The Mudgett Minute

When WWII Started- 1979

2010-07-14T09:26:00.000-07:00

When WW III Started - 1979

This is not very long, but very informative You have to read the catalouge of events in this brief piece. Then, ask yourself how anyone can take the position that all we have to do is bring our troops home from Iraq, reset the snooze alarm, go back to sleep, and no one will ever bother us again. In case you missed it, World War III began in November 1979...

US Navy Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola , Florida . Here is a copy of the speech he gave last month. It is an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today and why this action is so necessary.

AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!

That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been 'Get Out of Bed!' In fact, the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran . This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency The attack on this sovereign U. S. Embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism.

America 's military had been decimated and down sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East . America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.

Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 25 00 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait , and America continues her slumber.

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe . In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid

Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rheine-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.

Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie , Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America . In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley , Virginia

The following month, February 1993 , a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City . Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran , Saudi Arabia . It destroys the Khobar Towers , a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania . These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000 , when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America . How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high official in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.

I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to 'Get out of Bed' and act decisively now. America has been changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor , Admiral Yamamoto said '... it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant.' This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.

This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year, this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come.

If you believe in this please forward it to as many people as you can especially to the young people and all those who dozed off in history class and who seem so quick to protest such a necessary military action. If you don't believe it, just delete it and go back to sleep.

All

This is an excellent article. I have a slightly different view of history however. I believe that WWIII started the day that WWII ended. The US and a few allies fought the Communists led by the USSR. WWIII was largely a cold war because of Mutually Assured Destruction. Once the USSR had the "bomb" an all hot war was deemed impractible. There were many prolonged battles fought as a part of the World War between the US and the Communists. Battles that the news media thought were wars. The Communists fought in an effort to spread their philosophy to the entire world. The US fought in an effort to preserve freedom in far off places. One of the battles of WWIII was fought in Korea. Another battle was fought in Viet Nam. There were many smaller battles along the way but these were among the most prolonged.

Finally the USSR went broke and dissolved. We declared victory and forgot about having our children hide under their classroom desks during simulated nuclear attack drills. Weather or not WWIII is really over remains to be seen. As the US goes bankrupt and reduces our defense capabilities to a small fraction of what is required to keep us safe and our old enemies grow stronger through the sale of oil, we may find that WWIII never ended at all. We may have simply been living in state of prolonged truce.

In 1975 I told Jeff Cooper that America was going to be attacked by Muslim terrorists. I predicted that these attacks would begin in 1976. Jeff mentioned my warning in a magazine article which was later printed in "Gunsite Gossip". I missed the mark by three years. Our embassy in Iran was seized in 1979 and the first battle involving the US in WWIV had begun. The continued history of Muslims attacking the US in years to follow is well known. Although the US did not really take notice of WWIV until 1979 we can trace the conflict back to 1948 when the Arab states attacked Israel.

In fact I suppose we can trace the roots of the conflict back about 1,400 years or so.

While WWIII remains in an uneasy truce, WWIV rages on through out the world. Most of the armed conflicts in the world today involve Muslims attacking their neighbors. While we are on the subject I would also mention seeing Muslims dancing in the streets and having parties all over the world to celebrate the murder of 3,000 Americans on 911. News polls conducted in so called moderate Muslim countries indicated that 95 percent of the people on the street were glad that we were attacked. A recent poll found that almost 2/3 of Muslims living in the US supported the actions of suicide bombers. We are constantly being told it is a small group of extremists that are involved in terrorism. I would suggest that there are a small group of Muslims who are so extreme that they do not want us dead. These are the few. These are the exception. These are the handful who do not support Jihad. Those who would not dance on our graves are the rare exceptions not the terrorists and their supporters. The Koran states in over 20 passages, those who will not accept Islam, smite their necks.

Larry Mudgett

Obama's Plan to Overwhelm the System

2010-07-08T12:00:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

-- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

-- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."

-- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression?‚ Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

-- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

-- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

-- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.

With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate, Barack Obama, using the Cloward and Piven Plan.

-Wayne Allyn Root

Unfortunately I am not optimistic. Many Americans have understood BHO's plan since day one. Most people however do not have a clue. The cycle of evolution that all governments follow has never been broken. To believe that we can break the cycle at the ballot box is wishful thinking. BHO still has 45 percent of the American people giving him a high approval rating. Give amnesty to twenty million illegal aliens, add a little voter fraud and he can be reelected.

I believe that if BHO saw that he was not going to win reelection he would create a national emergency, declare martial law and suspend elections. The Marxists have never been so close to taking over America. Anyone who thinks that they will be stopped by something as trivial as elections does not know history. I think that we have a duty to leave no stone unturned in our effort to save our nation by the political process. We must protest, complain to our elected officials, work to elect Constitutional Candidates, vote, and educate others. Do I think that we have a chance? Probably not. In the end we will have fought honestly and legally and they will subscribe to the doctrine that "The end justifies the means". They will do anything, beyond what we can even imagine, to grab more power and wealth.

Even if we were attacked by our government and forced to fight a second revolution or a second civil war and we won, there is no guarantee that we would end up with a system as good as the one that our founders created. I believe that our nation was divinely inspired but I wonder if God will continue to see America as worth saving. I pray that he does because God may be our only hope.

You asked for my thoughts so I pulled no punches. I think that our government will follow the evolution of all governments through out history. To believe otherwise is naive. I hope that I am wrong of course but as a student of history I do not think I will be. I think that the most we can accomplish now is to slow the destruction of our Republic through our continued efforts. Perhaps the best chance for our nations survival may occur if the government grabs too much to fast. If they miscalculate and cause resistance, we might have a chance of restoring the Constitution through struggle. That is obviously a long shot but then again, this is America.

The next three years may be the most interesting in the history of this nation. Be well and remain alert.

God Bless America -- Live Free or Die

Larry Mudgett

US Constitution, an Inspired Document

2010-07-06T14:43:00.001-07:00

Friends and Family

Like you, we also believe that our Constitution and our Founding Fathers were divinely inspired. We believe that with out a belief in God it is impossible to fully appreciate the Constitution in all of its glory and greatness. I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution when I joined the Army, again when I joined the police department and again when I joined the "Oath Keepers". Stacey swore that same oath when she joined the police department and again recently. Stacey and I take classes on the Constitution here in Utah and we carry a copy with us at all times. Even now I would not be at all surprised if the end of my life came about while defending the Constitution.

At a time in our history when our elected officials scoff at, laugh at, ignore and trample on the Constitution we remember the words of Jefferson. From time to time the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. We believe that such a time may be near. If a revolution to restore our Constitution and our form of government should occur we will not hide. The restrictions on the liberty of the people and the taxes imposed by King George were nothing compared to what is being forced upon us today and as these things became much worse over the next few months and years I will not be surprised to see half the country resist.

Americans may soon be forced to take sides with what is becoming a Fascist administration, or side with those who believe in the Constitution of the United States. I remind people that after the Revolutionary War 100,000 Americans were exiled because they were on the wrong side. So it may be again. Moderation and sitting on the fence may not be possible. As the otherwise very disappointing George Bush said, "you are with us or you are with the Terrorists". The battle cry may soon become, Your are with the Constitution or you are with the Marxists.

Being the best country on Earth among despicable nations is not enough. Having a better government than Mexico does not inspire us. Today and tomorrow we celebrate our Declaration of Independence from England and King George. Let us pray that our nation will return to the spirit of 1776 and that we may restore our Republic and our Constitution to their former greatness with out violence. This is the reason that Stacey and I have become Prescient Delegates , give lectures, support the 912 project and the oath keepers and work for other grass roots organizations. We want to see the revolution occur at the ballot box. We are hopeful but cautious.

We trust that this letter finds you well and we look forward to hearing from you soon. "Happy Independence Day" and may God Bless America and send her people on the right path.

Larry and Stacey

Salt lake Police Study Understates Illegal Alien Identity Theft

2010-07-06T14:39:00.000-07:00

All

Based on 35 years in Law Enforcement and having a wife with 11 years in law enforcement, a son with 17 years in law enforcement and a brother in law with 30 years in law enforcement and having worked for four full time Chiefs, 4 interim Chiefs and dozens of Deputy and Assistant Chiefs I have some strong opinions about police administrators. Many are excellent men and women who could get into a patrol car and go out and work the streets just like any other officer. The Utah County Sheriff is one of these. LAPD Chief Gates was one of these. I could name many others like Chief Hillman and of course Chief William Parker of LAPD legend. All administrators and honest Law Enforcement Officers. Unfortunately these officials are increasingly rare. I have also worked for Chiefs and administrators who were little more than politicians. Chief Willy Williams come to mind. Chief Williams was so unqualified that he never did pass the California Peace Officers Standards and Training Exam to become a law enforcement officer in the state of California despite being appointed to the job of police chief which he held for 4 years.

Now these are merely my opinions that I am stating here but those opinions are based on considerable experience. I have seen Chief Burbank being interviewed or making statements on the news many times. My impressions are not positive. He appears to be a "politically correct" politician. I have yet to agree with him on any subject. If you read the federal immigration laws carefully you will find that it is a violation of federal law to create a sanctuary city or state, something which Chief Burbank appears to support. Doing anything to encourage illegal immigration is in fact a violation of fed law. The fact that the current administration in DC elects not to prosecute city and state officials for supporting the invasion of our nation does not mean that doing so is not a violation of existing law.

If Chief Burbank has in fact failed to accurately report the cost of illegal immigration to the voters and tax payers of Utah he should be required to step down. In a "just society" the consequences would be much more serious.

Larry Mudgett

June 9, 11:51 PM
Salt Lake City Immigration Examiner Ronald Mortensen

Did Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank cook the books on illegal alien identity theft?

That is what some people are asking after reviewing a study commissioned by Chief Burbank.

By relying uniquely on Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) crime statistics, the study significantly understates the actual rate of illegal alien driven, employment-related identity theft because under Chief Burbank, the SLCPD does not aggressively pursue illegal alien crimes, including identity fraud.

As reported in the New York Times, a senior Social Security Administration official estimates that 75% of all illegal aliens have fraudulent Social Security numbers which is a felony.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

http://www.examiner.com/x-32429-Salt-Lake-City-Immigration-Examiner%7Ey2010m6d9-Salt-Lake-City-police-study-understates-illegal-alien-identity-theft#comments

FBI Data Again Shows More Guns= Less Crime

2010-07-06T14:36:00.000-07:00

All

Every one knows that more guns in hands of law abiding citizens equals less crime. That is beyond dispute and has been know for decades. The governments attempts to disarm the law abiding has absolutely nothing to do with crime, in fact these anti gun politicians know that restricting gun ownership always increases crime. This is all about government dependency and political power. People who have the means to defend themselves are less dependent on the government. Government derives their power from dependency. Increasing dependency is what the welfare state is all about. Increasing dependency is the motivation behind the health care takeover, social security and most government programs. If you think that the average politician does what he does because he cares about the people he is making dependent on the government, think again. It is all about power.

"So called "gun control" is about government power and dependency and nothing else. Remember when they take away your means of self defense they will likewise take away your right to self defense as they have done in England. The definition of a free man is one who is not disbarred from owning weapons. Fortunately more and more Americans are getting this message. According to polls, In 1968, 80 percent of Americans thought that handguns should be banned in this country. Today that number has dropped to 20 percent. This educational process was primarily accomplished by the NRA. Do give up on the NRA. They have made many mistakes but they are the 800 pound gorilla in the room and have done more than all others to help us keep the second amendment.

Larry and Stacey Mudgett

FBI Data Again Shows More Guns = Less Crime

Anyone needing proof that fanaticism for gun control hasn't waned on Capitol Hill, that anti-gunners are -- as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) put it last year -- only waiting to "pick the time," should watch the video of Mexican president Felipe Calderon's speech to Congress last month, versions of which have been posted on youtube.com. When Calderon asked that the federal "assault weapon" ban be re-imposed, a very large number of U.S. Representatives and Senators present gave him a standing ovation.
However, on May 24th the FBI released crime statistics that should cause the applauding anti-gunners to sit on their hands. The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent! That amounts to about an 8.2 percent decrease in the per capita murder rate, after the increase in our nation's legal and illegal population is taken into account. And it translates into about a 10.5 percent decrease in the murder rate between 2004, when the ban expired, and the end of 2009. And finally, it means that in 2009 our nation's murder rate fell to a 45-year low.

Amnesty, Now or Later?

2010-07-06T14:31:00.000-07:00

All

Considering the current argument between our political parties about whether we should give illegal aliens amnesty before or after we secure our Southern border I think that some clarification is in order. Apparently BHO wants to hold off securing the border so he can use that as leverage to get Republican Congressmen to vote for his amnesty program. The probability that he will ever secure our border is approximately zero. This did not happen when Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal aliens and it is not going to happen now when BHO gives amnesty to 23 million. Fair says 23 million, La Raza says 40 million, our lying federal government says 12 million, no one really knows how many are here.

If our government actually secured the border in exchange for amnesty, would that be acceptable with you? Once you grant these 20, 30 or 40 million people amnesty (citizenship) they will be allowed to bring in their families as they did in 1986. That would be perhaps another 100 million illiterate, unskilled, Spanish speaking, Democrat Party voters. Our current population is about 330 million. What effect do you think that 120 or 140 million Mexican immigrants would have on our economy, our schools, our crime problem, our health care system, our culture. They would comprise approximately 1/4 of our entire population. English would become a second language. The radical extreme left wing of the Democrat Party would hold power for the foreseeable future. The government could get a majority of the people to support any extreme measures they wish to put into place.

We must not allow the politicians to make this an argument about when to give amnesty. Our fight must be to resist amnesty at all costs. No amnesty. Not now. Not ever. Not in exchange for securing the border or any other false promises from the government. If we lose this fight you might as well run up a white flag and start handing over

everything that you have to the government or prepare to resist. America will, quite literally, become part of Mexico.

Larry and Stacey Mudgett

Welcome to Maywood Mexico

2010-07-06T14:24:00.000-07:00

06/25/2010

Boasting a population that is 97% Hispanic, more than half foreign born, and 40% illegal, the Los Angeles County, Calif., incorporated city of Maywood has achieved the Reconquista goal. It is now as lawless and chaotic as any place in Mexico. Maywood is a warning to every city and town in America.

The Maywood City Council announced this week that after years of radical policies, corruption and scandal, the city was broke and all city employees would be laid off and essential city services contracted out to neighboring cities or to L.A. County government.

How did this happen? Until recently, Maywood was the model for "brown power" politics.

Maywood was the first California city with an elected Hispanic City Council, one of the first "sanctuary" cities for illegal aliens, the first city to pass a resolution calling for a boycott of Arizona after that state passed a law to enforce federal immigration laws, the first California city to order its police department not to enforce state laws requiring drivers to have licenses to drive, the first American city to call on Congress to grant amnesty to all illegals.

Council meetings were conducted in Spanish. Maywood was the leader in the peaceful, democratic achievement of the La Raza goal to take power in the U.S.

