Monday, June 30, 2014

Here's my schedule as I know it at the moment.

Tonight at 9PM Mountain I'll be on the Scooter McGee radio show on 1310AM KFKA out of Greeley. On Wednesday, 2 July I will be speaking at a meeting (and doing a Q&A afterward) at 6:30PM sponsored by the Colorado Springs Preppers at 272 South Academy Boulevard in Colorado Springs. On Friday I will be at 2nd Amendment Rally and March in Westcliffe, starting at 9:30AM. On Saturday 5 July I'll be at a 2nd Amendment Rally 9-12AM in Veterans Park in Canon City sponsored by the Royal Gorge Tea Party.
Now, that leaves Sunday and Monday still open if anyone wants to get together for a meet and greet on those days. I fly out of Denver on Tuesday morning. Maybe I'll drop by Hickenlooper's office and tell him goodbye for now as I go. ;-) But if you want to try to get together while I'm in the area, drop me an email ASAP.

CeaseFire criminal corruption may rival that of Bloomberg mayors

To a rational individual, the failure of CeaseFire, to where even the City of Chicago dropped the group from its "anti-violence" efforts, ought to provide indicators about the "public health" model the group centers on that is also at the core of anti-gun "research," and the political pressure to reauthorize agenda advocacy by the Centers for Disease Control.

Another Rapist for Gun Control

On the streets, Richard Hernandez was supposed to stop violence as an “interrupter” in the celebrated CeaseFire program. But Chicago cops have another name for him: rapist.

Two from Herschel Smith

The Administration Implementation Of The Cloward-Piven Strategy
The Myth Of Mental Illness And Gun Violence

And now, having made a deal with the Devil, he gets to pay for the privilege.

Blacks to Thad Cochran: You owe us

A note to the 100 Heads Life and Casualty Company.

Am safe on the ground in Colorado Springs, although I had another interesting occurrence with my computer this time. More tomorrow but right now I'm beat.

Sunday, June 29, 2014

I will be leaving for CO this afternoon.

I will try to release comments along the way, but don't expect any more posts today. Please keep me in your prayers as I go out to see if I can twist Hickenlooper's tail a bit. (And no, I won't be smuggling myself this trip, but I do intend to talk a little "treason" to the Leviathan.)
Michaleen Flynn: "Well it's a nice, soft night, so I think I'll go and join me comrades, and talk a little treason."

Two responses to my last Kerodin post. One man's principle is another man's "bile." And another Rodney King plea.

Upset at my notice of Kerodin's latest money-making scheme of the so-called "III Percent Society," (and parroted here by Pete), a reader writes:
Mike, I've had it with your petty harping. You can't be respected as a voice of reason, if your default kneejerk position is to spew venom at this one guy (who hurt you how, by usurping your III concept?), along with everyone else thereby associated. Slick Willie may call you the leader of the 3%, but I shan't. I can't, because you can't be trusted to control your own bile. You'd win many victories in the hearts of willing patriots if you'd just let the volume of hatred that exists, there in your archives, attest to your vitriol for this one guy. You pretend that you're doing a service to the community by exposing a charlatan, while all you're really doing is salting a wound, and driving deeper wedges into the fractures of our resolve. If Pete, Alan, Jim, JC, et al (to include Kerodin) are on one side, and you another, then I'm out of the Sipsey Street camp. And, there won't be any more checks from my account to you. Best of luck otherwise, though.
I would refer the reader (uh, ex-reader) to my post below regarding the Three Percent catechism. My objection to Kerodin has always been based upon three things. His unrepentant criminal record. His usurpation of the III Percent so-called "trademark" to extort money from honest folks trying to make a living. And last, but certainly not least, his advocacy of positions in violation of the "No Fort Sumters" and "No OKC Bombings" tenets of the Three Percent.
In addition, reader Thomas Kassick writes:
for the sake of solidarity, I would suggest a face to face with Kerodin. You should be working together instead of sticks and stones. We all have done things we regret. I say try it what have you to lose? I believe we should all pulling on the rope in the same direction. Personal feelings aside do what is right and work together. What have you got to lose? We are suppose to forgive says the lord. Please,we have so much to gain working together.
Thomas has enunciated again a frequent Rodney King plea that I've heard over the years, "Can't we all just get along?" For the three reasons enunciated above, Thomas, the answer to that is unfortunately "no." As for "pulling on the rope in the same direction," Kerodin has already indicated that the only rope he's interested in is the one that he hangs me with. Remember these he was selling not so long ago, along pointed comments about yours truly?
I spent the 90s learning some very valuable, if expensive, lessons about principle and so-called "allies." What I "have to lose," Thomas, is credibility and principle. I have higher standards for both than are evinced by Mr. K. and his death-threat uttering friends and if that costs me former friends like Pete or readers like Mr. Anonymous above, then the cost is still less than it would be if I made alliances with unrepentant con men who advocate positions in contradiction to my own beliefs.
Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.

A Brief Three Percent Catechism -- A discipline not for the faint-hearted.

