Every judge works for the United States Corporation, and therefore his first interest is always to protect the corporate interest, to not set precedent that could be beneficial to Sovereignty and freedom, and is never concerned with justice for the people including yourself.

FEMA Camps, Oh My!

Now, some of you may be thinking, after years of fear and conditioning, that Homeland Security might throw you into a FEMA camp for such disregard of corporate legality and authority over your freedom. But guess what? FEMA is in TITLE 6, is an Executive Department, is not Statutory Law, and requires your consent of authority!

TITLE 6–DOMESTIC SECURITY  (TITLE 6 is not Statutory Law)



§ 313. Federal Emergency Management Agency

(a) In general


There is in the Department the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by an Administrator.


uscode06/usc_sec_06_00000313—-000-.html )

Constitutional Corporate Statutory Law?



One question remains… Even though some of these U.S. CODES exist in the Congressional Statutory realm of Law, can a corporation – a private for-profit non-representative corporation – enact any law over the Free and Sovereign people of the republic of the united states of America without their consent?

Constitutionally speaking… No.

The powers of the Federal Government are specifically enumerated in the constitution.

More importantly, nowhere does it mention that a vile corporation should be given power to take the place of this constitutionally created representative federal government and then enact laws and CODES which break free of these enumerated powers. Therefore, if we examine the source of this U.S. CODE, no office in the Federal Government can have lawful power over the people unless it is consented to by the Free People, simply because the whole of the private Corporation known today as the Federal Government of the UNITED STATES is not a constitutional entity. Thus even the Statutory Laws based on U.S. CODE are not constitutional, and therefore require our consent as Free People. No corporation can be government, nor can a private corporation nor their corporate code-enforcement police force have power over the people without our contractual consent.

Learn the Law!

For more information, and for much of the source of this info (with my gratitude), please visit this website: ( https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1NKPsi1ofhiMmavI5hi3z_zYOEeWM9b4JSiSfeL64pd0) and his new YouTube Channel: (http://www.youtube.com/user/donotconsent83) which will be updated periodically with more of this type of information.

Also, you’ll find that many Federal Executive Departments in fact have no authority except by your consent if you start on your own journey of researching U.S.CODE. Health and Human Services, Child Protective Services, Terrorism Protection, Military, and many more unconstitutional Executive corporate structures that have no Statutory Law to back up their powers.

To access and search the corporate U.S.CODE, go here: (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html ) and here: ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ )

Yours in freedom and constitutional Sovereign liberty,

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)




United States President Barack Obama has ordered at least 800 highly trained death squad

January 9th, 2013 by


A grim Federal Security Forces (FSB) “urgent action” memorandum prepared for President Putin is warning that United States President Barack Obama has ordered at least 800 highly trained “death squad” units to disperse throughout his country in preparation for what Russian intelligence analysts are predicting to be a series of high-profile killings of dissident Americans set to begin as soon as February 22nd.
According to this memo, Obama was emboldened to implement this murderous plan against his own citizens after this past weeks US Federal Court ruling granted his regime the right to kill, without trial or charges, any American he so chooses, and keep the reason(s) for doing so secret.
Important to note about this shredding of the US Constitutional protections the American people once lived under was the disgusted wording used by United States District Court Judge Colleen McMahon who in handing down this frightening ruling, in part, said:
“The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules — a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reason for their conclusion a secret.”
Equally important to note about the Obama regimes murderous plan, this memo continues, was a likewise chilling ruling issued last month by United States Appeals Court Judge Raymond Lohier that allows the American President to detain indefinitely any citizen he so chooses without trial or charges, a move so grave and draconian it led to the Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone saying about Obama:
“I think under the disguise of sheep’s clothing he has been a wolf. That because of the nightmare of the Bush presidency that preceded him, people forgave him a lot. He was a great hope for change. The color of his skin, the upbringing, the internationalism, the globalism, seemed all evident. And he is an intelligent man. He has taken all the Bush changes he basically put them into the establishment, he has codified them.
That is what is sad. So we are going into the second administration that is living outside the law and does not respect the law and foundations of our system and he is a constitutional lawyer, you know. Without the law, it is the law of the jungle. Nuremburg existed for a reason and there was a reason to have trials, there is a reason for due process – ‘habeas corpus’ as they call it in the United States.”
The excuse to be used by the Obama regime in order to begin their targeted killings of American dissidents, FSB analysts say, is that these otherwise lawful citizens were not complying with the new gun control laws Vice President Joseph Biden “guaranteed” Boston Mayor Thomas Menino would be enacted by the end of January.
Critical to note is that Obama permanently solidified the enmity of the American gun-rights supporters when, during the 2008 Presidential primary, he was recorded at a political fundraiser saying of rural, working-class Americans, “So it’s not surprising, then, that they get bitter and they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or, you know, anti-trade sentiment [as] a way to explain their frustrations.”
Most interesting to note in this memo is its saying that the “master plan” Obama intends to use in disarming his citizens has already been openly discussed and published by the highly influential progressive American political blog Daily Kos, that is said does not repeat Democratic “talking points,” it generates political talking points that later are found in mainstream publications and from Democratic politicians themselves, and is now opening advocating indiscriminate armed raids to be used as an “example” to frighten other citizens into obeying their Washington D.C. masters who will order them all to disarm.