The City of Maywood started out quite differently. Back after World War II, Maywood was a booming blue-collar town with good jobs, a multi-ethnic suburb of Los Angeles.

On the 25th anniversary in 1949 of Maywood's incorporation as a city, the town celebrated with a beard-growing contest, a rodeo, and wrestling matches in City Park. Chrysler operated an assembly plant there until 1971.

But the early 1970s saw these industrial jobs in aerospace, auto and furniture manufacturing, and food processing evaporate under the pressure of higher taxes, increased local and state regulation, and the attraction of cheaper land and cheaper labor elsewhere.

The multi-ethnic Maywood of the post-war years was transformed in the 80s and 90s by wave after wave of Hispanic immigrants, many of them illegal.

In August 2006, a "Save Our State" anti-illegal immigration rally in Maywood drew hundreds of protestersbut a larger number of defenders of illegal immigration. The pro-illegal protesters carried signs which read "We are Indigenous ! The ONLY owners of this Continent!" and "Racist Pilgrims Go Home" and "All Europeans are Illegal Here."

According to newspaper reports at the time, objectors to illegal aliens were subject to physical attacks. A 70-year-old man was "slashed," a woman attacked, and cars vandalized. Pro-illegal demonstrators raised the Mexican flag at the U.S. Post Office.

The illegal population and their sympathizers became increasingly radicalized. Elections to the City Council saw "assimilationist" incumbent Hispanic council members ousted by La Raza supporting radical challengers.

For years, the Maywood City Council authorized police checkpoints to stop drunk driving. Drivers without licenses had their cars impounded. Illegals in California cannot get drivers licenses. By 2005, the number of such impounds were in the hundreds. A community campaign was launched forcing the City Council to suspend the checkpoints.

Cars were still being impounded whenever a police traffic-violation stop resulted in a driver without a license. Felipe Aguirre, a community activist with Comite Pro-Uno, an "immigration service center," coordinated a new campaign against any impounds. He was elected in 2005 to the City Council. He is the mayor of Maywood today.

Aguirre and a new majority of the council dismantled the Traffic Department. Illegals were given overnight-parking permits and impounds stopped. You didn't need a license to drive in Maywood. The Los Angeles Times wrote glowingly of this "progress" in a story entitled "Welcome to Maywood, Where Roads Open Up For Immigrants".

The Maywood Police Department was restructured by the new council. A new chief and new officers were hired. Later it turned out that many of the new officers had previously been fired from other law enforcement agencies for a variety of infractions. The Maywood P.D. was known as the "Department of Second Chances."

Among those hired was a former L.A. Sheriff's deputy terminated for abusing jail inmates; a former LAPD officer fired for intimidating a witness; and an ex-Huntington Park officer charged with negligently discharging a handgun and driving drunk.

Even the L.A. Times called the Maywood Police Department a "haven for misfit cops." Their story alleged that a veteran officer was extorting sex from relatives of a criminal fugitive; that another officer tried to run over the president of the Maywood Police Commission; and that another officer has impregnated a teenage police-explorer scout.

Charges of corruption and favoritism led to one recall of city council members and threats of more recalls are heard to this day.

Maywood is represented in the state Senate by Democrat "One Bill" Gil Cedillo. He earned the nickname by introducing every year in the state legislature a bill to grant drivers licenses to illegals. Maywood is represented in Congress by Democrat Lucille Roybal-Allard, a staunch advocate of amnesty for illegals.

Today, Maywood is broke. Its police department dismantled along with all other city departments and personnel. Only the city council remains and a city manager to manage the contracts with other agencies for city services in Maywood.

Maywood is the warning of what happens when illegal immigrants, resisting assimilation as Americans, bring with their growing numbers the corruption and the radical politics of their home countries. Add the radical home-grown anti-Americanism of Hispanic "leaders" and groups like La Raza and you get schools where learning is replaced with indoctrination, business and jobs replaced by welfare and gangs, and a poisonous stew of entitlement politics.

In too many American communities, this sad tale is all too familiar.

All

This is what we have been talking about. Maywood California, once a thriving blue collar town in Southern California has evolved into a haven for illegal aliens and the city is being run by Mexican activists. City council meetings are conducted in Spanish and English is now a second language in Maywood. The City is flat broke due to corruption and mismanagement. They fly the Mexican flag. There are cities in Texas that have gone just as far. One city in Texas stopped using dollars for trade, instead using only Mexican currency. This is the future of America if we do stop this now. One city at a time, one state at a time, Mexican Revolutionaries intend to "take back" the US for Mexico and they are making headway. If we grant citizenship to 23 million Mexicans and allow them to bring in their families the story of Maywood California will be the story of your neighborhood. This invasion and revolution continues while Americans will just keep worrying about their kids soccer games or where they are going on vacation this year. I hope Americans are prepared for what living in Mexico will be like. How many more American cities will become part of Mexico before the American people wake up. Will it by too late when they do.

Larry Mudgett

The Southern Border Sniper Threat

2010-07-06T14:14:00.000-07:00

Warning to all

This is too important not to say something about it. The drug cartels are very heavily armed with weapons purchased from foreign governments. They have spent billions of dollars to hire an army of thugs and equip them with all manner of military gear. The drug cartels are on the verge of challenging the government of Mexico for full control of the country. A full scale civil war could break out in Mexico at any moment with a death toll far exceeding the 23,000 murders committed along the border in the past two years. A civil war would spill over into the US. Millions of Mexicans would rush the border in an attempt to escape the carnage. The cartels army's could easily overwhelm American Law Enforcement because they are far greater in numbers and because they have heavy weapons that no American LE agency has.

The US has thousands of well armed troops on the border of Germany to protect the Germans and Western Europe from invasion. We have thousands of well armed troops on the Northern border of South Korea to protect that country from invasion. Why do we use armed troops to protect the borders of other countries but we will not protect our own borders even in the face of a looming civil war, human smuggling, millions of tons of drug trafficking, and an invasion which has greatly contributed to our nation being on the verge of financial collapse. Is our government willing to see us pay any price to ensure the future votes of these invaders who will no doubt be given citizenship sooner or later?

We sometimes forget that thousands of Muslims from countries which sponsor terrorism sneak into our country every year with the help of Mexico. Many of these people are learning Spanish in Venezuela and then making their way though Mexico into the US. Does this surprise anyone? Do you think that Mexico has ever been our friend? Did you know that during World War I and World War II, Mexico helped German spies cross into the US to gather intelligence about our military. We have fought several wars against Mexico, they have always stood with our enemies and you thought that Mexico was our friendly neighbor to South, a place to go on a cheap vacation. When speaking to the Mexican people the Mexican government refers to the Southwestern US as States of Mexico.

If the crime rate is too high and there are too many bank robberies, simply legalize bank robbery and presto, the crime rate goes down. You have a problem with illegal aliens over running the country, easy, make them citizens. Presto, no more illegal alien problem and you have a voting block that will keep the Democrat Party in power forever. The commitment of the Democrat Party to recruit millions of future voters from the ranks of illegal aliens can not be ignored. If we do not protect our own borders in the face of the staggering murder situation along the border, we may cease to exist as a nation.

Here is one lie that our government thinks we are stupid enough to believe. Under the BHO amnesty plan illegal aliens would be required to learn English. Does any one believe that there will be a new government agency with a million or so employees to go around tracking these people down, giving them English tests and then deporting those who do not do well enough. Does the President think that we are three year old children to believe such a fairy tale. Who would enforce such a policy. Who would deport someone for failing to learn English when we can not seem to deport people now who have false ID, stolen Social Security numbers, fail to pay taxes and are arrested for other crimes. Now we are going to deport them because they fail to learn English. How stupid does he think we are.

We really have only one hope. Bring our troops home to secure our borders instead of leaving them overseas to secure the borders of other countries. Arrest anyone who employees an illegal alien. Cut off welfare and all other tax payer financed benefits to illegal aliens. Any illegal aliens who are still here after 90 days go to jail for 6 months.

More likely BHO will give them amnesty followed by citizenship or least the right to vote. Our government will not protect our borders and the decline of our nation will be accelerated. English will become a second language. Our culture will become that of Mexico and our nation will soon be completely bankrupt. Sleeper cells will continue to sneak into our country and we will cease to have a two party system. The murder rate will climb off the charts.

It seems that all we have left to do is support candidates who will uphold the Constitution, protest, complain to our elected officials, be prepared to defend ourselves and pray for the survival of our nation. We fear that very dark days are close at hand.

Larry and Stacey

PS: Do not forget to click on the site below and read the article, it is well written and informative.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/the_southern_border_could_get.html </strike>

Cost of Illegal Alien Medical Care

2010-07-06T13:00:00.000-07:00

Watch the video first and then read this note.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjPBtfpn8wI

Having watched the video remember that you are paying these bills. If you went to the hospital or visited your doctor and the bill you received said $8,000. and the bill then went on to explain that $2,000. was the actual cost of your procedure and the other $6,000. was to pay for illegal aliens who were given free care by the same hospital you would probably refuse to pay the extra $6,000. What you do not realize is you are already paying the extra money for the illegal aliens but it is not itemized on your bill, it is simply included. Your bills are far higher than they should be because the hospital must cover the costs of treating illegal aliens somehow or go out of business.

This is much like the government taking (under threat of imprisonment) a substantial part of your income and giving it to someone else who elects not to work or even be a part of our society. If the government were not there to be the middle man and you simply received a bill requiring you to send so many thousands of dollars each year to some "jail bird" in lieu of welfare you would probably refuse. So why do we subsidize criminals and illegal aliens simply because your money is filtered through the government before being given to those who in many cases are undeserving? For one reason only. If we refuse to support these leeches we will be arrested and our property confiscated. By definition we are slaves and do not even know it. Are you mad yet? You should be.
Larry and Stacey

I Want to Buy a Gun- Which Gun Should I Buy?

2010-06-07T11:00:00.000-07:00

What gun would you recommend for me? Stacey and I are asked this question at least once a week. The person asking the question is probably expecting a simple answer, such as, “the perfect gun for you is the ‘Spaceman 2500’.” Instead, we start by asking the “potential gun buyer” (PGB) some questions. “I want to build a house, which tool should I buy?” The PGB will usually just give us a blank stare. “Which hammer should I buy?” Another blank stare will usually follow. Then we will explain that a gun is a tool, much like other tools. Each tool is designed to do different jobs. If you are building a house and framing walls you do not want a tack hammer. If you are installing molding you do not want a sledge hammer.

Asking, “which gun should I buy,” is like asking which car should I buy? If you are 6’7” you probably do not want to buy a subcompact. If you haul hay for your horses you probably do not want a sports car.

I once received a call from a friend (Don) who asked me what firearm he should buy for home defense. Don and his wife would both have access to the weapon. Don had given this subject some thought and gave me a list of characteristics that he expected to find in his new gun. Don said that the gun must be small enough to conceal. It must be powerful enough to stop a determined attacker. It must not have too much recoil. It must not be expensive and it must be simple to operate. Don had been a professional pilot for 40 years. I responded to his inquiry with a hypothetical question. “I want to buy an airplane. I want this airplane to carry lots of passengers. I want it to be fast. I want it to be easy to fly. The aircraft must be able to operate from short runways. I want it to be cheap to operate and inexpensive to purchase.” Don replied, “Many of those requirements are in conflict with each other. There is no such airplane. “If there were such an airplane it would do all things well and there would be no need for any other airplane to exist.” I responded, “Don, many of your handgun requirements are in conflict with each other. There is no such gun. If there were such a gun it would do all things well and there would be no need for any other gun to exist.”

A PGB should start by asking himself several questions. What do I want this gun to do for me? Is it for self defense? Will I carry it concealed? How large are my hands? Will I seek professional training? Once trained, how often will I practice? Do I know what level of recoil I can tolerate? Who else in my home will have access to this firearm? Would my spouse have the necessary skills to use this firearm? Once you have made this list you should prioritize your requirements.

A powerful gun will generate more recoil. A small caliber gun with minimal recoil will deliver minimal power to the target. A smaller gun will generally be harder to control than a larger gun in the same caliber. A larger gun will be harder to conceal. As in most things one tool (gun) may not be sufficient.

Many times a PGB will decide that he should select a medium size gun. This gun is thought to be a good compromise, being easier to shoot than a true compact gun and more concealable than a full size gun. Compromises are often disappointing. This middle size gun may turn out to be too large to conceal and more difficult to shoot well than the full size version.

If your purpose for acquiring a handgun is self defense, you will need at least two pistols. First you need a full size pistol. By full size, we mean a gun that would commonly be carried by a uniformed police officer or solider. This gun would probably have a barrel length of 4 to 5 inches. This is the gun that you will use for your initial training. The size of this gun will help to reduce felt recoil. The 4 to 5 inch barrel will result in higher velocity and more energy than a smaller version of the same gun. In addition to using this gun for initial training, you may decide to keep this gun in your vehicle or in a lock box on your night stand. On special occasions you may elect to carry this gun concealed but the size of the weapon will preclude you from carrying it full time.

The second handgun you will need is a much smaller version of your full size weapon. Ideally, this “compact concealed carry handgun” will operate and function in the same manner as your full size gun. Such compatibility is desirable but not always possible. The small size of this gun will make it harder to shoot well. This pistol will serve as your 24-7-365 firearm. This gun is small enough that you should never fail to carry it on any occasion that doing so is lawful.

You are better armed with a compact pistol on your hip than with a full size pistol located where you cannot reach it. I remember asking fellow police officers, “What gun do you carry off duty?” They would sometimes respond, “I carry my full size uniform pistol off duty.” My follow up question, “where is it now,” would often illicit an unsatisfactory answer. “It is at home,” or “it is in my car.” A small frame .38 or a 10 ounce .380 pistol in your hand will be more useful than a .45 auto at home in your gun safe. Many a good person has been killed just out of reach of the handgun that they should have been wearing. Small guns encourage concealed carry.

“The purpose of a handgun is to protect you and your loved ones from an unexpected deadly threat.” If you knew there was going to be a lethal confrontation you would leave the area, wait for the police, or obtain a shoulder weapon. As we know, criminals do not usually make appointments with their future victims. We defend ourselves with handguns because they are portable, concealable, and we are able to have a handgun on our person at all times.

If you select a revolver for your full size handgun, finding a small compact revolver will not be difficult. There are a plethora of small frame short barreled revolvers available. Simi automatic pistols are made with different types of trigger actions, safeties, de cocking levers, magazine release buttons and slide lock levers. If you select semi automatic pistols, you should try to find a full size pistol and a compact pistol which have similar controls.

In terms of calibers, it is our experience that bigger calibers tend to incapacitate attackers more quickly than smaller calibers. With that said, we recommend that you defend yourself with the most powerful caliber that “you can control and shoot well.” Remember that a hit with a small caliber is preferable to a miss with a larger caliber and a hit with a larger caliber is better still.