Catechesis is an education in the faith of children, young people and adults which includes especially the teaching of Christian doctrine imparted, generally speaking, in an organic and systematic way, with a view to initiating the hearers into the fullness of Christian life. -- Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 5 (quoting John Paul II).
Wikipedia tells us that "in the early church, new converts . . . were instructed (catechized) in the basic elements of the faith such as the Apostles' Creed, Lord's Prayer, and sacraments in preparation for baptism." Although I'm a Baptist, this always struck me as a useful tool to make sure that all of the folks who professed a creed actually understood the faith. Catechism hardly contains all the elements of a particular belief system, but it puts the newbie on the right path of study. I have been convinced for some time that the Three Percent needed a catechism of our own, since there are a number of folks who seem to want to reinterpret (if not hijack) the original concept for their own purposes. To quote Obi Wan Kenobi, "It takes strength to resist the dark side. Only the weak embrace it!"
The Three Percent idea, the movement, the ideal, was designed to be a simple, powerful concept that could not be infiltrated or subjected to agents provocateurs like many organizations that I observed in the constitutional militia movement of the 90s. In this I was both correct and dead wrong, as I have been battling folks almost since the beginning who have misunderstood, deliberately or not, what the Three Percent was in history, what it is today and what its aims are for the future.
What is a "Three Percenter"?
During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King's tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came.
Three Percenters today do not claim that we represent 3% of the American people, although we might. That theory has not yet been tested. We DO claim that we represent at least 3% of American gun owners, which is still a healthy number somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million people. History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. We are one such minority. So too are the current enemies of the Founders' Republic. What remains, then, is the test of will and skill to determine who shall shape the future of our nation.
The Three Percent today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any further circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders' Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic.
The Doctrine of the Three Percent in a few sentences.
The Three Percent are the citizens the Founders counted on to save the Republic when everyone else abandoned it. And we will. There will be no more free Wacos and no more free Katrinas. For we are the Three Percent. We will not disarm. You cannot convince us. You cannot intimidate us. You can kill us, if you think you can. But remember, we’ll shoot back. We are not going away. We are not backing up another inch. And there are THREE MILLION OF US. The next move, if any, is up to the aspiring tyrants among the domestic enemies of the Constitution.
This is not to say that all politics, even in the rigged, corrupt game played by both political parties today, is futile. It isn't. The Founders did not cede that ground to the forces of the King until forced to do so and we must not. Indeed, this is one way that we make the local contacts and build the local networks so key to the Founders' concepts of the militia as the guardian of, and the true expression of the will of, the people. There is a place then, for all who adopt the Three Percent ideal, regardless of age, sex, fitness, infirmity. Resistance is an expression of a determined minority, but that minority comes from everywhere and contributes what it can, where it can.
One other point. The Three Percent idea, being an idea, is internalized and finds expression in action when required without any top-down organization issuing orders. This was on perfect display at the Bundy Ranch stand-off when Three Percenters from everywhere flocked on their own to the Bundy's defense, interposing themselves between the Bundys and the Feds. No call was issued, they just came because they understood the concept of "No More Free Wacos." The Feds were shocked -- first into inaction and then into retreat. Indeed, the Bundy confrontation may be seen as the proof of the successful weaponizing of the idea of the Three Percent.
The Three Percent as a modern expression of the Founder's model.
The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. -- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter XIX, Of the Dissolution of Government, Sec. 222, 1690.
The Founders, it must be remembered, thought of themselves as Englishmen who were merely seeking their rights under the English Constitution from the depredations of a corrupt monarchy and its ministers. In this they were guided by the philosophy of John Locke's social contract theory. Locke declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate, further, under the social contract, the people could resist the government by force of arms when it acted against the interests of citizens and could replace it with one that served the interests of citizens. Such armed resistance, in Locke's mind, was an obligation which acted as a safeguard against tyranny. The language and reasoning of the Declaration of independence come straight from Locke.
Not only is the moral basis of the modern-day Three Percent movement the same as that of the Founders, but the tactics and strategy of resistance that was used by them, including the Sons of Liberty, the Committees of Correspondence and Safety and the Minutemen, are fully applicable to today's struggle. First, as I wrote over six years ago, Three Percenters recognize that with such a declaration of resistance comes responsibility:
"Take not counsel of your fears." In the coming period many rumors will sweep the blogosphere. Imminent danger will perceived from a million different directions. But here is how we should conduct ourselves.
"Wilson, I'm a damned sight smarter man than Grant; I know more about organization, supply and administration and about everything else than he does, but I'll tell you where he beats me and where he beats the world. He don't care a damn for what the enemy does out of his sight but it scares me like hell." -- William Tecumseh Sherman as recalled by James Harrison Wilson, in Under the Old Flag.
Now Sherman wasn't saying that Grant should fail to seek through intelligence-gathering or scouting what the dispositions and the intentions of the enemy were. He was saying that you don't let your fears affect how you fight the enemy in front of you. Sherman also recalled that Grant worried less about what the enemy was going to do him and more about what HE was going to do the the enemy. As Three Percenters, we must only react to what we see and know and not some rumored threat. Above all, we must not lose our cool. We must always remain under control, and ready.
We must not react to, or repeat, disinformation, for this is the principal way the domestic enemies of the Constitution have used to discredit us over the years. As Three Percenters we must always be the adults in the room. We do not have the luxury of reacting out of emotion, fear or hatred. This is made easier by the discipline of building deterrence.
Again, from six years ago:
Work on the credibility of your deterrence. Deterrence only works if it's credible. We must ready ourselves for whatever comes. That means training, physical fitness, building up logistical bases, more training, marksmanship competence, organization, more logistics, more training.
We have our enemy's promises that they will negate any possibility of our using the standard methods of politics against them. They have won the "majority vote" decision. Fine. But if we are to avoid conflict, we must convince them of how little this actually buys them in the way of power. We do that by building up the armed citizenry, one three-man buddy team, one six-man fire team and one squad at a time. Don't advertise. Friends and neighbors will do nicely. And remember, you're doing this in case the deterrence doesn't work. This is as real as it gets, folks. Act like it.
This is a major component of the discipline of the Three Percent. If you are focused on readiness you will be less likely to jump at shadows, less likely to take counsel of your fears. When in doubt about what is going on around you, train, organize, forge yourself and your teams into the sort of "well regulated militia" the Founders first created in the period leading up to 19 April 1775 and then later codified in the Second Amendment.
"Don't fire unless fired upon." -- Captain John Parker, Lexington Minutemen, 19 April 1775.
As Three Percenters we are bound by an ironclad commitment to no first use of force. We call this, "No Fort Sumters." From six years ago:
No "Fort Sumters." This means exactly and precisely what it says. We must not fire first.
Neither were the leaders of the Confederacy eager to start a war. Jefferson Davis and his cabinet, sitting in their offices in Montgomery (Alabama), much preferred to negotiate until they got their way. They always had, after all. In fact, Southerners in general considered Northerners to be incapable of standing up to them. They had seceded thinking the North would "just let them go." Should it come to civil war they were confident that the great European powers, desperately needing cotton for their mills, would intervene on the side of the Confederacy. The one possibility the South never considered was the one that actually happened: that the North would actually fight an all out civil war rather than let the Union be shattered and that England and France would not come to the aid of the South. Lincoln's adroit handling of the matter left Montgomery with few choices. If they attacked Fort Sumter, they'd lose both their moral high ground and their Northern allies. -- Joe Wheeler, Abraham Lincoln, Howard Books, 2008
We don't fire first, nor second, nor perhaps even third. This does not mean we can't defend ourselves. We must.
What it does mean is that the rest of don't react until everyone understands that it is collective self-defense. We must not cede the moral high ground.
If the Confederacy had not fired on Sumter, what would Lincoln have done? Whatever it was would have cost him the moral high ground and political legitimacy. And for the brave new world of imperial presidency that he was embarked upon, that might have led to an entirely different result. Division in the North, perhaps even impeachment. It is our enemies who are the revolutionists and the aggressors.
Take a stand on familiar ground and their appetites will do the rest. They will come to us. Just be ready. Then when it is apparent, ACT, at once and collectively, on familiar ground of our own choosing and in enlightened self-defense on a large scale seeking only the criminally culpable.
This absolute tenet of the Three Percent concept comes in for the most criticism from those who would have someone (someone, significantly, NOT themselves) take the first shot out of fear or other motives which may or may not be their own. It is in the interest of the domestic enemies of the Constitution to get us to go to proactive violence. The solution then is to refuse to do so. Their own tyrannical hungers combined with impatience at our defiance, like that of the Founders', will in time force them to cede this vital point or, far less likely, to give up the game. But it must be their choice and their action. Again, here it is vital not to take counsel of your fears and to assign some supernatural powers to the enemies of liberty. They cannot sweep down and bag the lot of us, as some Chicken Littles fear. We have them out-numbered by a long shot. If some of us are killed to make the point that THEY are the aggressors in Locke's "war against against the people," then we must recognize that this is what we signed up for when we took our oaths.
The other moral absolute that you sign on to when you become a Three Percenter is no targeting of innocents. We call this "No Oklahoma City bombings." And this includes the innocents who make up the non-combatants on the enemy's side. If you claim to fight monsters, it is important not to become one yourself. They target innocents in retributive terror operations like Waco, we do not. We are also criticized by some for this "weakness." It is, rather, not only a strength but our greatest strength. It is what defines us as defenders of liberty and the people. It is also what the tyrants most fear -- if innocents are taken off the target list, only the guilty remain. And the one thing the war-makers and decision-takers of tyranny fear is a Fourth Generation civil war targeted solely and precisely at THEIR miserable existence. It is the only thing they cherish, the only real thing they believe in -- their own existence and the power that existence gives them to feed their hunger off other people's liberty, property and lives. If the order-givers start to disappear, through death or desertion, the orders do NOT get given. With no Eichmanns to make up the schedules, no cattle cars depart to the East for "Arbeit Macht Frei." This strategy also takes advantage of our greatest strength -- our rifle marksmanship. The accurate rifle in the handle of a trained marksman is our "precision guided munition." Millions of such rifles, properly targeted, by people with the will to use them, amounts to utter defeat for any would-be tyranny, and death for any would-be tyrant.
These four principles -- moral strength, physical readiness, no first use of force and no targeting of innocents -- are the hallmarks of the Three Percent ideal. Anyone who cannot accept them as a self-imposed discipline in the fight to restore the Founders' Republic should find something else to do and cease calling themselves a "Three Percenter."
This is by no means a complete exploration of the subject and I will have more as time progresses. I invite comment and criticism.
Mike Vanderboegh, 29 June 2014.