Paul Joseph Watson


Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s cold case posse has confirmed that President Barack Obama’s birth certificate is “definitely fraudulent,” prompting the media and political establishment to launch a frenzied spin campaign in an effort to deflect attention from the astounding new evidence uncovered by the investigation.

In addition to the deluge of previous evidence clearly proving Obama’s long form birth certificate had been tampered with, including the fact that when analyzed the document clearly shows that layered text has been added in artificially and that the scan of the document is not an original, Arpaio and his posse unearthed tantalizing new information.

The most stunning revelation is the fact that in numerous places, Obama’s birth certificate has had information added at a later date than the original.

The posse was able to obtain the original 1961 coding guide used to fill in the birth certificates at the exact time Obama’s document was filed. For example, when describing the “race of father,” the number 9 on the coding guide indicates “unknown or not stated.”

The number 9 appears on Obama’s birth certificate in section 9 entitled “race of father.” This means that the race of Obama’s father was unknown or not stated at the time the original birth certificate was filed. However, the box also contains the word “African,” which was not even used as a descriptive term at the time. The fact that the document contradicts itself in that it denotes the “race of father” as not stated but then also “African” clearly indicates that “African” was added in at a later date.

The same error can be found in box 12b, “kind of business or industry,” which is also marked with a number 9 to denote ‘not stated’ yet also contains the word “University,” again clearly suggesting the document was tampered with at a later date.

Sheriff Arpaio has now promised to elevate the issue to a higher authority within the federal government.

“Although I am having a difficult time deciding who to forward this information to given the fact that the obvious choices report directly to the president, I cannot stand by and hold on to information that threatens to weaken national security,” said Arpaio.

If you’re wondering how the media and the political establishment will respond to this latest bombshell evidence that Obama’s background is completely fraudulent, look no further than two of the individuals featured in a Fox 10 news report.

Instead of attempting to respond to the astounding facts about the fraudulent nature of the birth certificate unearthed during the investigation, critics resorted to emotional manipulation.

Former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods labeled the issue “an absolute joke” and questioned why Arpaio would even look into the matter, before falsely claiming that most conservatives had “given up on this issue,” when in reality polls show that a majority of likely Republican voters believe that Obama was born in another country. Woods also labeled the matter “fake” and “offensive,” relying on the use of emotive words rather than challenging the facts surrounding the suspect birth certificate.

Democrat Paul Penzone, who is running against Arpaio for Maricopa County Sheriff, also displayed a jaw-dropping disregard for irony when he responded to the new evidence by stating, “I feel like it’s groundhog day, I’m hearing the same thing over and over again but you’re not going to convince me otherwise – I don’t want to hear any more.”

In other words, ‘my mind’s already made up – don’t bother me with the facts.’

“The media has demeaned this investigation at every turn as silly and wasteful,” said Lisa Allen, MCSO spokesperson. “We simply ask right now that you put your preconceived notions about this listen to the facts and if you can keep an open mind.”

However, none of the criticism of the investigation has dared to address the facts because they cannot be shot down. Instead, opponents of Sheriff Arpaio have cast aspersions about political motivations behind the investigation while others have resorted to name calling and petty jibes.

No matter what spin the media and political establishment attempt to put on this, the facts cannot be denied. President Obama’s birth certificate betrays innumerable instances clearly indicating that the document has been tampered with in an effort to manufacture the myth that Obama was born in the United States.

The manifestly logical conclusion that he was not creates an urgent national security threat and represents one of the biggest cover-ups in U.S. political history.




January 7th, 2013 by






By AWR HAWKINS, Breitbart.com

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.

And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

While the FBI makes is clear that some of the "murder by rifle" numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.

Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.

The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional. We face far greater danger from individuals armed with carpenters' tools and a caveman's stick. 

And it seems fairly obvious that if more people had a gun, less people would be inclined to try to hit them in the head with a hammer.