Let us briefly compare semi automatic pistols to revolvers. Each type of handgun has its strengths and weakness , especially for the new shooter. The revolver is generally considered to be easier to manipulate because there is no manual safety which must be disengaged prior to firing, and reengaged after firing. There is no de cocking lever which must be activated to "un cock" the pistol after firing. There is no slide to operate which can be difficult for some shooters. Checking the condition of a revolver may be easier than checking the condition of a semi automatic. Some semi automatic pistols fire the first shot by trigger cocking and subsequent shots are fired from a cocked condition. This necessitates learning to control two types of trigger action. In many ways the semi automatic is a bit more complicated to operate correctly and requires more training and more follow up practice to remain proficient.

The semi automatic pistol generally holds more cartridges, is faster to reload and when fired in the single action mode (already cocked) it can be easier to shoot accurately. In a struggle a revolver can be fired with the muzzle pressed into the attacker (not necessarily advised). Under these circumstances a semi automatic pistol will possibly come out of battery, (the slide may become unlocked) momentarily preventing the pistol from firing. Conducting certain training drills can be accomplish more easily with the revolver. The revolver may use a much wider variety of ammunition than a semi automatic because the semi automatic uses the recoil energy of its cartridge to function. A semi automatic requires full power ammunition in order to function properly.

The revolver does not rely on the power of its ammunition in order to function. Therefore you can use a very low recoil, low noise cartridge for initial training in a revolver and then work up the power scale gradually until you can control full power combat loads. As you can see revolvers and semi automatics each have their strengths and limitations. Research is the key. You can find books and articles about any handgun. You should consider which type of handgun appeals to you and will give you confidence. Guns that you enjoy shooting will encourage you to practice and correct practice will help you to develop the skills necessary to successfully defend yourself.

Frequently, Stacey and I will be approached by someone who asks, “I just bought a ‘Spaceman 2500’ for self defense. What is your opinion of this gun?” Often we must reluctantly reply, “sorry, but we do not think much of the ‘spaceman 2500’. There are a lot of problems with that gun. We wish you had asked us before you acquired it.” Ask before you buy.

A handgun carried for self defense must be reliable and you must have confidence in your ability to use it properly. A quality handgun will last several life times if properly cared for. You are buying a tool which may be in your family for generations. Do not skimp. Do the research. Talk to as many knowledgeable people as you can before making a purchase. Carefully consider how you intend to use these new tools. Prioritize your requirements and make an intelligent decision based on reason, not emotion. If the appearance of a particular gun appeals to you, this may be a consideration, but should not the primary consideration, in making your selection. Compromise may lead to purchasing a gun which does nothing well. You will need at least two handguns for self defense.

Here is a brief list of some of the guns that Stacey and I have used during our careers.

Full size:

S&W K frame revolvers such as the M-66 .357 Magnum with 4" or 6" barrel.

Colt M-1911 .45 ACP

S&W 4506/4566 .45 ACP

Glock M-22/23 .40

Compact concealed carry:

S&W J frame (5 shot .38/.357 Mag) revolvers with 2 " barrel such as the M-638.

Ruger LCP .380

Colt Pony .380 (discontinued)

S&W M-12 .38 Spec (6 shot) Alloy frame (discontinued).

Note: There are now numerous small .380 and 9 MM pistols available for concealed carry. Many of these are new in the market place.

Additional: At 6'4" and 220 pounds, when properly attired I would comfortably carry guns from the following list and did so on a daily basis:

Colt 1911 (Light Weight) Commander .45 ACP

Glock M-27 .40

S&W M- 457 .45 ACP

S&W K frame M-64/65 3" barrel .38 special/.357 Magnum

S&W M-3913 9MM

What has worked well for Stacey and I may or may not work well for you. We hope that we have given you a starting point in your quest to find appropriate defensive handguns which will meet your specific needs.

This article is meant only as a general guide for potential gun buyers. The authors cannot be responsible or liable for the use or misuse of any information contained in this article. The authors suggest that you consult with recognized experts in the field of firearms before selecting a specific firearm and that you seek competent professional training before using any firearm.

In the next article we will discuss the need for and the selection of a rifle.

Larry and Stacey Mudgett

Why Do I Need a Rifle?

2010-06-07T10:21:00.000-07:00

You have done your research and selected a full size open carry pistol and a compact concealed carry pistol. You have received professional instruction in the serious use of these weapons. You are now confident in your ability to defend yourself and your loved ones and that confidence is based upon skill not illusion. Have you achieved preparedness? That depends on what you are preparing to survive. If your goal was to enhance your ability to protect your family from a random criminal attack, you have no doubt met that goal.

In 1965 I was witness to the Watts Riots in Los Angeles. The trigger was a traffic stop and arrest by a Highway Patrolman. The riots lasted 6 days. The official death toll was 34 but Police Officers and National Guard Troops quietly said that the number was much higher. More than 1,000 people were injured. Hundreds of buildings were destroyed most of which were burned to the ground after being looted. I watched Chief William Parker appear on television and state, "looting is a felony and the penal code (in 1965) says we can shoot felons." He was sending a message to his Officers and the National Guard. Within a few hours a number of looters and arsonists were shot and the riot was over. I cannot imagine a Police Chief having the courage to take such action today.

In 1968 as a result of the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. riots broke out in 60 U.S. cities. These riots lasted 4 days and 5,000 Army Troops from Ft. Bragg were deployed to keep the peace. Already back from Viet Nam, I was stationed at
Ft. Ord, assigned to the 41st Experimental Infantry Battalion and was trained in riot control and placed on standby. Los Angeles was one of the cities to experience rioting. Usually referred to by LAPD officers who worked the riot as the 68' mini riots.

In 1976 I was deployed to the LAPD Harbor Division due to a Ship Explosion in San Pedro Harbor. When the ship blew up many people thought that it was a nuclear attack and they were looting the stores before the glass stopped falling out of the windows.

One night in the 1980's, the event coordinator at the LA Coliseum failed to request extra police patrol for a Moto Cross. We (Metro) were called to deploy around the Coliseum but it was too late. A few hours with insufficient police patrol had led to "law of the jungle." Hundreds of cars sat with their windows smashed and the radios ripped out. There were robberies, rapes, kidnappings, and shootings. South West Division Desk took hundreds of crime reports. People were lined up out the door, out to the street and around the corner, waiting to report crimes.

On 4-29-92 I was assigned to SWAT/Metro on long term loan to the Police Academy. Late in the afternoon training was suspended and I was called back to Metro Division. I drove home and picked up additional weapons and ammunition. I drove to Central Facilities and picked up the SWAT truck and drove to the command post. We were assigned to the Rodney King riots for 6 days. We had gun battles with looters and gang members who were just using the riot as cover to shoot at the police. Two officers standing to my right observed a suspect in a crowd of looters pull a gun and they promptly shot him. I waded into the crowd and drug the suspect to the sidewalk and helped handcuff him before he died. Although the violence broke out in the "Black community," Hispanics quickly took advantage of the chaos. Most of them were illegal aliens and spoke no English. I asked Hispanic arrestees if they knew what started the riot and they said that they did not even know who Rodney King was. They simply saw an opportunity to steal. On the last day I was injured in an altercation with a looter (he lost). I eventually required left shoulder surgery as this was not the first such injury to my left shoulder due to an altercation. The cost of this riot was about 1 billion in damage, 53 people were dead and over 2,000 were injured.

The point we are making here is that civilization is much more fragile than you may imagine. In 1977, New York had a major riot because the power went out. The press called it "the night of the animals." Detroit had a pretty good riot some years back because the Bulls won the NBA championship. So what does all of this have to do with you? These things always happen somewhere else, right? Try to imagine rioting on a national scale. That could not happen here? What would start such widespread civil unrest?

We have recently seen extensive rioting in France by Muslims. We are currently seeing riots in Greece, with police officers being firebombed by people who are unhappy because their government is bankrupt and wants to cut their pension benefits. The looting and lawlessness that occurred in New Orleans following hurricane Katrina has been well documented. Is it really so hard to imagine that such things could occur here? If you look up the history of riots and civil unrest in the U.S. you will be very surprised by the frequency and the level of the violence.

An Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attack by North Korea or Iran could plunge our entire nation into the 19th century with little or no law enforcement or military help for months or even years. A world wide crop failure could cause food riots and looting on a scale never seen before. A coordinated terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction in multiple cities could start a deadly panic. Political assassination could result in wide spread rioting far beyond what occurred after the murder of MLK Jr. La Raza is calling for a violent revolution encouraging Hispanics to rise up and attack the "Gringos." Muslim clerics are teaching Jihad in Mosques all over this country. Many economists believe that our government is going bankrupt and the whole financial system is near collapse. How would you and your neighbors react if the federal government declared an emergency and called for all guns to be confiscated and all stored food to be taken to a central location for "Redistribution" by the government. What if you refused to comply? Is it that hard to imagine widespread civil unrest? What is hard to believe, is the fact that it has not yet started.

Now consider hundreds of hungry, angry looters, including gang members and other criminals sweeping through neighborhoods looting, killing and burning what they cannot carry off. Many of these people will be armed. Some will have rifles. Under these worst case scenarios, how effectively will you be able to defend your family armed only with a hand gun. You will need several things in order to mount an effective defense during a large scale wide spread lawless situation. A semi automatic military type rifle, similar weapons for each member of your family who is capable of being trained and coordinated tactical plans with your neighbors who are similarly armed and trained. The only thing that will stop such an attack is over whelming force which will cause the criminals to move on to a less prepared neighborhood.

Do you remember the news footage of the Korean shop owners standing guard on the roof of their stores in LA during the riots. They survived and so did their shops while buildings all around them were looted and then burned to the ground. These citizens used military semi automatic rifles to defend their lives. When nearby Metro Officers were ambushed and came under fire from gang members they used rifles to kill the suspects and win the fight. Generally, rifles have a far greater effective range than handguns. They hold more ammunition than handguns. Their ammunition is more powerful thus capable of disabling or stopping an assailant more quickly than a handgun. Rifles are generally capable of penetrating objects that are often used for cover. You do not want to be fighting people who have rifles when you are armed with only a handgun. Any rifle is better than no rifle but a military semi automatic is the most effective rifle in this role.

In this discussion we must also consider why the founding fathers included the second amendment in the bill of rights. They were very clear in their writings. The primary purpose of the second amendment was to insure that the Army could never be better armed than the citizens so that the government could never control the people by force. Well at least that is one scenario we do not have to worry about, right? We have nothing to fear from our own government?

The history of the 20th century could be summarized in a few sentences. 100 million civilians ( historical estimates range from 55 million to nearly 200 million) were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments, usually with the cooperation of their own military. 100 million civilians murdered in China, Germany, Poland, Russia, Armenia, Cambodia, Viet Nam, Rwanda, Ukraine, Uganda and other countries and nearly all of these governments who committed genocide were socialist or Communist. These kinds of things could not happen here. Americans are somehow different from people living in other countries. Perhaps, but let us take a critical look at our own history.

As we well know the First Colonists came from England. The roots of the early Americans were the British. During the revolutionarily war thousands of American Patriots were captured by the British and chained on prison ships. They were treated so badly that nearly all of them (12,000) died in captivity. The cruelty that was bestowed upon prisoners of war during the American Civil War by Americans on both sides is well documented. At least 56,000 American prisoners were killed or allowed to die by their fellow Americans. During WWI thousands of German Americans were imprisoned by the American Government. Thousands of Japanese and German Americans were incarcerated by their own American government during WW II. So what is it that makes America so different from the rest of the world that imprisoning or murdering some of its own citizens is not possible? I missed that in my reading of American history.

Our founding fathers knew history and human behavior and believing that the greatest threat to liberty is an out of control government, they wrote the second amendment to the Constitution. If you do not yet understand why you need a rifle I can only assume that I am wasting my ink. To you I say, good luck. Hopefully you will be protected by better Americans. If you agree that you need a rifle but know little about the subject please read on.

A bolt action hunting rifle might make an accurate counter sniper rifle but will lack the volume of fire needed to engage multiple targets. Just as with handguns there are pros and cons to every tool. Each person needs to examine the use that they envision for the rifle. The size of the shooter is a consideration as well as his tolerance to recoil. Ammunition, magazine and parts availability should also be a factor in selecting a rifle.

Stacey and I have considerable experience with rifles. Most of the 9,000 LAPD Officers did not have rifles. Only 300 handpicked well trained Patrol Officers were issued M-16s. Stacey was among them. I was the Chief Instructor who created and ran the Patrol Rifle Program. I carried and used the M-16 in Viet Nam. I was trained and qualified with the M-14 in the Army. I used a variety of rifles during my 14 years with LAPD SWAT. We will pass on some general information about some of the more appropriate rifles for your consideration.

The Russians call the AK-47 "the peoples rifle." Far from perfect the AK-47 has been produced and used in greater numbers than any other rifle. They are cheap to manufacture and very reliable. I do not like the way the safety operates and I have always been disappointed with the lack of accuracy. If you already have one it should suffice. I have owned two semi automatic versions of the AK but I could not accept the poor groups. I agree with the phrase, "only accurate rifles are interesting." This rifle is chambered for the 7.62 X 39 MM cartridge which has less recoil than the .308 win (7.62X51 MM). There are variations of the AK in other calibers. Civilian versions of this rifle are known by a slightly different designation (AKM, etc.) depending on the manufacture.

The Ruger Mini-14 is a handy little carbine in .223 cal. Flatter shooting and more accurate than the AK-47, it is available in a variety of configurations. I have owned several and have few complaints. This is a particularly good choice for people living in jurisdictions such as California which generally prohibit possession of the AR-15.

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16 and is available in a plethora of variations and produced by numerous gun makers. Usually in .223, it can be found in several other calibers. This gun has much to offer the armed citizen. Ammunition, magazines and parts may be compatible with the rifles carried by our military troops and local police officers. The recoil is minimal making the rifles easy to shoot for all adult members of the family. The AR-15 is usually very accurate and ammunition is light and easy to carry. The .223 cartridge does not hit as hard as the .308 will but still works fairly well. This rifle could be called the "American- people's rifle," due to its widespread use.

The M-1A is the civilian version of the military M-14. This rifle is usually found in .308 Winchester. I have owned several of these rifles and used and qualified with the M-14 in the Army. They are currently in service with special ops units in the middle east. The big advantage of the M-1A is the powerful .308 cartridge which offers more range and will penetrate barriers far better that the .223. On the negative side the M-1A is heavier than most AR-15 rifles, the ammunition is heavier, there is a bit more recoil, and ammunition is more expensive. A great choice for some but not the best rifle for everyone. There are many other rifles available but these are some of the most common.