Saturday, June 28, 2014

More Than Two-Thirds of American Youth Wouldn't Qualify for Service, Pentagon Says

Recruits' Ineligibility Tests the Military

I think they'd better check with Hickenlooper & Co. beforehand. Heck, I say give it to them . . . just before the election so the voters will have it fresh in their minds.

Democratic House members demand gun control vote

Connecticut Gun Commission Exhibits Mental Issues of Its Own

That tells us two things: Impartial participation on the commission is neither wanted nor allowed, and there is no way those who made the cut will be satisfied restricting things to Connecticut. They mean to impose their incompetent tyranny on all of us, and they will never be satisfied until we all either bend to it or are removed as potential threats.

The Eternal Dictator

The ruthless exercise of power by strongmen and generalissimos is the natural state of human affairs.

Blackmailed Boehner Bumbles (again)

Boehner Is Bringing a Whistle to a Gunfight

"Ohio Open Carriers Flaunt Guns, Sling Racial Slurs, Wind Up In Jail."

Winning hearts and minds.

Proposed cluster coitus on the border.

I note that the Oath Keepers are discussing what, if anything, to do about this: "This is a call to ACTION for all Militia, lll%er's, Oathkeepers, and Patriotic support personel." (sic)
I left this comment at the OK site:
I am not a member of Oath Keepers, although I certainly support your organization and your stated mission from afar. As the Bundy Ranch situation demonstrated, this is not my first rodeo. Among other things, I worked with Bob Wright and the Minutemen on the New Mexico border in October 2005, so I have a little experience at this particular subject.
As always, any proposed action involving the constitutional militia, the Three Percent and, in your case, Oath Keepers, ought to be subjected to some critical questions:
1. What is the threat to innocent lives? Where is it coming from?
2. What is the proper course of action to alleviate that threat?
3. WHO is proposing the action? What are their motives?
4. Do such people have the ability (and yes that includes experience, vision, discernment and command presence) to carry it out? (People who call for volunteers have a commander's DUTY to care for their people, not to risk them on stupidities, and to carry out the proper mission -- if it is proper -- in a way most likely of success of that mission.)
5. Finally, is the course of action consistent with the mission statement and principles of the organization/movement?
In the case of the Bundys the answers to the first two questions rightfully overrode concerns about 3 & 4 and thus the answer to 5 was obvious. The prospect of another Waco was the immediate danger and the overarching concern. The answers to 3 & 4 were not germane to what was the proper COA -- get out to the Bundys and support them by interposing the armed citizenry between them and the armed Feds who immediately threatened them. That is not to say that the answers to 3 & 4 did not assume importance later. They did. But now, in this instance, in the absence of an immediate deadly threat, it is proper to ask those questions up front.
My concerns:
The answer to Question 1 is that there is no immediate threat to innocent lives and while perhaps federally inspired and certainly a violation of law, it does not meet the test of immediate response.
As near as I can determine from the "strategic vision" announced by the organizers, the answer to Question 2 is also no.
In the absence of compelling answers to 1 & 2, the answers to 3 & 4 become more important and here I can find no one who can answer them satisfactorily as of this writing.
Thus, the overriding question -- # 5 -- becomes even more critical. Is the proposed COA consistent with the principles and mission statement of the organization or movement mission statement and principles? What is accomplished by a picket line of armed volunteers threatening to shoot unarmed, half-starved and thirsty children? I agree that the invasion is devilish in its conception, carried out by collectivists who could give a shit less about how many kids die along the way, but will the proposed COA do ANYTHING about it other than to help make the other side's propaganda points?
Only the Oath Keepers can answer Question 5 for the Oath Keepers. As for my advice to Three Percenters, based on what I know now, stay as far away from this incipient exercise in cluster coitus as you can.
Mike Vanderboegh

Friday, June 27, 2014

If these guys don't meet the Founders' definition of an "occupying army," I don't know what does.

Prisoner: I cleaned up skin of inmate scalded in shower; human-rights groups call for federal intervention

They wanted "gun control" and they got it. What's the big deal?

Relatives of criminal shot trying to hold up Waffle House demand 'gun control'

My Colorado itinerary is beginning to take shape. Hope to see all you CO Threepers, Oath Keepers and Tea Party folks there.

I've had to adjust my itinerary in CO a bit and I will have a few more days than I thought for speakin', meetin' and greetin'. I'll be in the Colorado Springs area by Monday the 30th, and will be speaking to a meeting there on Wednesday the 2nd. Of course, I'll be at the Westcliffe July 4th parade on Friday and I'll be speaking to some other folks in Canon City on Saturday. Sunday and Monday are still open and I'll be leaving on Tuesday the 8th. If you want to see me at any of those events or to perhaps schedule your own, drop me an email as soon as possible.
LATER: Sheriffs Vow to Appeal Ruling Upholding Colorado Gun-Control Laws
"Yes, I know Vanderboegh is coming, but remain calm, all is well."

"I’m a Republican because our leaders win primaries with Democratic votes."

"Seems to me there are three basic choices: (1) Actively burn down the Republican Party, (2) Keep supporting the Republican Party, (3) Stay home." I'll take door #1. It is time to teach the GOP elites that fundamental lesson from Dune: "The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it." -- Paul-Muad'Dib to the Guild navigators, at his confrontation with the Emperor Shaddam IV.
LATER: See also -- Remember Mississippi! The maneuverings to keep Thad Cochran in the Senate will not soon be forgotten.
And -- Meet Mitzi Bickers: A scandal-plagued Democratic operative worked the black vote for Cochran

Too bad my trip to CO next week can't make it to Rifle.

Shooters in Rifle serves a big helping of Second Amendment.

Vignettes from an invasion.

Saving the Border When the Cavalry Isn't Coming
And although this is a bit long, it makes fascinating reading into the depths of Boehner & Co.'s treachery: How immigration reform died. Of course whether or not the "reform died" is immaterial to the collectivists as long as the invasion continues with a wink and a nod from the regime. The numbers grow larger and the songs grow sadder, trying to convince the rest of us to commit national suicide.

Why prepositioning military hardware out in the countryside with police departments doesn't particularly bother me.

Once again we see that a determined minority, for good or ill, can achieve many things, including supplying itself off the largess of a stupid enemy. ISIS holds military parade in Mosul

The Age of Mafia Government

The Obama administration’s scandals aren’t aberrations. They’re mafia-style governance.

Is There A Penalty For Operating Gun Companies “Behind Enemy Lines?”

I hope so.

More from the modern day Black and Tans of police militarization.

Massachusetts SWAT teams claim they’re private corporations, immune from open records laws
Also of interest: Need Proof that Cops are Above the Law? Watch this 4 Minute Video.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Judge speculates on ATF jealousy, perjury, potential criminality in Dobyns suit

“The judge states that not only is the perjury of government witnesses a concern to him but additionally, ATF employees may have acted criminally."

Black Robed Traitor to the Constitution appointed by Dubya upholds CO Intolerable Act.