Damn, I’m getting tried of this skirting around the real issue. Get this through your head folks, the second amendment only stands on one proposition, and that is providing the people with the ability to control a tyrannical Government! The framers never confronted the subject of self-defense. That has always been a God Given Right for all people everywhere. Everyone with two inches between their ears knew that already. Your fascination with self-defense only shows you have been intellectually polluted with the media industries beguiling elucidations. Using the logic of the framers intent, Americans should legally be capable of buying and possessing any kind of weapon that is in production or custom made. They intended for the people and the government to be on a level-fighting field at the very least, and preferably have an advantage, if not in numbers, then in anything at their disposal. They were smart enough to know what would happen if the government was more powerful than the people and history is sure as hell proving them right. Get this permanently fixed in your mind, the people who are controlling our country from top to bottom want us to be either eliminated, or subjected to incompetence, which makes our government our enemy by their participation, and voluntary subjection to their authority. Bottom line! They intend to kill every person with balls enough to stand up to them, and our innocent family members. They have no respect for life, other than their own. Their sole objective is in having ABSOLUTE POWER over all people everywhere. I know those of you who do not study these things cannot wrap you head around such accusations, but if you would get your head out of your ass and read something besides the sports page, you would soon become a real Patriot.

Weapon Confiscation with be followed by genocide, (that’s murdering the public for you retarded folks) This has been the agenda since the first government was formed, and hundreds of millions of graves (mass and otherwise) are filled with honest god fearing citizens by their own countrymen. Speaking of which, any and all law enforcement or American Military who obey orders to disarm the people should be burned at the stake. They are the scum of the earth, and the result of the intentional presence of the wannta be warrior class in America. The last thing in the world a patriot wants to do is murder his countrymen, unless they are traitors. Can you believe your own family members who are in law enforcement might show up at your home and kill you if you resist giving them your weapons? When push comes to shove, they will protect their jobs, and many will do it with pleasure. So, get on the phone, the web, and if you can, write letters to all persons in government and let them know how you feel about gun confiscation. Ask them where they will hide when they instigate another civil war, because they won’t have the balls to be caught in public. And don’t worry about dividing America, that’s the best thing that could happen to it.

Any son of a bitch who promotes gun confiscation in my presence will get his ass chewed completely off. He can then sit on his face. I would piss on his grave. Here is a snipit of a much better mind than mine on this subject, taken from The Daily Bell. http://www.thedailybell.com/28545/James-Jaeger-on-Gun-Control-Nikola-Tesla-and-the-Inevitability-of-the-Internet-Reformation

Daily Bell: Will the US experience fuller gun control? Is that dangerous?

James Jaeger: The Constitution addresses arms and the role of the militia in four distinct places, the Second Amendment being the most famous. As our new movie, "Molon Labe," will explain, "gun control" is actually illegal per the Constitution, the highest law in the land. The Supreme Court's decision in Norton v. Shelby County reminds us that "an unconstitutional act is not a law; it imposes no duties; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Thus, any regulations or "laws" asking citizens to disarm themselves, or facilitate their disarmament, violates the legal intent of the Constitution, for the intent of the Constitution is that the citizens be armed as part of their state Militia. Not only that but as we explore in the movie, the Constitution expects all able-bodied citizens between certain ages to be AS armed AS the general government. This is NOT to instigate some new Lexington or Concord, but to ensure WE THE PEOPLE have a sufficient deterrent to any federal army or navy going rogue under tyrannical influence. History and Lord Acton show that tyranny inevitably develops in any and all governments, given enough time. See the movie, "Innocents Betrayed" if you don't believe me. The only protection against such inevitability is the distributed force of an armed citizenry to balance the central-planned force of a general government. This is one of the great NEW ideas that gave birth to the American Republic, an idea never grasped in the "Old World" where people like Piers Morgan are surrounded by eight crumbling empires, their citizens having practiced policies of "good" gun-control.

Daily Bell: What's the state of liberty generally in the US? Is the Constitution still salvageable?

James Jaeger: As long as WE THE PEOPLE maintain the "power of the sword" the Constitution is secure. To this end, we have some 80 million gun owners with some 330 million guns in the nation. As we say in the movie, "If America ever reached the point where Congress, or some police-state agency created to do the dirty work, demands WE THE PEOPLE 'turn in our arms,' the only appropriate response for patriots who will not accept slavery would be 'molon labe' – COME AND GET THEM, as Leonides, the Spartan King, bellowed to the Persian envoy at the battle of Thermopylae in 350 BC."







Pages: 1 2 Next
SEO Powered By SEOPressor