Rifles or Carbines in handgun calibers (.357 Magnum or .44 Magnum) can be useful to perhaps 125 yards. They have many advantages but limited range could be a problem. Shotguns are very specialized. With buck shot or slugs, shotguns can be difficult to shoot accurately. Buck shot spreads about 1 inch per yard or less. As a result the pattern is so tight at close range that the combat shotgun must be aligned almost as carefully as a rifle. At longer ranges the pattern may be so large that it becomes ineffective. Shot guns do not hold a lot of ammunition. In our opinion shotguns are most useful in very specific circumstances by expert shooters. That is why so many police departments have abandoned the shotgun, or limit its use, in favor of a patrol rifle which is easy to use and has more reach.

We hope that these comments are useful. Our intention is to get your research started in the right direction. There are more books and magazine articles on the subject of rifles than you could ever read. Do not forget that buying the right equipment is only the first step. The rifle without professional training may be of little use. Remember to check state and local laws regarding restrictions on the use and possession of certain rifles.

The authors of this article intend this to be a general guide in understanding the role of the rifle in the self defense battery. The authors cannot be responsible for the use or misuse of information contained in this article. We strongly suggest that you receive professional training before using any firearm.

"We carry handguns to defend ourselves and our loved ones from an unexpected deadly threat. When we have been forewarned that deadly force will be required we arm ourselves with a rifle."

Larry and Stacey Mudgett

Arizona Desert- Lovely This Time of Year

2010-05-17T12:40:00.000-07:00

All

These people are illiterate, unskilled, Spanish speaking, law breaking Mexicans. This is how they treat Mexico, why in the world would anyone expect them to threat America differently!! I am reminded of the fable about the scorpion and the frog. After promising not to sting the frog in exchange for a ride across the river the scorpion fatally stings the frog while in the middle of the river. The dying frog asks, "why did you sting me?" The drowning scorpion says, " because I am a scorpion!

These foreign invaders literally trash our country and bleed us dry because that is who they are. Of course we are the stupid frog who keeps giving the scorpion a free ride while he keeps stinging us. Enjoy the photos of the "home of the free and the land of the brave."

Larry and Stacey Mudgett

Hey everyone out there!

We, in Arizona, know you're boycotting us -- but you really should come out here and see our Beautiful Sonoran Desert.

It's just gorgeous right now! We know you'd love it and maybe you can share what you saw with the rest of the country so they can love it too!

This is on an 'illegal super - highway' from Mexico to the USA (Tucson) used by human smugglers.

This area is located in a wash, approximately 1.5 miles long, just south of Tucson, Arizona. If a flood came, all this would be washed to the river and then onto the sea!

It is estimated over 5,000 discarded backpacks are in this wash. Countless water containers, food wrappers, clothing, feces, including thousands of soiled baby diapers. And as you can see in this picture, fresh footprints leading right into it.

As we kept walking down the wash, we thought for sure it was going to end, but around every corner was more and more trash!

And of course the trail leading out of the wash in our city, heads directly NORTH to Tucson, then leads to your town tomorrow.

They've already come through here. Isn't Arizona just beautiful, America?

Why would you boycott us???

Our desert has basically been turned into a landfill.

The trash left behind by people illegally crossing our border is another Environmental Disaster to hit the USA.

If these actions had been done in one of our Northwest Forests or Seashore National Parks areas, there would be an uprising of the American people.....but this is the Arizona-Mexican border.

You won't see these pictures on CNN, ABC, NBC or the Arizona Republic Repugnant newspaper. Nor will they mention the disease that comes from the uncovered human waste left in our desert.

However, with respect to CNN, ABC & NBC, they do offer us "Special Reports" on cheating celebrity spouses....
This information needs to be seen by the rest of the country.

Bankrupt USA

2010-05-13T10:47:00.000-07:00

The hard cold facts are these. There are easier ways to get rid of the illegal aliens than deporting them. Shut off the jobs and the welfare and most would leave. Those who did not could be deported. The cost of deporting all 23 million would be equal to the cost of allowing them to stay here one more month. Three times in US history our government has rounded up most of the illegal aliens and deported them in order to make jobs available for returning war veterans. The last time President Eisenhower did this was after the Korean War. Each time it has been done the US experienced an era of prosperity and growth. In each case the open border allowed the illegal aliens to return and the problems started all over again. Do not let any lying politician or Hispanic activist tell you that deportation can not be done. It has been done and it can be done again.

America may not have the collective guts to deport 23 million illegal aliens so we will probably give them citizenship which will be an invitation to have another waive of aliens invade our country. In 1986 our government gave amnesty to 2.7 million and several million more since. Another 23 million, encouraged by that amnesty have since invaded our nation. The 2.7 million legally brought in millions of family members and have been bleeding our county dry ever since. Experts estimate that if we give amnesty to 23 million illegal aliens and you add family members and those encouraged to try to join the amnesty program swarming our border we would have over 100 million mostly illiterate mostly unskilled mostly Spanish speaking immigrants here with in five years. English would become our second language, our culture would be replaced, crime would be similar to Mexico city and America would be no more.

According to this article the US is spending 1/3 of a trillion dollars a year to support illegal aliens. How long can America afford to do this. Now imagine that there are 4 times as many illegal aliens here which have been given amnesty. We will become a third world country in a few years. Their voting block will be so large that they will control most of our government, or what ever is left of it.

One last point. There is no such thing as "a job that Americans will not do" That is such rubbish. Americans will not pick crops for 4 dollars an hour but in this economy they will do it for 8 dollars an hour. If we stopped paying welfare, Americans would be happy to fill the jobs currently being done by illegal aliens, rather than starve. The price of lettuce would go up one cent a head because the picking of the lettuce is the cheapest part of the cost of producing lettuce. The planting, watering, growing, and transporting costs are far greater than the cost of harvesting. I for one am willing to pay the additional penny per head of lettace to hire an American to do the harvesting. At least I know that an illegal alien with tuberculosis will not be coughing on my food and I will not have to pay his family another 35 dollars an hour in benefits from my taxes.

Larry and Stacey

You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:

Boy, was I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.

I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.

I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I also have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts...

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

Verify at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd8

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt..0.HTML

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML

9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC%20RI%20PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

10. The illegal aliens in the   United States  have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn/./.com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt..01.HTML

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries.. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the   US  from the Southern border.

Verify at: Homeland Security Report:

12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'

Verify at: http://www..nationalpolicyinstitute/./.org/PDF/deportation.PDF

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.

Verify at: http://www/./.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14.. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The   United States .'

Verify at:  http: // www.drdsk.com/articleshtml %20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml

The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY FOR THECITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.

Are we THAT stupid? YES, FOR LETTING THOSE IN THE U.S.CONGRESS GET AWAY WITH LETTING THIS HAPPEN YEAR AFTER YEAR!!!!!

If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. If, on the other hand, it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward it to every legal resident in the United States AND PLEASE REMEMBER IT AT THE NEXT ELECTIONS!!!

Democrats Float Immigration Reform Plan

2010-05-13T10:44:00.000-07:00

Sunday on ABC, Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano
said Arizona's new immigration law is a "cry of frustration...
that will only be solved with comprehensive immigration
reform."

Just days before Sens. Schumer, Reid and Menendez floated
what is being called a "draft version of planned immigration
reform that includes stepped up border security and an
amnesty component."

Meanwhile, radical amnesty groups are continuing to exert
great pressure on the Obama Administration to "land the
plane" on comprehensive immigration reform.

Loma, even though word out of Washington is that there
is no real plan to move ahead with immigration reform, it's
obvious that behind the scenes the battle plan is being
drawn up for yet another blistering run at widespread
amnesty for 12-20 million illegal aliens living in the U.S.

+ + Illegal is still illegal

Even though the media would have you believe that Americans
are outraged over what is currently happening in Arizona
what isn't being reported is the fact that illegal entry
into the U.S. is still illegal; and that Americans want
the borders secured.

A just released Gallup poll reports that 9 out of 10
Americans want our borders secured this year, yet the
plan released by some of the nation's leading Democrats
makes no such promise.

That's because the outrage in Arizona and around the nation
has nothing to do with "securing our borders." It does however,
have everything to do with votes.

Amnesty means millions of new voters to support liberal
causes and social programs. And with mid-term elections
a scant six months away, Democrats are getting ready to
launch a comprehensive amnesty plan that if passed would
preserve the political future of the Democrat party.

That's why it is so important that we take immediate action!

+ + 30,000 "No Amnesty for Illegals" petitions needed!

Only days ago, I sounded the alarm on this issue, calling
for 200,000 grassroots Americans to stand with me against
this latest amnesty push.

Immediately tens of thousands responded, and today we are
less than 30,000 petitions shy of our goal!

Loma, before we can launch any kind of grassroots
initiative opposing amnesty, we must have at least 200,000
petitions in hand to make any kind of impact on Capitol Hill.

That's why I'm urging key members of our Grassfire Nation
team to help me rally the extra support we need as this
battle begins to boil.

I said last week that if Americans sit back and
wait for the amnesty bill to appear before
taking action it would be at our own peril. I
am more convinced of that than ever after
seeing the fervor in Arizona and in D.C.

The time to act is now, and I'm counting on you, Loma,
to help take Grassfire Nation past the 200,000 petition
mark within these next 36 hours.

Forward this message to 25-30 friends right now
and urge them to stand with you against this
coming amnesty dash by signing our petition below:

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=27618&PID=21176965

We cannot move forward with any kind of strength until we've
amassed at least 200,000 citizen signers. That's why I'm
urging you to move right now to help build our NO AMNESTY army!

Thank you for standing with Grassfire Nation.

Steve Elliott
Grassfire Nation

P.S. Again, forward this message to 25-30 friends today
urging them to stand with you against this latest push for
amnesty by clicking below:

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=27618&PID=21176965

This is a good article but I must add a couple of points. In 1986 President Reagan, a conservative Republican, agreed to "comprehensive" immigration reform. This plan called for stopping further illegal immigration at the border while giving amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens. The American people accepted this amnesty, believing the federal government would keep its promise to stop further illegal immigration. As we well know, illegal immigration was not stopped at the border. In fact, the amnesty given to several million illegal immigrants simply encouraged 23 million more illegal immigrants to invade our country, hopeing to be in on the next amnesty program which is being written by the Obama administration at this moment.

If President Reagan could not keep the promise to stop illegal immigration as part of immigration "reform", who could be stupid enough to believe that the Obama administration would do so. Every illegal immigrant who gets amnesty and citizenship is nothing more than another Democrat Party voter. Obama does not want to stop immigration at the border. He is counting on millions of illiterate, unskilled, easily manipulated, government dependent voters to keep him in office and his party in control of Congress. If 23 million illegal aliens are given citizenship, they will then have the right to bring their families here. The Democrat Party will hold power for the remainder of Americas existence which may not be long. Try to imagine how an additional 100 million Mexican nationals would forever change this country and our political system.

As l have said many times, " this is the battle for the soul of our nation. If we lose this fight I see no way for America to survive." We can not allow the last best hope for freedom and liberty to be lost.

Join the battle or accept the consequences, including the death of your nation. Prepare to live in Mexico. We are so close to losing all that we cherish. Do not let this happen to our beloved country.

Larry and Stacey Mudgett

Tucson City Council Meeting

2010-05-13T10:37:00.000-07:00

This is excellent! You really should watch it because this nice lady who immigrated to this country legally after learning English scolds the Tucson city council for supporting illegal immigration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShkpO9Rf1bo&feature=player_embedded

Apathetic USA

2010-05-13T10:35:00.000-07:00

I sent this out not long ago but it is so good and not everyone took the time to watch it. Please, if you have seen this, do watch it now.

Larry and Stacey

http://apathetic-usa.com/

Useful Information...

2010-05-13T10:33:00.000-07:00

If you have not seen this, it very informative. The questions and answers explain how our system of government is supposed to function and why. This can be very helpful in explaining our government to you children or grandchildren. I found it to be very informative. Reading these documents is much like attending a good class on the subjects. If you have been wishing that you knew more about the intent of the Founding Fathers and what rights you really have this is a good read.