Federal judge upholds Colorado's new gun-control laws. Of course she's a Dubya appointee.

Hickenlooper's desperate to keep firearms off the ballot -- and out of the public consciousness -- in November.

Campus gun ban measure won't be on Colorado's November ballot.
And that's one reason I'm headed to Colorado.

"What line has to be crossed… before we start mowing them down to make our point?” Murder-bent collectivist harridan Susie Madrak volunteers for the Julius Streicher Memorial Award.

What a 21st Century Advocate of 20th Century Mass Murder Looks Like.
Susie Madrak, who also blogs at Suburban Guerrilla (be sure and go there to admire the masthead of a cartoonish Ms. Madrak wielding a submachinegun and throwing a hand grenade in response to an eviction notice), has put us all on notice at the notorious Crooks and Liars website: "So At What Point Do We Actually Stand Up To The Gun Nuts?" She writes, in part,
Rick Perlstein writes about how Democrats completely surrendered our political will to control guns when the Obama administration backed away from the Bundy ranch. And I have to admit, he makes a good point. I assumed the feds would be back later -- as in, a few weeks. How long has it been now? By the time anything actually happens, will it have any real deterrent effect?
But Perlstein doesn't mention the big honkin' elephant in the room: Namely, at what point does the federal government literally go to war with its own citizens? Because we're not talking about bank robbers here, we're talking about (mostly) non-criminal cranks -- scofflaws and political malcontents. So what line has to be crossed in the good old U.S. of A. before we start mowing them down to make our point? Because you can't talk about the Bundy ranch without talking about Ruby Ridge, and Waco.
Several readers brought this collectivist jeremiad of murderous intent to my email inbox and included links to Bob Owens' and Brock Townsend's comments.
Ms. Madrak has never been shy about collectivist advocacy of violence, witness this from 2011:
"I have to say, as much as I like what the Occupy movement is doing, I think they were wrong to explicitly rule out violence. This country does nothing until the elites feel threatened."
Yes. Well. So the submachinegun and the grenade cartoon was an expression of Ms. Matrak's fondest wishes, perhaps? I wondered immediately, just what this harridan doing in the late sixties? She certainly sounds like an unrepentant member of the Weather Underground. As for myself, I elected to take the collectivist advocate of citizen-murder-by-government harpy by the talons and pluck her feathers directly. To wit,
Sent: Thu, Jun 26, 2014 11:21 am
Subject: Congrats on your latest C&L post! Your voluntary self-nomination for the Julius Streicher Memorial Award is duly noted.
"I have to say, as much as I like what the Occupy movement is doing, I think they were wrong to explicitly rule out violence. This country does nothing until the elites feel threatened." -- Susie Madrak, 7 October 2011.
Ms. Madrak,
Several of my readers brought my attention to your Crooks and Liars post entitled "So At What Point Do We Actually Stand Up To The Gun Nuts?" which includes the paragraph:
But Perlstein doesn't mention the big honkin' elephant in the room: Namely, at what point does the federal government literally go to war with its own citizens? Because we're not talking about bank robbers here, we're talking about (mostly) non-criminal cranks -- scofflaws and political malcontents. So what line has to be crossed in the good old U.S. of A. before we start mowing them down to make our point? Because you can't talk about the Bundy ranch without talking about Ruby Ridge, and Waco.
Interesting use of language, the phrase "before we start mowing them down to make our point." Which begs the question, what exactly is "our (your) point"? Citizen disarmament for everyone? I think not. Certainly it is evident that you identify with the present regime's ability to work their will upon people without the possibility of those targeted people to resist. This seems an odd opinion for someone whose website features a cartoon of herself firing a submachinegun and throwing hand grenades in response to an eviction notice. From this contradiction I conclude that your objection is not to weapons in the hands of the people, but simply to weapons in the hands of people with whom you and the present regime disagree with. Well, that is certainly understandable, you being an obviously unrepentant collectivist. As with all such true believers in the various butcher philosophies of the 20th Century, you define "peace" as the silence, imprisonment or death of all who oppose you. I know, I used to be a collectivist myself. (See as well as my talk last year on collectivist lies here:
It is surprising to run into someone who espouses collectivist tyranny yet who is so honest about it, however. Most collectivists are inveterate liars. If you view my talk on collectivist lies referenced above, you will hear the story of how my daughter once got in trouble at school for defining the difference between a socialist and a communist as: "A socialist is a communist who has not yet found his AK-47 nor the will to use it, whereas a communist is a socialist who HAS found his AK-47 and the will to use it on you." The difference is merely one of self-awareness and opportunity. Yet it is refreshing to have found someone who is so honest and unabashed in her collectivism. Your bloody suit fits you well. You accuse us of "want(ing) a civil war so bad, they (we) can taste it." Yet we merely wish to be left alone from your collectivist meddling and the iron fist of government which you would use to enforce it. It seems to us that it is you who has the hunger for other people's liberty, and property and lives. Frankly, it is your bloody appetites which are the problem here, not ours.
But before you start stacking up our bodies and those of our families in service to your collectivist goals (and how many million of us are you willing to see dead to make your point?), I should have the good manners to remind you that the Law of Unintended Consequences, which can neither be repealed nor its sentences appealed, always applies to both tyrants and wannabes. You may ask Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu about their unexpected Christmas present back in 1989. Unfortunately, you'd have to go to hell to have that particular conversation. (See my post, "'Resistance is Futile': Waco Rules vs. Romanian Rules," at
Of course you are not a tyrant yourself, you may argue, not even a doorkicker of the kind you suppose will unthinkingly do your bidding to work your will upon the rest of us. You are merely an advocate. Well, then, may I refer you to the case of Hitler's favorite "journalist," Julius Streicher? He started out as an advocate too. That fact did not save him from doing the executioner's jig at Nuremburg. We here at Sipsey Street recognize such present-day collectivist advocates as yourself with the Julius Streicher Memorial Award from time to time. Thus, your voluntary self-nomination for the Julius Streicher Memorial Award is duly noted. Old Julius would be quite proud of your use of marginalizing language to dehumanize your intended victims, to smear their principles as evidence of mental pathology or worse. Yes, you certainly deserve the NOMINATION to the Streicher Award, but I'm afraid you will have to compete with several other previous self-nominations already on file for this year. Whether you deserve to WIN the Award will be determined at a later date. And of course whether you deserve Streicher's fate will be decided by the unseen historical judges who mystically enforce the Law of Unintended Consequences and have done so consistently throughout the centuries. For myself as a Christian, I sincerely hope that you avoid Streicher's fate, no matter how sorely you now tempt it.
But of course I also hope that we avoid the civil war and mass butchery of innocents that you seem to advocating for the rest of us.
Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
PO Box 926
Pinson AL 35126

"Why should the advocates of militarized police object if we respond with a 'militia-ized' citizenry? Don't they get the basic concept of cause and effect?"

A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son
I was speaking to a reporter yesterday and he asked me about how the militias were viewed by the police. I responded, "Why should the advocates of militarized police object if we respond with a 'militia-ized' citizenry? Don't they get the basic concept of cause and effect?" Besides, I pointed out, while there was nothing in the Constitution and the discussions which led up to it about "police," there was plenty about the militia as the guarantor of the people's liberty.

This isn't just about a "war on Wall Street," but about a war on us all. "Obama Appoints Anti-Business Activist Head of DOJ Division."

Banks should brace for assault as Arthur Andersen annihilator now controls world’s largest criminal conviction machine.

The best corruption money can buy.

The staggering price of crushing the tea party.

At long last, Harry Reid's Jenny Brooks Award is on the way to him.

On 19 April, I announced my award to Harry Reid of the 2014 Jenny Brooks Soap Dish Trophy for his advocacy of civil war. It was my expectation at that time that I would send it out the next week. Events intervened, resources waned, and one thing led to another and I failed in my promise to the Bundy audience. I have been, you may concede, rather busy in the interim. But the other day, the happy coincidence of time and a voluntary subscription showing up in the PO Box allowed me to finish what I promised, albeit two months late. Yesterday, on the anniversary of the Battle of Little Big Horn, I mailed it out. Here is the letter I sent Harry along with his award:
24 June 2014
Senator Harry Reid
333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8016
Lloyd D. George Building
Las Vegas , NV 89101
Dear Harry,
Congratulations! Enclosed you will find the trophy of the 2014 Jenny Brooks Soap Dish Award for Incitement to Civil War, which you so richly deserve following your conduct and statements during the BLM armed attempt to subdue the unruly citizens who came to the support of Cliven Bundy. You perfumed princes of the Mandarin class meant to bend the Bundys to your will and though that didn’t work out quite the way you planned, you then promised us all that “this isn’t over.”
Well, I suppose that is up to you and your federal minions of the BLM. The Washington Times later reported that you and your friends in the Obama administration considered using military force against the Bundys for the temerity of rejecting your coercion. I suppose we should be grateful that some adult in the room in DC ultimately nixed that plan. As I’m sure your friends in the corrupt Clark County Sheriff’s Office reported to you, I originally announced this award in a speech as the Bundy Ranch on Patriot’s Day, 19 April, but it has taken me more time than I expected to find the authentic piece of Alabama pine coffin wood which forms its base. My apologies for the delay.
I enclose a copy of my speech that I gave that day so which explains in full the story of Jenny Brooks, her soap dish, and how that may apply to you in the future should we reach the point where you and your friends order American troops to fire on your own people. I trust you will consider it a friendly, albeit cautionary, tale in the spirit with which it is offered. I am trying merely to point out, in your interest, the unintended consequences if you should succumb to the darker devils of your nature.
As an amateur historian, I can tell you that civil wars, once started, are very ugly, very bloody and have effects that last forever. It is merely good manners, I think, to point out that it would be very foolish to start such a fratricidal conflict thinking that such conduct would be consequence-free to those who start it.
So, that said, I hope you enjoy the tale of Jenny Brooks and her soap dish and get many years of use out of it. The story always reminds me of the advice my Grandpa Vanderboegh gave me when I was ten: “Son, you don’t poke a wolverine with a sharp stick unless you want your balls ripped off.” A very wise man, my Grandpa.
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson AL 35126.

‘Feminist’ writer reserves special hostility for armed men

A recently promoted and parroted monopoly of violence cult talking point appears to be that women wouldn't "need" guns if men were all good. And if wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets, or if "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

Payback for Fast & Furious?

Emails: IRS official sought audit of GOP senator

The complicity of the black-robes in the modern American police state.

These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens. A review of the Supreme Court’s rulings over the past 10 years, including some critical ones this term, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Rabidly anti-gun 'Mike the Gun Guy' wants to empower doctors to disarm patients

Now that the Obama administration has unilaterally authorized the federal government to once again engage in anti-gun junk "science," maybe more doctors will be emboldened to do their part for forcible citizen disarmament.

So much for reloading? With a solution in search of a problem, SC company develops single-use cartridge cases for government.

Lemke’s vision began when he was an Army diplomat and consulted with foreign governments in regards to drug enforcement and needed single-use cartridges that couldn’t be reused by “the bad guys” after armed altercations. This was forwarded by a faithful reader with the comment:
Uh, huh. Because it's well known that ALL drug loads are avid reloaders, and frequently scour firefight battlefields to pick up all of the expended brass.
Let's see, since most logistic difficulties can be overcome in war by a resourceful guerrilla, I guess this just puts a premium on raids of government armories and manufactories like Lemke's as well as the age-old practice of supply from dead enemies' ammo pouches.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Still waiting for somebody to forward me a copy of the video from Big Spring.

Would like to get any still photos you are willing to share as well, and of course Bob Wright's speech.

Looking for Marine Corps Field and/or Technical Manuals on the M27 Individual Automatic Weapon.

If anyone can direct me to a source, please drop me a line at GeorgeMason1776ATaolDOTcom.

Al Jazeera tells hunters not to fight for gun rights

From the above mentioned attempts to define "armor-piercing" ammunition in such a way as to net all centerfire rifle ammunition, to the Violence Policy Center's efforts to have accurate bolt-action rifles banned as "sniper rifles," to the International Action Network on Small Arms' (IANSA) call for a ban of all rifles that can kill at 100 meters (all rifles, in other words), hunting guns may be toward the end of the list of gun ban zealots' ambitions, but they are on it, and if we gun rights advocates have been taken out of the picture, who will speak for you, hunters?

Sharyl Attkisson on the revolving door between government and media.

The government-media complex

May they fry in hell. Cochran wins with help of Bloomberg money and DEMOCRAT turnout, NRA complicit.

Before the election, David Codrea noted: Bloomberg’s support of Cochran puts gun groups on spot to justify ‘A’ ratings
The result: Cochran beats McDaniel in nail-biter in Mississippi
Cochran relied heavily on boosting voter turnout in the runoff among not only mainstream Republicans but also black Democrats, whom his campaign and its allies aggressively courted in the final days of the campaign.
The contest between the entrenched Cochran and the more combative and youthful McDaniel divided the Republican Party here in one of the nation’s most conservative states and delivered a stinging blow to the tea party movement.
In a bitter and angry speech to supporters in Hattiesburg late Tuesday, McDaniel refused to concede and said, “we are not prone to surrender.” He cited “voting irregularities” and thundered that the “Republican primary [was] decided by liberal Democrats.”
You know, if the history of this pre-civil war period is ever honestly written, it will be the corrupt, elitist Mandarins of both parties who will come in for the strongest criticism. By closing off peaceful change in order to protect their personal rice bowls, they will have made violent change inevitable.
LATER: How Thad Cochran’s campaign pulled it off.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Once again, I would like to thank the Obama Administration for putting more and more military hardware out into the hinterland where the armed citizenry can get its hands on it when the time comes.

Interesting map: As wars wind down, small-town police inherit armored vehicles. Hundreds of counties have MRAPs — and more are on their way.
Of course there IS a downside to the militarization of the police: US police departments are increasingly militarised, finds report.
• ACLU cites soaring use of war zone equipment and tactics
• Swat teams increasingly deployed in local police raids
• Seven civilians killed and 46 injured in incidents since 2010

Praxis: The Soldier’s Load

The Soldier’s Load and the Immobility of a Nation.
NOTE: Here is the correct link to note #4.

This is why, especially in CT with Malloy and in CO with Hickenlooper & Udall, we have to keep pushing.

Kiss off: Democrats from pro-gun states tell ex-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to stay away
"Democrats are doing everything they can to stay away from it," said Denver-based pollster and political analyst Floyd Ciruli. "To the extent that any advertising from the gun control forces got out there, I think Udall would be very nervous that there's more downside risk than upside."

Another alternate universe heard from. "Gun nuts are terrorizing America: The watershed moment everyone missed."

"From Cliven Bundy defeating the cops to "open carry" movement's menace, the left's timidity has spawned a nightmare."

That old losing the Mandate of Heaven thing.