Larry and Stacey

QUESTIONS FOR CANDIDATES:
Was this country formed as a republic or a democracy? What are we today? How do you propose to reset this country?
1. Under the Constitution, who has the sovereign authority to govern?
The founders said it is in the people "by God's own allowance." No branch or agency of the government should be allowed to operate in violation of the expressed will of the people. Their collective will is set forth in the Constitution and the laws passed by the people's representatives.
2. In what way are "all men created equal?"
All humanity are equal in three ways: 1. equal before God, 2. equal before the law, 3. equal in their rights. In all other respects people are different.
3. What is an inalienable right?
An inalienable right is one which comes as an "endowment from the Creator" and cannot be violated without coming under the judgment of God.
4. Which inalienable rights were listed in the Declaration of Independence?
The Declaration of Independence lists the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
5. What did the Founders mean by the "pursuit of happiness?"
This is a collective phrase designed to cover all of the other inalienable rights.
6. Give an example of an inalienable right which is essential to the pursuit of happiness.
The Founders believed, for example, that human happiness requires that each of us enjoy the right to acquire, develop and dispose of property. They believed that without the protection of property rights, all other rights are placed in serious jeopardy.
7. What are some of the other inalienable rights?
The inalienable rights of mankind include such things as the right of self government; the right of human beings to beget their own kind; the right of parents to rear their children free from outside interference (unless there is criminal abuse or neglect); the right to freedom of belief; the right to freedom of speech; the right to assemble; the right to petition; the right to change residence or one's job, etc.
8. What is the purpose of government?
The Founders said the basic reason for creating a government is to protect the inalienable rights of the people. The government is to provide "liberty under law," which means that no law should be passed unless it is specifically designed to protect the freedom, liberty. and well-being of the people.
THE AMERICAN STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT
9. What is a democracy?
A democracy is a government wherein decisions are made by the masses of the people rather than by elected representatives.
10. What is a republic?
A republic is a system in which the laws are passed and decisions made by the elected representatives of the people.
11. Why did Jefferson call the American system a democratic-republic?
Because the system allows the masses of qualified voters to participate in the election of their officials (democracy) and then the people's elected representatives enact the laws and administer the affairs of the people under majority rule but with the equal protection of individual rights (a republic).
12. Is it a mistake, therefore, to call the United States a democracy?
Yes. The only part of the American system which is borrowed from "democracy" is the popular election of government officials. Except for this, the Founders strongly emphasized the republican aspects of the American system. A republic places the responsibility for sound government and decision-making on the people's elected representatives rather than allowing the fluctuating and superficial emotions of the people to override law and order or the rights of minorities. The classical example of government functioning on republican principles and prevailing over "pure democracy" would be the case of a sheriff protecting a prisoner against a lynch mob.
THE TASK OF CONTROLLING POWER
13. Why is separation of power safer than concentration of power?
Government is "force" which Washington compared to "fire" and said government is a "dangerous servant" and a "fearful master." Power should be dispersed among the people where they can keep it under control.
14. How should the powers of government be separated?
First of all, the Founders wanted political power separated vertically. They considered the principal power base of society to be the family. However, there are a few things which a community of families can provide better than a single family (police, fire, water, utilities, etc.). Power to perform these functions is therefore delegated to the community. Then there are a few things which groups of communities can do better than the single community. These tasks are assigned to the higher level of the county. There are also a few things that a group of counties can do better than a single county and these are assigned to the state level. The Founders also discovered that there were certain matters dealing with foreign affairs, problems of war and peace, imports, etc. which need to be handled in behalf of all the states. These responsibilities are therefore assigned to the Federal Government. It should be noted that the Founders' pyramid of power provided that the greatest number of responsibilities should rest with the family. Only a few responsibilities were assigned to the levels of government above the family and the Federal Government was to have the least of all.
15. What remedies did the Founders provide if government officials violated the channel of power assigned to them?
Administrative pressures from other departments are provided and if his offenses are serious he can be impeached for treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors.
16. Why did the Founders want the powers of government to flow from the bottom up rather than the top down?
Jefferson stated that a political unit governs best which governs least. In other words, the services which the people need from government are relatively simple and when circumstances are normal the people like to conduct their affairs with as little interference from the government as possible. Consequently, in
the Founders' original plan for a happy and prosperous society, the functions of government were designed to be relatively simple and remarkably cheap.
17. Then why do we have such a complicated and expensive government today?
The professional politicians learned that in a war, depression, or a serious crisis, the people will endure higher taxes and a far greater concentration of authority on the higher levels of government. Certain politicians therefore set out to exploit every emergency as an excuse for the acquiring of more power. During most of the twentieth century ambitious politicians trumpeted the message that the government can solve practically all problems better than the people. Today, as a result, Americans are being literally "programmed" to death--and taxes have skyrocketed.
SEPARATING POWER HORIZONTALLY
18. How did the Founders separate power horizontally?
There are three functions of government at each level of society. One function is to make the law, another is to administer the law and a third is to interpret the law. These are all on the same horizontal level and are referred to as the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government. The Founders wanted these three functions to be separated into equal, independent departments. At the same time, they wanted to coordinate these functions so that one department could not function without the other two. Each department was therefore assigned to serve as a check on the others. The idea of the Founders was to have these functions of government "coordinated but never consolidated." This was one of the most ingenious devices contributed by the Founders.
19. What happens if the separation of powers breaks down either vertically or horizontally?
The Founders warned that if the vertical separation of power should ever break down so that all power began to be concentrated in Washington, there would be a severely arrogant abuse of the people by government officials. They also said that if the legislative executive and judicial departments failed to act as a check on each other, there would be tyranny and the people would lose their freedom. For more than one full generation this is what has been happening.
AMERICANS EXPERIMENT WITH ANOTHER SYSTEM
20. Is the consolidation of government functions the trend today?
Yes. Consolidation of power is gravitating toward Washington at a pace which would have greatly alarmed the Founders.
21. What has caused this?
Beginning around 1900 certain wealthy influential groups lost confidence in the original American system and began propagandizing the people into believing that a "redistribution of the wealth" by the government would greatly improve the American life style. This theory of economics with its concentration of political power at the center of government is usually referred to as socialism. Samuel Adams vigorously warned against these principles. He said socialism violates equal protection of rights and completely destroys the concept of limited government. In fact, he said the Founders had done everything possible to make these collectivist policies "unconstitutional."
22. What has been the result?
These policies launched the United States on a wild and dizzy trajectory which has resulted in run-away inflation; a huge burden of national debt; taxes which are devouring nearly half of the peoples' earning power; a serious invasion of individual rights; and a virtual collapse of states rights.
23. Has socialism or "collectivism" worked anywhere in the world?
Unfortunately, it has not. In fact, the militant forms of socialism such as communism, nazism, and fascism have caused more wars and shed the blood of more human beings than any system of government in the history of the world. Even the so-called "peaceful" forms of socialism such as Democratic Socialism and Fabian Socialism, have proven counter-productive and have continuously crept along the razor's edge of perpetual bankruptcy. Americans have sent over hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid trying to help the socialist nations survive. Now we are bordering on bankruptcy ourselves.
24. How did the Founders structure the American system so that socialism would be unconstitutional?
They did it by setting up a "limited" form of government with carefully enumerated powers. Jefferson called these limitations on government the "chains" of the Constitution.
AMERICAN LEADERS BEGAN TO ABANDON THE FOUNDERS' SUCCESS FORMULA
25. Does this mean Theodore Roosevelt was In error when he said the President could do anything except that which the Constitution forbids?
Yes, he was turning the Constitution upside down. The President and all other officials of the government are only allowed to do that which is expressly authorized. The Founders referred to any exercise of power outside of these Constitutional chains as "usurpation."
26. Was President Woodrow Wilson also in error when he said the United States should become involved in the political and economic affairs of the world?
Yes. The Founders had continually warned against foreign, entangling alliances. The Founders believed the United States should try to be friendly with all nations, but beholden to none. They knew that political interdependence leads to the development of power blocs, and power blocs ultimately lead to war.
27. Was Franklin D. Roosevelt in error when he structured the New Deal?
Yes. The New Deal was structured on collectivist principles designed by such men as Harry Hopkins who saw socialism as a tremendous vehicle to acquire power over the people and their resources. His famous formula was "tax, tax -- spend, spend -- elect, elect!"
28. Was Lyndon Johnson in error when he said, "We will take from the haves and give to the have nots!"
The Founders would certainly have called it an error. There is absolutely no Constitutional authority for the government to engage in any such invasion of private property rights. Throughout history it has always been popular for governments to pretend they are going to "soak the rich," but such programs have always ended up with government officials using this newly acquired power to violate the inalienable rights of both rich and poor. It is a political trick to build bigger government with bigger debts and bigger taxes.
29. Was President Nixon in error when he continually tried to involve the United States in a "New World Order"?
Yes. It is extremely dangerous for Americans to enter into foreign engagements where decisions for Americans are made by non-Americans. The Founders believed that we should coordinate but never consolidate our free and independent society with foreign nations.
30. Was President Carter in error when he began meddling in domestic affairs of foreign nations?
Yes. The Monroe Doctrine specifically promised that the United States would never undertake to meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries. Any president or secretary of state who has followed a policy of "interventionism," has operated outside of his Constitutional authority.
PRESIDENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
31. What about executive orders which are treated as laws after being published in the Federal Register?
In the eyes of the Founders these would be considered unconstitutional. The President can issue executive orders to the administrative branches of government under his supervision but he has no authority whatever to make "laws" for the people since the Constitution assigns that authority exclusively to the Congress. An act of Congress could stop this whole illegal procedure.
32. What about executive agreements between the President and heads of foreign governments?
This procedure is also unconstitutional. The Founders provided that all agreements with foreign nations must have the advice and consent of the Senate. Since American Presidents began holding summit conferences with the heads of foreign governments, they have been entering into secret engagements which very often never see the light of day let alone receive the advice and consent of the Senate. Each year there are many more executive agreements signed by the President than there are treaties ratified by the Senate.
JUDICIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
33. What about new laws laid down by the Supreme Court?
This is called "judicial legislation." This occurs when the Supreme Court creates a new law by pretending to interpret an old one. In the Federalist Papers the Founders specifically warned against this type of arrogance by the Supreme Court.
34. How is the Supreme Court supposed to interpret the Constitution?
The Founders made it very clear that the Supreme Court would be violating its assignment if it substituted its own opinions for that of the Founders. Until recently it has always been an established principle that the Constitution must be interpreted the way the Founders intended it and not according to the whims or caprice of modern justices.
35. Is there any way to curb the Supreme Court from exercising its power in an unconstitutional manner?
Yes. A Judicial Reform Amendment would allow any Supreme Court decision to be overturned by two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate. A decision could also be overturned by concurring resolutions from three-fourths of the State Legislatures. Had this procedure been available the states would have undoubtedly outlawed forced busing of school children at least twenty years ago.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL EDICTS OF REGULATORY AGENCIES
36. Is it Constitutional for an agency of the Federal Government to write rules and regulations which are enforced in the courts as "laws?"
No. This is a recent development in governmental procedures. It is called "administrative law." The Founders provided no power in any agency of government to make laws except the Congress.
BLURRING THE FOUNDERS' DIVISION OF LABOR BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
37. How did the Founders intend to divide the problem-solving powers between the States and the Federal Government?
James Madison spelled it out in the Federalist Papers, No. 45. He wrote: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.... The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and the properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
38. How did the Founders know whether to assign a problem to the State or Federal Governments?
If a problem involved foreign relations (war, peace, treaties, etc.) or matters which could not be handled by any one of the states (regulating interstate commerce, crimes on the high seas, navigable waters, naturalization, etc.) it went to the Federal Government. All other powers were retained by the States.
39. How many areas of power were ultimately assigned to the Federal Government?
The Constitution gives the Federal Government twenty powers. These are set forth in Article I, Section 8.
40. What if the Federal Government thinks it needs more power?
The government cannot legally exercise any powers except those which are specifically granted to it by the Constitution. The only way Washington can get any additional legitimate power is by an amendment.
41. Where does it say that the Federal Government is specifically restricted from exercising any power not granted to it by the States?
The Tenth Amendment
42. Then how did the government get so much power?
The dominating arrogance of the Federal Government today came about primarily through three channels: 1. outright usurpation of power, 2. an edict by the Supreme Court in the Butler Case in 1936 reversing the original meaning in the Welfare Clause, and 3. distorting the Commerce Clause as the means of shattering the restrictive chains of the Constitution and expanding federal jurisdiction into hundreds of areas never intended by the Founders.
SUBVERTING TWO IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSES
43. What was the Butler Case?
In this decision, Justice Roberts included in his opinion a dictum that the Congress would no longer be restricted in its taxing and spending powers so long as it was in the "general welfare" of the nation. This immediately opened the U.S. Treasury to looting for all kinds of give-away programs which politicians began using to buy votes.
44. In what way has the Commerce Clause been distorted to give the Federal Government unconstitutional powers?
This clause was simply designed to give the Federal Government sufficient power to insure the "free flow" of commerce so that the States would not interfere with inter-state shipments as they had done in the past. Since 1936 the original intent of the Founders has been expanded to include Federal control over practically everything which affects inter-state commerce either directly or indirectly. This usurpation of authority by Congress (which has been upheld by the Supreme Court), has shattered some of the most important restrictions on Federal intervention in the business and commercial life of the nation.
SOME PRACTICAL QUESTIONS
45. Doesn't the more complex nature of modern society require a far more extensive control of the economy by the Federal Government?
No. The more complex society becomes the more it needs the automatic problem-solving devices of a free-market economy operating with the least possible interference from government. As Adam Smith pointed out, government interference only adds to the complexity of the system and results in a serious deterioration of individual freedom.
46. What is a modern example of the Founders' original success formula solving some of the highly complex problems of a modern society?
No nation could have had a much more complex situation than West Germany right after World War II. Every major city in Germany was bomb-gutted and the people were surviving in basements and make-shift hovels. Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of West Germany took over in 1949 and immediately initiated the basic economic principles advocated by the Founding Fathers. By using freedom instead of heavy-handed government regulations, West Germany achieved the highest standard of living in Western Europe within eight years. The West Germans were not only fully employed but importing foreign labor besides. Clothing, food and housing were abundant and cheap. West Germany became so prosperous she was the envy of socialized Sweden. It will be recalled that Sweden wasn't even in the war and had boasted of the superiority of her socialist controls. However, in Sweden a young married. couple has to wait ten years to get a one-room apartment because of the government monopoly over housing. It was obvious West Germany had chosen a better way.
QUESTIONS ABOUT MONEY AND THE BUDGET
47. What happened to the Federal budget after the "Butler" case?
In 1936 (the year of the Butler case) the Federal budget was around six billion dollars. By 1996, the looting of the American taxpayer had pushed the Federal budget to more than 1.6 trillion dollars!
48. Is it Constitutional for the government to spend more money that it takes in?
Yes. The Constitution allows the government to borrow in emergencies. Unfortunately, during the last 50 years Congress has continually found excuses to borrow whether there was an emergency or not. The only way to stop this is to replace the big spenders in Congress with constitutionalists who recognize that we are presently on a disaster course.
THE NATIONAL DEBT
49. How much is the national debt today?
The U.S. National Debt is nearly five trillion dollars requiring interest payments which cost more each year than the entire cost of all wars we have ever fought. Future liabilities to which the government is already committed will require taxation of an additional six to eleven trillion.
50. How does the U.S. debt compare with the debts of other nations?
The United States now owes more than all of the rest of the nations of the world combined.
51. Why would the Founders have considered this gigantic indebtedness immoral?
The Founders said that no generation should go so deeply in debt that it becomes guilty of squandering the next generation's inheritance. They said such extravagance is immoral. All past generations tried to pay off all the debts accrued during their time. Ours is the first generation which has deliberately squandered the inheritance of its children.
WHAT ABOUT WELFARE?
52. But hasn't much of our money been spent for welfare and other important social programs?
This was the main excuse for sky-rocketing taxation and deficit spending. Tragically, however, the money has been squandered primarily to build a vast bureaucracy. It is amazing how many of the government's multibillion dollar social programs have provided only a pittance to trickle down to the poor, the sick and the elderly.
53. But didn't the government have to try to do something to help those in need?
The Founders specifically warned against this type of political deception where the compassion of the people is exploited to build big government and raise taxes. They said that all types of charity and welfare should be handled on the local level where abuses could be quickly detected and corrected.
54. But what if the states do not provide needed services?
The existence of a need on a state level does not create a power on the federal level. When a state fails to fulfill its obligation the pressure should be exerted on the State, not the federal government. Jefferson said there is no way to preserve freedom if all political power gravitates to Washington.
THE NATIONAL DEBT AND FOREIGN AID
55. In view of America's tremendous national debt, why do we continue giving foreign aid to over a 125 countries?
This whole procedure violates the Constitution and common sense. What started out as part of the defense program in the interest of the United States has turned into an international Santa Claus give-away program, similar to the extravagant give-away programs at home. Tens of billions given away each year automatically add to the national debt.
SOCIAL SECURITY
56. Is Social Security an insurance plan or a welfare plan?
The Supreme Court has held that it is a welfare plan. This means that it can be terminated at anytime. It also means the government can distribute its proceeds arbitrarily. The contributor to social security payments acquires no rights and receives only what the government condescends to distribute to him as "payments" if he qualifies under the government's arbitrary poverty level.
57. Is there a better way?
Yes. It is called an annuity program. If the money contributed by an employee (and his employer) between 25 and 65 were invested in American industries under an annuity plan, the fund could be built to a quarter of a million dollars by the time he retires. An annuity fund of this kind would permit an employee to retire at $1,200 to $1,500 per month. Furthermore, the money is his. He does not have to be poor to get it. If he dies it goes to his widow and children. He earned it. He owns it.
58. Is the Federal Income Tax Constitutional?
Yes. The Sixteenth Amendment was adopted according to the requirements of the constitution.
59. Is this the type of tax which the Founding Fathers would have employed?
No. They provided that direct taxes be apportioned to the states according to population, not according to the incomes of the people.
60. Has income tax been administered uniformly?
No. A graduated income tax violates the equal protection of rights. It violates the principle of uniformity required by the Constitution and makes the property of accumulated wealth less sacred than those who have less.
61. Is it possible to administer the Income Tax fairly?
No. This could only be done by setting up a universal monitoring system similar to a "police state." This would violate all of the basic rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment.
62. Would it ever be possible to repeal the Federal Income Tax?
Yes. By phasing out governmental activities which are clearly outside the Constitution, the cost of government would be greatly reduced and the income tax could be safely eliminated.
63. Would the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment interfere with defense and other legitimate Federal responsibilities?
No.Tariffs and other sources of Federal revenue would more than adequately provide for the legitimate expenses of the Federal Government if its unconstitutional expenses were phased out. Who knows, there might even be a surplus!
64. Is a national sales tax constitutional?
Yes, according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the federal government may assess a sales (excise) tax as long as it is uniform throughout the United States.
65. What about the thousands of Federal-aid programs covering nearly every aspect of American life?
Federal grants are unconstitutional unless directly related to some power specifically delegated to the Federal Government. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would probably wipe out at least 95% of the Federal-aid programs presently plaguing the nation.
FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCIES
66. What about EPA?
The Environmental Protection Act involves problems which the Founders delegated exclusively to the States where local supervision could prevent abuses and deal with over-regulation more readily. Today, federal control over air, water, and land environment is strangling the economy and suppressing the development of energy and natural resources.
67. What about OSHA?
Occupational safety and health are important responsibilities but they should never have been delegated to the Federal level. The Founders knew that government is too big, and the legal machinery too expensive for most citizens to handle. They therefore endure the disruptive and oppressive edicts of this agency because it has been too big for the average citizen to fight.
68. What about the Federal Communications Commission?
This agency was designed to "police" the traffic on the air waves but the FCC has used its licensing power to control the editorial content of programs. This is in direct violation of the First Amendment.
69. What about the Pure Food and Drug Administration?
There is no authority for this agency under the Constitution. If it is in the national interest to have such an agency it should have been authorized by an amendment. There is already a wide-spread criticism of the arbitrary manner in which this agency has exercised its broad spectrum of power.
70. What about Consumer Protection?
Here again we have an exercise of power unauthorized by the Constitution. Do we really want that much power allocated to the federal level where the agency is so big and powerful that not even the largest corporations are able to cope with its abuses?
WHAT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT SETTING UP BUSINESS OPERATIONS?
71. Is there any authority in the Constitution for the government to set up tax-exempt corporations or business operations to compete with tax-paying citizens?
The answer is no, unless the corporation or business is directly connected with an area of Federal responsibility enumerated in the Constitution. For example, an independent government corporation to provide mail service would be constitutional. However, a corporation set up to compete in the production of electricity, the manufacturing of clothes, or the operating of a chain of public restaurants, would not.
72. How many corporations and businesses does the government operate at the present time which are unauthorized by the constitution?
Around 700 corporations and 11,000 businesses.
73. Are all of these tax-exempt?
Yes. They are not only tax-exempt but most of them are being subsidized out of tax funds because they are not being operated efficiently.
WHAT CAUSED THE "SAGEBRUSH REBELLION?"
74. Shouldn't all of the states have been admitted to the Union on an equal basis?
Yes. This was set forth by Congress in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
75. Which states were strong-armed into accepting statehood without being admitted on an equal footing?
All of the Western States and Alaska.
76. In what way were they forced to accept statehood unequally?
Large regions of these states were retained by the Federal Government for purposes not authorized by the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.
77. About how much of the land did the Federal Government usually withhold from these states?
The government retained around 50% of the land in most Western States, but 79% of Nevada and 96% of Alaska.
78. Are any of these states attempting to get this land back?
Yes. The press has labelled this effort the "Sagebrush Rebellion," but it is not a rebellion. These states are simply following the legal and Constitutional procedures necessary to have this land turned back to them.
WHAT ABOUT LOCKING UP STATE TERRITORY AS WILDERNESS AREAS?
79. Does the Constitution authorize the President and the Secretary of the Interior to lock up large blocks of land within a state as a "wilderness reserve?"
No. This violates the express provisions of the Constitution but was upheld by the Supreme Court on extremely tenuous grounds.
80. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have a national forest within the confines of a state?
No. This is not included in the list of territories which the federal government is allowed to occupy with the consent of the state. (See Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) The Supreme Court had to distort the Constitution to justify it. Historically, the states have had fewer forest fires and have maintained the state forests on a higher level than the national forests.
81. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have national parks within the confines of a State?
No. For the same reasons as those cited above, the Supreme Court should have disallowed them. It has been observed that as a rule state parks are better maintained and provide better facilities than those operated by the Federal Government.
WHAT ABOUT FEDERAL CONTROL OF ENERGY RESOURCES?
82. Does the Constitution authorize the government to control, regulate, or inhibit the production of energy resources within a state?
No.
PROBLEMS WITH GOVERNMENT MONOPOLIES
83. What about the widely expanded activities of the Interstate Commerce Commission?
The Founders never intended the "regulation of commerce" to include cartel monopolies, fixing prices, fixing routes, and regulating industries into bankruptcy. The recent deregulation of airlines dramatically demonstrated the advantage of free-market competition over a system of unconstitutional governmental regulations.
84. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to set prices?
Not in time of peace.
85. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to set wages?
Not in time of peace.
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
86. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to enter into labor-management disputes in the private sector?
No. This area of federal usurpation occurred during the "New Deal" days by completely distorting the original intent of the Commerce Clause.
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEW
87. Is there any Constitutional foundation for the extravagant and wasteful expenditures of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare?
No. Each of the agencies under HEW has developed since the Butler Case. The dictum in this case authorized the general welfare clause to be interpreted in a manner which extended government intrusion into areas specifically excluded from federal jurisdiction by the Founders.
88. About how much of the federal budget Is spent each year on these unconstitutional activities?
Around 600 billion dollars in 1996 which is approximately 1/3 of the federal budget.
89. Would it require an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the Department of HEW?
No. An act of Congress could dismantle this extremely costly department which has probably been more wasteful and nonproductive in its assigned area of activity than any other branch of the government.
THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT
90. Why was the Equal Rights Amendment defeated by the states?
In the beginning nearly everyone assumed that this amendment was designed to provide equal rights for women. This supposed objective was widely approved. It was only after 30 states had ratified this amendment that it was realized that the simple wording of this amendment would actually destroy a broad spectrum of rights which American women already have, such as the common law right as well as the statutory right to be supported, along with their children, by their husbands. ERA would not only have destroyed this right but also eliminated many rights relating to employment, maternity leave, insurance and survival rights which are presently provided by law.
MORALITY AND GOVERNMENT
91. Do you believe that people's morals will affect their ability to enjoy freedom and liberty under the constitution?
Benjamin Franklin said: " Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
John Adams was equally explicit: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Samuel Adams added a final warning: "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."
ABORTIONS
92. Does the Supreme Court have authority to hear cases involving moral issues such as abortion?
No. The original Constitution allowed the federal courts to hear only eleven kinds of cases, clearly outlined in Article III.
93. Is federal funding of abortion a violation of the Constitution?
Yes. The specific and limited authority granted to the Federal Government does not include any funding for abortions.
THE GOLD AND SILVER STANDARD
94. Was the United States taken off the gold and silver standard in violation of the Constitution?
Yes. The gold standard is written into the Constitution (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) and was removed by several acts of Congress without an amendment to the Constitution between 1934 and 1964. From the Founding Fathers standpoint this whole procedure was illegal.
THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
95. Is it Constitutional for federal funds to be used in the financing of local schools?
No. The Founding Fathers warned against the funding of schools by the Congress. In fact, education in the U.S. has seriously deteriorated since federal funding began. James Madison equated the Federal funding of schools as extremely dangerous and said it was almost as bad as funding and controlling the churches of the nation.
96. Should the members of state and educational associations be required by law to pay dues to the National Educational Association?
No. The NEA is a private lobby with an annual budget of nearly $60 million dollars. It succeeded in getting the states to pass a law requiring the educators in state associations to pay dues to the NEA. These laws should be repealed. Teachers find themselves compelled to pay dues to this private organization which often advocates policies that are inimical to the best interests of American education.
TAXES ON DIVIDENDS
97. Should stockholders be required to pay income taxes on their dividends when the corporation has already been subject to a corporate tax?
No. The stockholders are the owners of the company. They have already paid around 48% tax on the company's earnings. The residue should be distributed among the stockholders as funds on which the required tax has already been paid.
CONTROL OF FIREARMS
98. Should the Federal Government pass laws providing for the control of guns?
No. The Founders left gun control under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state. They felt it was extremely dangerous to allow the federal government to "infringe" on the right to bear arms even in the slightest degree.
THE MODERN METHOD OF ELECTING SENATORS
99. Should the Seventeenth Amendment be repealed?
The Founders would undoubtedly say yes. They set up a House of Representatives to represent the people and set up a Senate to represent the individual states. Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures and were the watchdogs of states rights. The Seventeenth Amendment took away the authority of the state legislatures to appoint senators. and therefore required senatorial candidates to appeal to the people in a popular election. This resulted in the senators frequently ignoring states rights in an effort to get more money for their states just as congressmen do. States' rights have been seriously deteriorating since the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted in 1913. It destroyed an important element of balance which the Founders built into the Constitution.
THE BLM
100. Should the Bureau of Land Management be abolished?
Yes. This bureau has been rapidly phasing out the traditional grazing rights of ranchers and setting up impossible regulations on land which should have been turned over to the states when they were admitted into the Union.
GOVERNMENT EXPENSES
101. Can you find out how the government spends its money?
Yes. A complete breakdown of government spending is published each year by the Government Printing Office. This is required by the Constitution.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
AND
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
No documents have had a greater influence on the citizens of our country that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence marked the birth of our republic and set forth our “unalienable rights” to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Later, the Constitution outlined our style of government and defined the rights that are protected from intrusion by government.
These documents have been a beacon to all men and women who value freedom. They are just as meaningful now as when they were written. As the American statesman Henry Clay said, “The Constitution of the United States was not made merely for the generation that then existed but for posterity – unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity.”
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written with the intent that they could be easily read and understood by ordinary citizens. The difficulty comes with the changes in the English language that have occurred since they were written, making both documents more difficult to decipher. Freedom Defined addresses this problem by providing instant access to the definitions of words and phrases used in these documents. The definitions are based on dictionaries used during the early years of the United States, the records of the Constitutional Convention, and the writings of the Founding Fathers.
PREFACE
Benjamin Franklin, one of the few men to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, is among the greatest statesmen America has ever produced. He had only two years of schooling as a child, but as he grew to young manhood he taught himself through reading, writing, hard work, travel, and scientific experimentation. Through this program of self-education he eventually became an internationally acclaimed scholar and inventor, receiving honorary degrees from several universities on two continents. In 1760, Franklin gave a young friend this advice about studying difficult books:
"I think it would be well for you to have a good dictionary at hand, to consult immediately when you meet with a word you do not comprehend the precise meaning of. This may at first seem troublesome and interrupting; but it is a trouble that will daily diminish, as you will daily find less and less occasion for your dictionary, as you become more acquainted with the terms; and in the meantime you will read with more satisfaction, because with more understanding."
T O T E E N A G E R S W H O U S E F R E E D O M D E F I N E D
Each time we pledge allegiance to the American flag, we also pledge our loyalty and support to "the republic for which it stands." This little book will help you discover the meaning of that promise.
We speak of our republic as "one nation, under God, . . . with liberty and justice for all." But where did our liberty come from? And what can we do to guard against losing it?
To answer these two important questions, we must first understand the two great documents that have made America "the land of the free."
The United States became a nation in 1776 through the Declaration of Independence, which announced that we were no longer part of the British kingdom. The Declaration says that all people are "created equal" and are born with certain God-given rights, including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It also states that we have the right to organize whatever form of government we believe will best protect us and our freedoms.
To accomplish this, the American people adopted the Constitution of the United States. Building on the foundation principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution went into effect in 1789 as a "government of the people, by the people, for the people."
It was a new kind of government, one that had never before been tried. It limited, divided, and balanced authority between the states and the three branches of the federal government so that no person or group would have enough power to trample on the people's rights. And it has worked so well that, for more than two hundred years, America has been viewed as the home of liberty by many nations of the world.
Our constitutional system has been called "the great engine of freedom." But, like any valuable machine, it requires careful and frequent attention to continue operating correctly. In a people's government, it is the people themselves who must provide this attention. Each generation of Americans must earn again the rights and liberties passed on to them.
It will soon be your generation's turn to protect the freedoms secured by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. To do so, of course, you must first read and understand these two vital documents.
Although both of them were written for ordinary citizens, certain parts are not easy to read today, because the English language has changed in some ways since the late 1700s. That is why this book has been prepared.
By providing definitions of many difficult words and phrases, Freedom Defined can help you understand the documents that gave birth to our country. The definitions are based on dictionaries used during the early years of the United States, the records of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and the writings of the Founding Fathers and others who have studied the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The great men and women who formed our nation created a wise and effective system of self-government that has made Americans the first free people in modern times. Their flame of freedom has now been passed to us. May we hold it high for future generations to see and follow.
T O A D U L T S W H O U S E F R E E D O M D E F I N E D
No two political documents have had a more dramatic and far-reaching influence on human liberty than the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. They are inseparable parts of one whole: the first proclaims the philosophical ideals on which a free nation was founded, while the second provides the practical means by which those ideals may be implemented and perpetuated.
The freedoms we now enjoy are the product--and thus depend on the preservation--of America's unique system of self-government. For this reason, each new generation of Americans inherits an obligation to uphold and safeguard that system. We owe our allegiance, not to political candidates or parties or programs, but to the Constitution. It is the "supreme law of the land" and should therefore govern us and our leaders.
To safely utilize and maintain our free political process, we must know how to govern ourselves in accordance with correct constitutional principles. George Washington, while serving as President, called for "the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? and what duty more pressing . . . than . . . communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?"
Parents and educators followed his advice, and for many years thereafter virtually all Americans understood the Constitution and how it was designed to work. Alexis de Tocqueville, a distinguished French jurist who visited the United States in the 1830s, observed that "the instruction of the people powerfully contributes to the support of the democratic republic. . . . If you question [an American] respecting his own country, . . . he will inform you what his rights are and by what means he exercises them. . . . In the United States, politics are the end and aim of education."
It is now our generation's turn to "preserve, protect, and defend" the principles set forth in our nation's founding documents. To do so, of course, we must first read and understand them. That is the purpose for which this book has been prepared.
The Declaration of Independence was authored by Thomas Jefferson. The Constitution, based on an initial plan outlined by James Madison, was the product of many minds; but its final phrasing--and its famous preamble--came from the pen of Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania.
Unlike most legal documents of that era, these were written for ordinary citizens rather than for attorneys. As writer Edwin Newman recently observed, the Constitution is "a remarkable example of straightforward, economical English . . . astonishingly free of legalese."
Nevertheless, present-day Americans find it considerably more difficult to read and understand the Constitution and the Declaration than did our forebears in the time of Washington and Tocqueville. This is true for several reasons: both documents necessarily contain a number of technical terms; some English expressions have acquired new meanings over the last two hundred years; and a few others have passed from our language altogether. Furthermore, the United States has experienced significant educational and demographic changes in this century.
Many Americans in the 1700s and 1800s had better reading habits and larger vocabularies than we do in this age of television; moreover, they were not as ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse as we are today.
Freedom Defined recaptures the meaning of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence for modern readers. It is essentially a dictionary of words and phrases used in America's founding documents.
The text of each document is printed in large type. Descriptive subheadings have been added to facilitate reading, and in some instances spelling, capitalization, and punctuation have been modernized. The paragraphing of the original printed text of the Declaration has been slightly altered, and in both documents the paragraphs have been numbered (article and section numbers appeared in the original Constitution). Square brackets have been inserted in the Constitution to identify passages that are now obsolete or have been modified by later provisions.
The most notable feature of Freedom Defined is its extensive system of footnotes to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The main object of these notes is to provide simple, clear definitions of difficult words and phrases; no attempt is made to supply interpretive commentary, nor is any historical context reviewed beyond what is necessary to define a term or explain the status of a constitutional provision no longer in force.
To establish as nearly as possible the meaning intended by those who framed and adopted these two vital documents, the definitions are based on English and American dictionaries used during the Founding era, the records of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and commentaries by the Founders themselves as well as those of reputable modern scholars. (See "Suggestions for Further Reading" on pages XX-XX.)
When a word or phrase is repeated in the text (and is used in the same sense in each case), its definition is repeated only if the occurrences are several paragraphs apart or appear in separate sections or amendments of the Constitution. The footnotes occasionally clarify the antecedents of pronouns or other common words; a few of the notes include pronunciations, derivations of foreign terms, or cross-references to related provisions. (Most of these cross-references are abbreviated: II.1.2-4 means Article II, section 1, paragraphs 2 through 4.)
Freedom Defined is for high school students, college students, and all citizens who want to understand the ideas that created America. It is published in connection with Project Liberty, an educational campaign sponsored by the National Center for Constitutional Studies to teach the principles of freedom to Americans of all ages, both in the home and in the school.
In the final years of his life, Thomas Jefferson called upon the American people to "preserve inviolate [the] Constitution, which, cherished in all its chastity and purity, will prove in the end a blessing to all the nations of the earth." Similarly, James Madison wrote that the men and women who founded our nation "accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society. . . . They formed the design of a great confederacy, which it is incumbent on their successors to improve and perpetuate."
We are their successors. And we can keep alive their grand experiment by becoming an enlightened citizenry and earning anew the "blessings of liberty" they sought to secure for themselves and all mankind.