IRS scandal: 'We have a problem with you, and you have a problem maintaining your credibility'
And you've got to watch this 9 minute video. VA deaths covered up to make statistics look better, whistle-blower says
Records of dead veterans were changed or physically altered, some even in recent weeks, to hide how many people died while waiting for care at the Phoenix VA hospital, a whistle-blower told CNN in stunning revelations that point to a new coverup in the ongoing VA scandal.
"Deceased" notes on files were removed to make statistics look better, so veterans would not be counted as having died while waiting for care, Pauline DeWenter said.
DeWenter should know. DeWenter is the actual scheduling clerk at the Phoenix VA who said for the better part of a year she was ordered by supervisors to manage and handle the so-called "secret waiting list," where veterans' names of those seeking medical care were often placed, sometimes left for months with no care at all. . .
But at least seven times since last October, records that showed that veterans died while waiting for care -- records which DeWenter personally handled and had entered in details of veterans' deaths -- were physically altered, or written over, by someone else, DeWenter said in an exclusive interview with CNN. The changes, or re-writes, listed the veterans as living, not deceased, essentially hiding their deaths.
The alterations had even occurred in recent weeks, she said, in a deliberate attempt to try to hide just how many veterans died while waiting for care, by trying to pretend dead veterans remain alive.
"Because by doing that, that placed (the veterans) back on the wait list," said DeWenter, explaining she believes that the purpose of "bringing them back to life" in the paperwork and putting the veterans back on the electronic waiting list was to hide the fact that veterans died waiting for care.
"I would say (it was done to) hide the fact. Because it is marked a death. And that death needs to be reported. So if you change that to, 'entered in error' or, my personal favorite, 'no longer necessary,' that makes the death go away. So the death would never be reported then."

Judge acknowledges Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting

The intent here is not to antagonize hunters, or to be anything less than welcoming to their participation in the fight for gun rights. The point is that we are continually told that banning so-called "assault weapons," or .50 caliber rifles, or "high capacity" (gun ban jihadist-speak for "standard capacity") magazines is perfectly legitimate, because "no one needs those for hunting." Any restriction on guns, ammunition and accessories justified by their failure to meet the government's idea of "sporting purposes" is very clearly a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, as the court ruling in Pennsylvania helps illustrate.

Monday, June 23, 2014

Bloomberg’s support of Cochran puts gun groups on spot to justify ‘A’ ratings

“Michael Bloomberg just gave Mississippi gun owners 250,000 more reasons to vote for Chris McDaniel in the Republican primary runoff election,” Gun Owners of America Vice Chairman Tim Macy pointed out in a press release announcing support for the challenger over the incumbent. “Bloomberg, who has pledged to spend $50 million to push gun control this year, put a quarter of a million dollars into a 'super pac' that’s supporting ... Thad Cochran.”

You need more than that, Dirty Harry.

Harry Reid May Call For Vote On Gun Control Legislation: Says, “We Need Some More Votes”

Dell statement on school’s web blocking suggests low traffic on anti-gun sites

“The conservative sites have more people visiting them than the liberal sites do, so we took the time to give them ratings; whereas the liberal sites are so unpopular, we just couldn't justify the manpower to visit them and rate them!”

‘Day by Day’ begins annual fundraising drive

Support your local cartoonist.

Colorado bound.

I am coming out to Westcliffe to participate in the Independence Day Parade on 4 July. If you have an event you'd like me to speak at between, say, 29 June and 6 July or just like to have a meet-and-greet of Three Percenters, firearm rights activists, Tea Party or Libertarian types in that date range, get in touch with me by email and let's see if we can coordinate something.
Send to GeorgeMason1776ATaolDOTcom.

More inter-faith outreach from the religion of peace.

The Tragic Exodus of Iraq’s Christians

Elmer Fudds get a taste of what they've been ignoring when it happens to the semi-auto crowd.

Judge Rules That The Second Amendment Doesn’t Protect Hunting

Waco cover-up artist is worried about the "cost of firearm rights."

Auditor: Missouri gun rights proposal could carry ‘significant’ cost
I thought I recognized the name. From this schmuck's Wikipedia citation:
Schweich began his public service career in 1999, when he was named Chief of Staff for former U.S. Senator John Danforth's investigation of the federal government's actions in connection with the 1993 FBI siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas; a siege which resulted in the deaths of over 80 people, including 23 children. The investigation concluded that the Davidians died as a result of a suicide pact, but it also uncovered numerous instances of negligent conduct in the way that the federal government conducted the siege.

From the "Like rust, the enemy never sleeps" file.

Inside the vast liberal conspiracy
Picture this: millionaires and billionaires gathering under tight security in fancy hotels with powerful politicians and operatives to plot how their network of secret-money groups can engineer a permanent realignment of American politics. Only, it’s not the Koch brothers. It’s the liberal Democracy Alliance.

Playing catch-up.

From Kurt Hofmann: St. Louis police chief, others sue to make Missourians' gun rights 'alieanable'
From David Codrea at JPFO: Minority Gun Owners Share No "Stigma of Violence"
From David at the Shooter's Log at CTD: To Prevent Another ‘Abramski,’ Get in the Fight
From Herschel Smith: The Presbyterians on Guns.
Herschel on Evil Judges.
Another from David Codrea: Cleveland Mayor Jackson’s gun diversion shows desperation to appear effective
Another from Herschel: We’re The Only Ones Pimping Enough

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Anti-firearm governors appetites for power keep growing (although Hickenlooper is having a bit of indigestion at the moment).

"Kiss my ass" O'Malley tests 2016 waters with "inspirational speech."
Gov. John Hickenlooper's very bad day
Gov. John Hickenlooper was at his mystifying worst during a recent appearance before the Colorado sheriffs, bolstering Republican hopes that he may not be the cinch for re-election that he is often portrayed. It's not only that the governor made several assertions that were either false or highly implausible, or that he ingratiated himself with a skeptical audience by walking back from legislation he supported and throwing an unnamed staffer under the bus. If you watch the video, you'll also see that this was a classic case of Hickenlooper arguing with himself.
And then there's this: Hickenlooper clarifies remarks to sheriffs: ‘I’d sign the magazine ban again’

Back home, at last.

I'll post a few links that are of interest and try to get back in the swing of things tomorrow.

On our way home.

It's a 15 hour drive but we got caught up some on our sleep. I'll try to have some posts tonight. God bless all the folks we met here in Big Spring. Please send any photos you wish to share and especially any video links to my email address. Bob Wright's speech was, I thought, extremely dynamic and better than mine. The wound has been troubling me some, so I'm headed to the shower, then home. Keep us in your prayers.