T H E F I R E O F F R E E D O M
America's Founding Fathers, who authored and fought for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, had very clear ideas about freedom. Here are a few representative quotations from their speeches and writings that provide important insights into the nature and the source of our liberty, the dangers that can threaten it, and how we may remain a free people today.
Patrick Henry: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Benjamin Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Rush: "Political freedom includes in it every other blessing. All the pleasures of riches, science, virtue, and even religion itself derive their value from liberty alone. No wonder . . . those illustrious souls who have employed their pens and sacrificed their lives in defense of liberty have met with such universal applause."
John Dickinson: "Honor, justice, and humanity call upon us to hold, and to transmit to our posterity, that liberty which we received from our ancestors. It is not our duty to leave wealth to our children; but it is our duty to leave liberty to them."
George Washington: "A government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian."
Alexander Hamilton: "Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments."
Thomas Jefferson: "The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many. . . . What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body."
George Mason: "The right of the people to participate in the legislature is the best security of liberty, and the foundation of all free government; for this purpose elections ought to be free and frequent." Thomas Jefferson: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
James Iredell: "The only real security of liberty in any country is the jealousy and circumspection of the people themselves. Let them be watchful over their rulers."
Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that [the] people preserve the spirit of resistance?"
Thomas Jefferson: "To preserve [our] independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."
Richard Henry Lee: "The first maxim of a man who loves liberty should be never to grant to rulers an atom of power that is not most clearly and indispensably necessary for the safety and well-being of society."
James Madison: "Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power."
Samuel Adams: "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man."
Benjamin Franklin: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Thomas Jefferson: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are . . . the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"
John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Alexander Hamilton: "An inviolable respect for the Constitution and laws . . . is the vital principle, the sustaining energy, of a free government."
Thomas Jefferson: "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. . . . [The people] are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
Thomas Jefferson: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, . . . it expects what never was and never will be."
James Madison: "It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people."
George Washington: "The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty . . . [is] staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people."

AMERICANS ARE AWAKENING TO OUR AWFUL SITUATION
America's Founding Fathers were students of human nature and how influential people and governments have dealt with human nature throughout the history of this world. In nearly every case, the Founders discovered that powerful people have nearly always sought to gain mastery over others. Whether by force or by slow deceptive means, power-hungry individuals have sought to thrust themselves into positions where they can control the lives, liberty, and property of others. The distaste for this kind of control is what led Thomas Jefferson to proclaim, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal vigilance against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Generally, this kind of power, which tends to pander to the pretended needs of the masses and thereby invades the unalienable rights of individuals, is known as socialism.
THE MANY FACES OF SOCIALISM
The classical definition of socialism is: Government ownership or control of all the means of production and all the means of distribution in a society.
In order to achieve these objectives, socialists throughout history have used different strategies and tactics, depending on how much power they have and what they can get (or force) the people to accept, but their ultimate goal of total control remains the same. Here are the main kinds of socialism that have been used:
Communism is "International Revolutionary Socialism." It uses the tactics of terrorism, violence, subversion and propaganda against other nations as though it were at war with them. Even while pretending to work for peace, it exerts all of its resources preparing for war.
Nazism is "National Socialism." This system is designed to set up a Socialist military dictatorship in one country at a time. In Germany the word, "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "National Socialism."
Fascism is the form of National Socialism which was set up in Italy under Benito Mussolini. He told the people they could keep their property, but the government would just tell them what to do with it.
Democratic Socialism seeks to achieve its goals by peaceful means. Its purpose is to acquire control of the means of production and distribution with the people's consent. The Democratic Socialists found that they could only achieve this by appealing to individual economic groups. For example, farmers were told they would be bailed out if their crops failed, factory workers were told they would share the profits of the factory, and the businesses are told they would control certain industries so as to limit competition.
Fabian Socialism is closely related to democratic socialism. It is a deliberately deceptive method of getting Socialist control over the people and their property while pretending to be merely helping the unfortunate. Every crisis or emergency is used as an excuse to greatly increase taxes. It constantly emphasizes that people should look to government to solve the problems of the poor, the sick, the unemployed, the elderly, the young, the bankrupt, the under-
educated, the under-privileged, etc. There is also a constant emphasis on the transfer of power from the individual to the local government and then from the local government to the Federal Government. The process of nibbling away at the constitutional structure of freedom and property rights is called gradualism. The name Fabian comes from a Roman general named Fabius who became famous for his ability to win wars by whittling away the forces of his enemies a little at a time. The cynical sense of humor of the Fabian Socialists is demonstrated in their coat-of-arms which is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
It was almost exclusively the tactics of the Democratic and Fabian Socialists which were used to drastically change the political and economic structure of both England and the U.S.
THE FOUNDERS CONSIDERED SOCIALISM A SERIOUS THREAT TO FREEDOM
The Founding Fathers recognized the principles of Socialism as a deadly threat to the inalienable rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.
Samuel Adams, pointed out why they had tried to make the principles of Socialism unconstitutional. He said:
"The Utopian schemes of leveling (re-distribution of the wealth) and a community of goods (central ownership of all the means of production and distribution), are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the crown."
Then he went on to say that these ideas "are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government unconstitutional."
Thomas Jefferson anticipated the day when the government would seek to excuse heavy taxation on the basis that it was necessary to help the poor. Said he:
"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy."
AMERICANS HAVE FALLEN FOR THE DECEPTIVE SLOGANS OF SOCIALISM
When the founder of NCCS, W. Cleon Skousen, was working closely with J. Edgar Hoover in the FBI, he was assigned to study the reports of congressional investigating committees concerning the attempts by socialists, including communists, to infiltrate the government and culture of the United States. He also became personally acquainted with and read many of the writings of former socialists who exposed the inner workings and philosophy of those trying to push America toward socialism of one kind or the other. Because of his in-depth knowledge, he was one of only a few allowed by Mr. Hoover to speak publicly for the FBI on this subject.
These congressional records are available for all Americans to study and to see for themselves the devastating inroads that have been made upon the liberties of our people. The serious student will furthermore see how many well-meaning citizens have become involved in pushing forward the Socialists' programs without realizing it. These citizens have become converted to Socialist objectives because they accepted superficial Socialist slogans . Soon they were thinking precisely the way the Socialists wanted them to think.
Below are 45 goals of the Socialists which Dr. Skousen gleaned from their writings. Because Communism was the type of socialism which was the immediate threat during the time of his compiling this list, he referred to them as Communist goals. But when one form of socialism fails, the socialist merely changes the tactic, which is what they did when the Soviet Union fell. For this reason, we have taken the liberty to change the word Communism to Socialism in some of the items. One will quickly see, however, that no matter what kind of Socialism it is, the goals remain the same and will remain until they either achieve all their goals or are defeated by awakened Americans. One will also quickly realize that nearly all of these goals are well on the way to being totally achieved.
CURRENT SOCIALIST GOALS
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Socialist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet Satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Socialist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the U.S. has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Socialist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Socialist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Socialist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a world-wide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture" of social studies. Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture -- education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Socialist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Socialist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use "united force" to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally Reservation so the U.S. cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
As was said earlier, many of the goals of Socialism have been achieved right under the nose of sleepy and apathetic Americans. But Americans are awakening and realizing these are all failure formulas for traditional American prosperity and peace. NCCS stands ready continue to teach the positive, success formula of the Founders and restore America's greatness.
Sincerely,
Earl Taylor, Jr.

Senator Bob Bennett is OUT!

2010-05-13T10:15:00.000-07:00

All,

There are several important points in this article. Utah has a better political system than other states. The delegate system really does give more power to the will of the people.

This convention will let those in politics see how the grass roots movement growing all over this country has taken over politics in Utah with other states to follow.

The Republican party wanted Bob Bennett back in the US Senate and he is out. The people have decided who will be on the ballot in the general election, not the Republican Party.

Congratulations to all of the Utah State delegates and the voters who elected those delegates. A ray of sunlight in the middle of a Hurricane. We have made a difference. Keep up the fight.

Larry and Stacey

Dear I-caucus Members,

I am writing this to you from the Utah Republican Party convention, and this is a breaking news heads up for our members:

Today, Saturday May 8th, the first incumbent Senator who promoted and voted for the TARP bailouts back in 2008 will be defeated and his re-election campaign will come to an end.

That incumbent Senator, Bob Bennett Utah, was the chief Republican architect of the TARP bailouts.

I-caucus has been working with Utah Tea party and 912 groups for more than a year in a concerted effort to make this
happen. Today, I can certify to you that we collectively got enough
delegates elected statewide to make this
happen.

Now, in a couple more hours, Bennett wont even be able to appear on the ballot in the November general election.

It is happening as we speak and I will email you the final vote results
as soon as they are in. Stay tuned.

Here's why:
----------------
In Utah, incumbents must get at least 40% of the party delegate votes in order to retain any chance at all for the party's nomination and to appear on the ballot.

If the incumbent does not secure at least 40% of the delegate votes they are done...as in stick a fork in them. They would have NO chance to appear on the Republican Primary ballot and NO chance to appear on the general election ballot in November.

That's no chance as in zero, zip, nada, and "none at all."

Plus, by Utah law, the incumbent has no chance of appearing on the ballot as an independent candidate.

Here's how we did it:
------------------------------
Back in January, the Independence Caucus vetted and endorsed 3 candidates, (Mike Lee, Tim Bridgewater, and Cherilyn Eagar) all of whom we deemed as
acceptable replacements for Bob Bennett in
2010.

Because of Utah’s caucus/convention system, we did not need to endorse just one
candidate.

Then, in concert with other local "Tea Party" and "912" groups throughout Utah, we began a campaign in January and
February to encourage Utahns who supported any of those 3 endorsed candidates
to organize their neighbors to attend the Caucus meetings with them and get
elected as delegates.

This campaign succeeded. While there is normally a 40% to 50% turnover in delegates
from one election cycle to another, this year there was more than an 80%
turnover...and that added turnover was a direct result of the campaign to get I-caucus/Tea Party/912 supporters elected as
delegates.

19 months of coordinated work with other grass roots groups here in Utah is now coming to fruition. Delegates are voting now, it should only be a few more hours and Bob Bennett's Senate career will enter its lame duck phase.

Then, we turn our attention to continue helping I-caucus endorsed candidates in the rest of the country.

Again, STAY TUNED! I'll email all of you as soon as Bob Bennett's post TARP bailout senate career is officially over.

Thanks,

Frank Anderson

Visit Independence Caucus at: http://icaucus.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network

Petition

2010-05-13T10:13:00.000-07:00

Please read this carefully and let me know what you think. There are some points that I am not so sure about.

Larry

http://www.usa-godandcountry-petition.com/

Students Kicked Off of Campus for Wearing American Flag T-shirts

2010-05-13T10:00:00.000-07:00

My friends,

You have got to read this. This is not an opinion or something that may or may not be true. This is a factual story from MSNBC, which is not a right wing organization. American high school students in California were wearing shirts adorned with the American flag which is allowed by school policy. They were kicked off campus, threatened with suspension and sent home. Why? Because it was the 5th of May and school officials were certain that the violent nature of the Hispanic students would result in the American boys being attacked and that fights and violence would ensue.

Is the world standing on its head. American boys in America are kicked off campus to avoid the inevitable violence that will be brought upon them by Mexican students who are observing a Mexican holiday. Mexican students would be so insulted by the site of Americans wearing shirts showing the American flag on a campus in the United States of America, that they would be certain to violently attack those Americans. Can this be real. Yes, it is but I am still having trouble accepting this new reality.

How about this? I am going to go to Mexico city and celebrate the forth of July and waive the American flag. I will also expect that any Mexican student who tries to display the Mexican flag during my holiday of Independence will be kicked out of school and threatened with suspension. Do you know what would happen to me? If I was really lucky, one of the most corrupt police departments in the world would come and kick my behind all the way to jail where I would stay for a very long time. If the police did not get there quickly I would of course be beaten to death by the other students and they would do this with the silent approval of the police, the school administrators and the general population. The police investigation would conclude that I had been killed by unknown persons as a result of my own actions.