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Telling the truth to ourselves, no matter how unpleasant it is. Speech in Big Spring, Howard County TX, 21 June 2014

Not too bad for a speech I wrote on about two and a half hours sleep.
I'd like to open my speech today with two shout outs, one to my most devoted sponsors, the One Hundred Heads Life and Casualty Company and the other to the twice-elected President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, on the singular milestone in his career, or indeed of anyone who has ever sat in the Oval Office. Sometime later this month, if my estimate is correct, Mr. Obama will have presided over the ONE HUNDRED MILLIONTH FBI FIREARM SALES BACKGROUND CHECK. Now, for a guy who's only been in office for a term and a half, that's quite an accomplishment as a firearm salesman representing the Unintended Consequences Armaments Corporation, he has managed to put even Bill Clinton in the deep shade.
Barack, you're the biggest and best firearm salesman in world history and THAT'S some kind of legacy, so I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart on behalf of the armed citizenry of the United States. And we won't even mention what you've done for ammunition sales. But thanks for everything, Barack. You may go down in history as this country's worst President ever, but you are ONE HELL OF AN ARMAMENTS SALESMAN.
You know, in doing my research before coming here today, I noted with interest that one of the major employers in Big Spring these days is the Federal Correctional Institution. This interested me because I have so many people recently who are interested in putting me inside of one those places for what they imagine is my sedition or even incitement to insurrection, not to mention their irritation at my violation of some newly oppressive citizen disarmament state laws. To those who have been worried in the past about the present administration closing Guantanamo Bay, I always reassure them, "Don't worry. The Obama administration will cease trying to close Guantanamo the moment they figure out that they can imprison US there." So, for those of you who work at the Big Spring FCI, maybe I'll see you through the bars one day. Or not.
Folks, I am honored to be here today to speak on the subject of "Restoring the Constitution," if for no other reason than that task is what I have devoted the past two decades of my life trying to accomplish. This is a subject that consumes the attention of many Americans these days all over the country. Yesterday I stood outside town in the dust of the Old Comanche Trail. Last weekend I gave a speech on the same subject in Massachusetts almost literally in the shadow of the famous Springfield Armory where the men of Shay's Rebellion contended for their vision of what they believed they had fought the Revolution for. On Patriots Day, I was out in the Nevada desert, speaking on the same subject on the Bundy Ranch. In the last year I have given speeches and talks at the Alamo, the steps of the Connecticut state house in Hartford and other places from Alabama to New York state to Temple Texas. Next month I'm going to Colorado and the month after that I'll be smuggling myself and some thirty round magazines into New York just to twist Governor Cuomo's tail a bit. In each place comes the question, "How can we restore the Constitution?" How can we return to the Founders' vision of a government of limited powers, which preserves liberty and property while upholding the rule of law and most importantly operating within it? For this administration, this regime, seems to operate ever more increasingly as a lawless gang bent not on the rule of law, but rather the rule of man, which is to say the law of the jungle enforced by the iron fist of government power.
But how DO we restore the Constitution? I think first and foremost we must tell the truth, not only to those who we are trying to convince to join us but, as well, to those who are trying to defeat us However, and most importantly, we must first tell the truth to ourselves, no matter how unpleasant it is.
As Patrick Henry said in his immortal speech to the Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775:
"It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past."
And what, I ask you, have been our experiences of the recent past? I will be bluntly honest for I know of no other way to say what is on my heart. We are at present two peoples, two countries really, living within a common border and sharing (mostly) a common language but divided upon the answer to this question: does the government serve the people or do the people serve the government? This is not a question that the answer can be finessed, negotiated or ignored. It is one or the other, That of individual liberty as the Founders intended or of collectivist power in service to a few. Every smaller question we struggle wit is merely a subset of this larger question, every answer a component, for good or ill, of the ultimate answer upon which hinges the fates of our liberty, our property, our lives and those of our children and their children. Many of you will admit that, in your heart of hearts, you know this to be true. Yet we shrink from the honest conclusion.
And that conclusion is that such mutually exclusive worldviews cannot long coexist without one or the other winning out. History tells us -- the Founders would tell us themselves were they here -- that neither side of such a divide will surrender without a fight, which means there WILL be a fight. To think otherwise is to whistle past the graveyard of our own history and that of republics dead, gone and turned to blood-stained dust when they could not overcome similar corruption and collectivist rot from within combined with barbaric attack from without.
We like to think that all our fellow Americans -- even those who plainly state that they are committed to stealing our liberty and our property and attempting to control our very lives -- are merely suffering from differences of opinion that can be overcome by the right mix of persuasion or electoral politics. Yet how many of us have tried such methods with every fiber of our being and fallen short, not because we were wrong, but because those of the other side were impervious to such arguments, such tactics, for they believe completely in their right to their appetites for our liberty, our property and our lives with all the religious fervor of a pagan worship of naked power wrapped in a catechism of lies. They believe that the people serve the government, their vision of government, and you'd better do what they say or else.
The Founders had a name for people with such appetites, and it is honest to call them by it. If as the Bible says that by their fruits ye shall know them then let us call them what they are -- domestic enemies of the Constitution. The fact that many of them took an oath to defend the same Founders' Republic that they daily attack should be proof enough for an honest observer to admit that the term fits such people. And if no oath, no law, no court restrains such appetites then what will? The Founders had an answer, and you know it too, today, in your hearts, if you are honest enough to admit it.
Let us be honest enough to admit first to ourselves, and then to proclaim to those domestic enemies of liberty and thence to the world, that failing all other appeals to peaceful means that the Founders' solution to such tyranny is still available, still potent, still waiting. FOR WHEN DEMOCRACY TURNS TO TYRANNY THE ARMED CITIZENRY STILL GETS TO VOTE. This is the promise, the warning, the threat embodied by the Gadsden flag of our Founders -- "Don't tread on me." Don't tread on us.
This does not mean that the time for politics, for moral suasion is over. It is not. In many ways and many places we are winning those battles, which is why those domestic enemies of the Constitution continue to seek to disarm us with arguments less and less cloaked in their alleged good intentions and more and more in plain naked power. Such cries are in fact maneuvers of, and evidence of, increasing desperation. I told you that last weekend I was in the Northeast, speaking to firearm owners who in a very real sense now live behind enemy lines. In the aftermath of the Newtown massacre, their states passed laws -- Intolerable Acts, the Founders would have called them -- demanding firearm registration and confiscation and making resistance to those "common sense gun laws" a felony. And do you know what happened? Fully eighty five percent of Connecticut citizens, threatened with arrest by their new law, have not complied but resisted. Eighty five percent. In New York the number likely approaches NINETY FIVE percent. Yet the politicians, having declared their appetites, their desires to work their tyrannical will upon their own fellow citizens, are hesitating to take a bite. In fact, they don't know whether to defecate or go blind. They are scared spitless -- and yes, I said sPit less -- by the thought that enforcing such laws on an uncowed, armed people might have personal consequences for them. They are beginning to realize too late that the rule of law as crafted by the Founders protects THEM from us far more than it protects US from them.
These men and women -- these practitioners of a godless secular religion which worships government so that they may increase their own power -- these tyrant wannabes who know of no argument of law, or history, or logic, or even common sense that could blunt their appetites, are now sitting at the feast table that they so carefully made AND THEY DARE NOT TAKE A BITE FOR FEAR OF THEIR INTENDED MEAL BITING THEM BACK.
THAT is the Founders' argument. That is what we must be honest enough to admit to ourselves, and then to proclaim to those domestic enemies of the Constitution and to the world. Forget all the arguments, all the emotion, all the wasted effort we have spent trying to convince people who will not, cannot, be convinced contrary to their own tyrant's religion and the rumbling of their own appetites for other people's liberty and property and lives. Forget that, but remember this, in all honesty, that in the end, our liberty is defended by the cold calculation that every criminal, whether of the common class or the Constitutional class, makes when he sizes up a victim, whether that victim be a person walking down the street or a nation at a crossroads -- will my victim resist? Do they have the means to resist? Do they have the WILL to resist? Can I con my victim into putting down what weapons he possesses? If you convince the criminal that he will personally lose more than he gains from such a transaction, he will resign himself to finding another victim, or, in the case of the wannabe tyrant, to retiring to play golf in Hawaii. And that's the honest truth about how to defend and restore the Constitution.
So if you wish to stay free, prepare to resist, defy, evade and smuggle. The Founders did. The enemies of liberty will certainly never be convinced by anything less.
Thank you.

Friday, June 20, 2014

Sorry, I'm done.

Too fried to put two words together. Maybe more later.

Glaze's confession will not slow anti-gunners' exploitation of mass shootings

The "gun control" movement requires mass shootings--horrifying, indescribably evil slaughter of innocents, just to gain any public support. When those shootings occur, there is a "playbook" instructing the gun ban lobby on how to exploit them. When asked about the chances of new infringements on that which shall not be infringed, the gun ban jihadists say it depends on how effectively they exploit--their word--the blood of the innocent victims. Glaze--no longer on the payroll of an organization hoping to make the most of such exploitation--could afford his brief moment of honesty. The anti-gun groups, though, cannot. It's all they have.

Wonder what brought him out from under his rock? Kerodin's latest "Three Percent" Con.

Was just forwarded the latest by several readers of the unrepentant ex-con extortionist's latest con: "III Percent Society." I guess the trademark shakedown of firearm manufacturers isn't going as well as planned. Stand by for multiple mouth frothings from the we-who-claim-to-be-but-ain't "kill 'em all let God sort 'em out" peanut gallery. Sez the unblushing Christian Hyman:
Remember we are starting a brand new organization so we can arrive at events like the Bundy Ranch, at the Habersham County flash-banged baby, and more to make the III position known, with boots on the ground. So if you can afford to donate more than $1,000 when you sign up, outstanding. Just remember the minimum for Lifetime is $1,000.
Such a deal. That's funny. I didn't see his narrow convicted felon ass at the Bundy's. As for "making the III position known" how would he know that? If it came up and bit him in the ass?

Hickenlooper. . . again.

CREDIBILITY CANYON: Hickenlooper Loses All Credibility With Double Talk.

We're here. Exhausted after a 15 hour drive, but here.

Have a few posts but don't expect much original stuff for the rest of the day.

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Hang out the smuggler's lantern Big Spring. We're on our way.

As soon as the house sitters get home. Light posting ahead.

Harry Reid's 2014 Jenny Brooks Award for Incitement to Civil War.

Here's a close-up of the layout:
On the left is a picture of a snarling wolverine with my Grandpa's advice and on the right a photo of old Aunt Jenny. Of course, I'm sending Harry a bar of soap to go with it. The legend on the top reads: "This base made from select authentic Alabama pine coffin wood."

Harry Reid's creatures? Now it is becoming clearer. Las Vegas police blamed the Bundys to disguise their own culpability regarding the Millers. The Millers were LVPD snitches.

William Norman Grigg writes that the Drug War Blowback: Vegas Murderers were Police Informants
Jerad and Amanda Miller, who were banished from Bunkerville by supporters of Cliven Bundy, had worked as informants for Nevada law enforcement agencies. After the Millers murdered three people — Las Vegas Metro Officers Alyn Beck and Igor Soldo, and Joseph Wilcox, an armed citizen who heroically tried to stop their rampage — their former handlers claimed that they were unaware of the couple’s “anti-police sentiments.” That claim is difficult to credit, given that Jerad Miller had a lengthy criminal record, and the fact that the couple had made itself very prominent in protests associated with the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Jerad Miller, who was mired in the probation system because of narcotics convictions, was precisely the kind of person whose vulnerabilities make him valuable as an informant and provocateur.
Grigg refers to this paragraph in a story that I missed in the rush to get up to Massachusetts this past week:
According to police, the Millers had cooperated with Nevada law enforcement twice this year to provide witness testimony, but detectives did not receive any indication that the couple had anti-police sentiments.
The reader who forwarded me these links commented: "I guess an informant is the furthest thing you can be from a 3%er. . . Wouldn't it be interesting if someone filed a FOIA request with LE to determine exactly what the Millers 'provided'?"
Yes it would, but that is not necessary for us to draw some interesting questions of our own given the available facts. Let us use an even better chain of logic and facts than that used by the New York state political police in tying the Millers to me and the Three Percent:
1. The Las Vegas PD was in the middle of the conflict with the Bundys.
2. The LVPD is a wholly-owned subsidiary of, and responds willingly to, the corrupt political machine of which the perfumed Mandarin prince Harry Reid sits at the apex of.
3. Since the LVPD intelligence unit knew with excruciating precision exactly what was going on at the Bundy Ranch at any given moment, the fact that the Millers had visited and hung around for a couple of days until asked to leave was certainly known to them.
4. The Millers, while exhibiting a remarkable flexibility of ideology that ranged from the Occupy movement to glomming on to the Bundys, were certainly, consistently and virulently anti-police.
The LVPD then may be properly asked: Did you send the Millers to the Bundy Ranch? What pressures did you put on them to become informants? How much did the Millers resent your pressure to provide information? Who was their control officer and was he a member of the unit tasked to the Bundy situation?
The conclusion one CAN reach, even in the absence of the complete answers to those questions is this: It would be fairer to characterize the Millers as creatures of Harry Reid than "supporters" of Cliven Bundy, or indeed of the Three Percent.

Clinton perpetuates full-auto/semi-auto conflation, endorses thought control

And now we know what she means by "more thoughtful conversation" about guns. For the conversation to be "more thoughtful," the public needs to be kept unaware that semi-automatic "assault weapons" are not machine guns. In fact, "more thoughtful" means that viewpoints that "the majority" find terrifying are not permitted--only "approved" thoughts are authorized. Orwell might have been an optimist.

How about your oath to the Constitution, you stinking anal sphincter? So now Hickenlooper, who desperately wants re-elected, is blaming his treason on his staff.

Hickenlooper supported gun magazine limit because of staffer promise
Hickenlooper, in the remarks at the biannual gathering of the County Sheriffs of Colorado in Aspen on Friday, said he went along with the bill after "one of my staff had committed us to signing it. Once you give your word, or someone who works for you gives your word for you — someone who has the responsibility and the ability to do that — generally you try not to go back on that," Hickenlooper said.
How about your oath to the Constitution, you stinking anal sphincter?

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

My Sunday visit to the Springfield Armory Museum.

When I realized that I would have some time before flying out of Hartford's Bradley International on Sunday afternoon (yes, Malloy, you missed your chance when I was in your AO), I asked around to see if the Springfield Armory NPS Museum was open early enough in the morning to visit, for I had never been. Not only was it, but I was able to catch a ride with a marvelous young family who had also wanted to see it.
We got there before it opened at 9am and walked the grounds. This ridiculous piece of "imagined ordnance" was sitting outside, advertising a display of what turned out to be a perfect waste of museum space. Still, I wondered if this is R&D for what the Obama administration intends to give our U.S. Army redlegs instead of 105s and 155s in the near future.
While we waited, you couldn't help but notice the irony of the signs on either side of the entrance denoting the Springfield Armory as a "gun free zone." Of course since I had come naked through the tender mercies of the TSA I was unarmed, but my host grumbled with good reason.
Once inside, though, the museum was a great experience. Here, I am pointing out to my friends in one of the World War II vintage display cases, an M-1 Garand rifle grenade attachment and an out-of-place post-war M-31 rifle grenade.
Inside the movie theater where they show you the introductory film is an excellent display of early machine guns, including early Gatlings, the Nordenfeldt, the "coffee mill gun," the Maxim and an M1917 designed by John Browning.
I picked up a couple industrial histories of the Armory at the gift shop as well as an official "Springfield Armory M-14" ballcap, which I will take out to the Big Spring speech this weekend after I get some additional embroidery done on it.
For those of you who are local, this coming Saturday, 21 June, is "Armory Day" from 10AM until 4:30PM Eastern with re=enactors doing cannon and musket firing. There will also be music, dancing, military encampments, etc., and would be a great time to take the kids and visit the museum. The event and the entrance to the museum displays are free of charge. You can't beat that.