When are we going to wake up in America? Imagine for a moment that we simply treated illegal aliens and the children of illegal aliens exactly the way Mexico treats illegal aliens. The immigration problem would be over in a month and our nation might be rescued from financial collapse.

Notice how these illegal alien demonstrators taunt Americans and threaten them. That is because they will all support each other and they are emboldened by that support. They stick together, a lesson we had better learn fast.

Consider one of the greatest lies of the of the 20th century which is never questioned only repeated. "Our strength lies in our diversity." Nothing could be further from the truth. Most diverse societies in the world live in war and chaos. Nearly everywhere on earth that we see "diversity" we see this conflict. That is human nature. Diversity in America has led to a great deal more problems than solutions.

These demonstrators keep challenging everyone to fight. Are they so stupid that they do not understand such a fight would be the end of them? Are they so stupid that they do not understand they remain here only so long as we allow them to be here? Do they not understand that if they forced a violent showdown they would cease to exist? Their ignorance must go beyond simply being illiterate.

Perhaps they are betting everything, that no matter how violent they may become, we will do nothing.

In the past 60 years England and the United States have been the example to the world that diverse people do not have to be violent to one another. Yes western Europe has had problems with Muslim riots in recent years. Yes, the US had race riots in (as I recall) 38 cities during the 1960's. Yes our minority communities have crime rates all out of per portion to their numbers. Never the less, the US is in fact the melting pot of the world and treats foreigners far better than most other countries. Does this mean that we have to eat dirt? Does this mean that we must grovel at the feet of people who stole into our country? Does our compassion require that these invaders get everything they demand? I think not, but then I seem to be in the minority.

This incident at a high school is historically minor but it is a view of thing to come. America is cowering to these minorities now, wait until amnesty increases their numbers by 3 or 4 hundred percent as it did in during the amnesty of 1986. The French are about to become a minority in their own country as the Muslim population skyrockets.

If we give these foreign invaders amnesty again, how long will it be until we are also minorities in our own country? How can we allow this to happen to our children and grandchildren? What happened to the spirit of the founding fathers who risked and lost nearly everything? What happened to the spirit of our grandfathers who defeated the Nazis and Imperial Japan in a come from behind victory in only 4 years. We had better find that spirit soon or our children will certainly lose their beautiful America and their freedom as well.

Larry and Stacey Mudgett

Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees
Was it freedom of expression or cultural disrespect on Cinco de Mayo?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36981179/ns/local_news-san_francisco_bay_area_ca/from/ET

'Professor' Calls for Mexican Revolt in America

2010-05-13T09:56:00.001-07:00

All,

While everyone is worrying about jihadists, socialism in government and the economy, we have a much more deadly threat brewing in the United States. I have been hearing this rhetoric from Mexicans for decades now. People I had arrested would lecture me on how we had no right to this stolen land and they were simply re-populating it and taking it back. We called it the "Silent Invasion".

There has always been, in Latino groups like La Raza, a militant, Marxist element. I feel these radicals are growing stronger and will soon present a serious internal threat to the U.S., all this while the administration castigates Tea Party organizers, ignores tens of thousands of illegal aliens violently demonstrating and continues to demonize those of us who "cling to our guns and religion" and call for control of the border.

If after watching this video you are still debating about adequately arming yourself I just do not know what else to say to you. What can you be thinking? You may dismiss these revolutionaries as the Germans dismissed the Nazi party thugs until they took control of the government. You may dismiss them the way the people in Venezuela dismissed Chavez. When you underestimate these revolutionaries you do so at your own peril.

Things are going to get ugly. Maybe sooner rather than later and we hope that you have adequate means to protect your families.

L.A. Teacher Calls for Mexican Revolt in the U.S.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGqPo5ofk0s

Fake SEAL gets one year for stolen valor

2010-05-13T09:52:00.000-07:00

According to results from the 2000 census, 80% of those Americans who claimed to be Viet Nam veterans were lying. In my experience that is about right. About 3 our of every four men I meet who claim to have fought in Viet Nam are unable to provide correct answers to a few basic questions I asked them. I quickly conclude that they are not telling the truth. Of those who did serve, nearly all claim to have served in combat. the truth is only about 5 % of those who served saw any combat in Viet Nam. There were 20 men in the rear areas doing support jobs for every trooper who was in the field.

A recent example. Stacey and I were attending an NRA instructors course to renew our certification several months ago. The instructors proudly introduced one of the other participants in the class as a former Navy Seal. On a break I asked this "Seal" what Bud Class (Basic Underwater Demolitions) he had graduated from. He answered "sorry I do not remember." That would be as if I asked you what high school you graduated from and you said I do not remember! At that point he knew that I knew he was never a Seal. He kept quiet after that making no more references to having been a Seal. By the end of the class the instructors who introduced the student as a former Seal confided in me that they no longer believed such to be true. I observed a fellow LAPD instructor and actual Navy Seal, expose two other LAPD officers who claimed to be seals and were not.

When people start talking in cliches I get suspicious. "Yea, I was there but I can not talk about what I did, top secret." I do not like to talk about it, bad memories you know." "I flew F-4 jets." What aircraft did you fly in primary training--*I do not remember." "I was a sniper." Which sniper rifle were you issued--"You know one of them sniping rifles." On and on and on it goes. There was a famous Marine Corps battle in Viet Nam where only two men survived. I have personally met over 50 people who claimed to have been one of those two men.

I have a commercial pilots lic with instrument and multi engine ratings. I took an LAPD officer friend of mine up one afternoon for a local flight. He claimed to have been a fighter pilot in Viet Nam. I offered him the controls. He refused. I insisted. He started to tremble. He was terrified and would not touch the controls. I later asked him some basic questions about aircraft and flying and he could not answer any of them. To this day his friends, wife and grown son believe that he was a Naval Aviator and flew jet fighters (Phantoms) in combat.

The real shame of all of this is the shadow it casts on our real warriors. Our veterans who died, who were wounded and gave precious years of their lives for us. Most people are not combat vets and do not know the right questions to ask those who claim such status. Most people are inclined to give others the benefit of the doubt. How is one to know the truth when statistically 80 % are lying and another 15 % are exaggerating.

I am glad this fake Seal is going to jail for a year. Perhaps others will give a second thought to taking credit for the deeds and sacrifices of our real warriors. I doubt that such lying about ones service was as common 60 years ago. I suspect that this is in part a result of having a more and more secular society.

Lawrence Mudgett

Not only a fake but a crybaby. They should have stood him up in front of a firing squad of SEALs.

Fake SEAL Gets One Year for Stolen Valor

April 09, 2010

Richmond Times - Dispatch

A man who falsely claimed a chestful of military medals was sentenced to a year in prison and was ordered to repay $11,098 in veterans benefits he shouldn't have received.
Thomas Barnhart, 59, had 21 years of legitimate Navy and Coast Guard service, including offshore duty in Vietnam. But starting in 1979, he began inflating his experience in claims for promotions and benefits, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jake Jacobsen told U.S. District Judge James Turk today in Roanoke.
Among Barnhart's lies, according to the prosecutor: he was a Navy Seal, he received elite low-altitude parachute training, he received five Purple Hearts, three Bronze Stars, two Silver Stars and a Vietnamese medal of honor. He also falsely claimed that a downed U.S. helicopter pilot died in his arms and that he saw other U.S. soldiers die around him.
Jacobsen, a veteran of the current Iraq war, called Barnhart's conduct "repugnant."
Barnhart wept in court and said he lied because neither the Navy nor the U.S. public appreciated his real service.
"I just can't punish myself enough," he sobbed. "Every day I ask forgiveness."

Entrepreneur Dies at 25

2010-05-13T09:35:00.000-07:00

Entrepreneur dies at 25
Tragedy strikes again.
Another heartbreak for New Orleans!

It seems like every couple of days New Orleans loses one
Of its treasured entrepreneurs.
These people are the hope for the city and we must call

Entrepreneur?????
It took me a couple of minutes to get it, but imagine,
He's 25 and has 3 sons and 6 daughters
NINE welfare recipients collecting $1500 each.....
That equals $13,500 a month !!! Now add food stamps,
Free medical, free school lunches, on and on and on.
Now that, to me, is a real Entrepreneur.
Do the math, that's over $156,000.00 a year.
Anybody out there sittin' on their a-- while reading
this message making that kind of money?
And people wonder what is wrong with country.

Welcome to the real world. Remember that the government does have an income. The government can not give anything to anyone that they did not first take from someone else UNDER THE THREAT OF PRISON. That 156,000 dollars a year was paid by YOU! How does that feel? Imagine if instead of sending that money to the government to give to that slime ball, the government decided to skip being the middle man and had you simply write a check Larmondo Flair Allen. You would probably refuse. Why is it OK if the government sends your money to Larmondo for you? We are slaves to a nation of recipients and just do not understand the facts. Have a nice day!

Larry and Stacey

Death of the Second Amendment

2010-04-30T08:04:00.001-07:00

Click to watch Video Here

If you have not seen this before you must watch it to see how BHO is going to use foreign treaties as a way of nullifying the second amendment and even providing himself with a way to say that he really did not want to do it. One world order.

I believe and expect that when the UN or BHO or whoever call for gun confiscation it will again be the shot heard around the world. When the British Marched on Concord and Lexington to confiscate the colonists guns and powder, the first shots of the American Revolution were fired. I will say it again. If you hear that the government has taken my guns, you will know that I am dead.

The right to defend oneself is a God given right. With out the means of self defense the right has no meaning. In virtually every country where the guns were seized the right of self defense no longer exists. In England if you defend yourself against a criminal you will be arrested and treated exactly the same as the criminal. You have no right to defend your family from a criminal attack and once the government takes our guns, our God given right to self defense will soon be legislated away.

Once disarmed there will be no end to the power grab by the government. Once disarmed we will be at the mercy of an ever growing army of street thugs, gangsters and criminals who have no mercy. The definition of a free man is one who is not disbarred from owning and using weapons. There are very few free people left in this world and we may soon join them in assuming the status of a surf and eternal victim..

Obama Born In Kenya?

2010-04-30T07:59:00.000-07:00

The evidence keeps coming in. The questions keep getting louder. The fact that members of the parliament in Kenya referred to BHO being born in Kenya in 2008 and again on 3-10-10 seems to get no reaction from the American press. The fact that BHO attended college on foreign student grants is documented. His school registration claiming his citizenship as Indonesian is available. His travel to Muslim countries which could not be visited on an American passport at the time encourages no investigation from the American press. This case has appeared in court several times and instead of his attorneys simply producing a complete authenticated complete birth certificate they continue to fight the issue on technicalities. If he is an American all he need do is have his attorneys present a legitimate birth certificate. Why will they not do so and put an end to all of this?

I do not know where he was born. I do not claim to have any special information. I am not a "birther". I simply ask two questions. The main stream press acquired secret tapes of Tiger Woods talking on the phone to his many lovers with in days of the car crash. They knew that his wife broke out the windows of his SUV and which golf club she used to do it. They had the name of every mistress and the details of every affair. Yet they have not been able to learn ANYTHING about the history, background or even citizenship of the man occupying the office of the President of the United States. Why is that?

If the question of BHOs citizenship is nonsense why will he not simply produce the documents and put an end to the controversy. It is said that he has spent about a million dollars to pay attorneys to avoid having to produce the documents. His original authentic birth certificate and the passport he used to travel to the middle East when he was about 20 years old, would be nice for starters. If he is an American why does he not simply prove it and we can all move on. I am beginning to suspect that he does not because he can not. Where is the American press in all of this. Even most of the conservative talk show hosts will not touch this with a ten foot pole. Why? I must assume that they are more afraid of being called racist than they are afraid that their country is being run by an illegitimate president.

The fact that his college records and grades, his theses, and so many things about his life have been sealed and hidden from the American people only add to the suspicion. The fact is, the American people know very little about the man sitting in the oval office with 500 strategic nuclear ICBMs at his finger tips. More and more average Americans are starting to ask who is this man, what is his history and why are his policies so radical. Perhaps part of the answer has to do with his true loyalties which do not seem to be with the American people.

I would much prefer that BHO would prove his citizenship to the satisfaction of the American people than have so many Americans continue to wonder if their president is even a citizen. I would prefer that those who doubt his legitimacy would be proven wrong than continue to have this shadow hanging over our country. If on the other hand, it were proven that BHO is not an American the nation would have to deal with the situation as she has dealt with so many problems in history. By law congress would be required to impeach him. If they refused BHO would at the very least lose all of his political capital and become a lame duck. As BHO is so fond of saying. "elections have consequences." In this case America would have to make the best of the situation and go forward as they always have. However, not knowing for certain one way or the other is going to be more and more harmful to our nation and our military as time goes on.

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

(Apr. 11, 2010) — A member of the Kenyan Parliament has stated in a meeting of that body on March 25, 2010 that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. The statement, which discussed the concept of “devolution,” or ethnic inclusion, reads: “If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America?” A screenshot of page 31 of the Minutes where the statement appears is below. The Post & Email recently reported the statements of numerous news sources, one of which was NPR, which reported Obama’s birthplace as Kenya, not Hawaii. The Kenyan ambassador to the United States also affirmed that Kenya is Obama’s birthplace, stating that it was “well-known.” Obama’s wife Michelle identified Kenya as her husband’s “home country” while addressing a group of gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexuals during the presidential campaign of 2008. The Kenyan Parliament had previously referred to Obama as a “son of the soil” of Kenya on November 5, 2008, in a meeting convened the day after the 2008 U.S. presidential election (p. 3275, right column). With numerous sources reporting that Obama was born in a foreign country to a foreign father and only one person in the entire world stating that Obama was born in Hawaii, with no corroborating evidence offered in violation of Hawaii law, where is the U.S. military? What are they doing taking the orders of an apparently illegitimate Commander-in-Chief? Is there only a handful of men and women with enough patriotism to stand up and demand that the putative president prove himself? At this point, the entire burden has been borne by Major Stefan Cook, Lt. Col. Easterling, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, and their respective attorneys. These active members of the military have taken a stand by refusing to take the orders of someone who appears to be usurping the office of the Presidency. But where is the rest of the military? What is Admiral Mullen doing, and how is he upholding his oath to the Constitution? Where are the members of what used to be the finest fighting force in the world? Why will they not come forward and demand Obama’s documentation? Do they really think that “we the people” are going to sit by and watch as our Constitution has been violated in the most egregious fashion by the biggest political heist in U.S. history? Do the Joint Chiefs sit in their offices in comfortable chairs, collecting handsome paychecks and benefits, while the rest of us are made to suffer under a usurper, a tyrant, and a foreigner? Do they not care that they and their subordinates are taking the orders of an imposter, a foreigner, exactly the thing that Alexander Hamilton warned us against? This has gone beyond political. It has gone beyond “He said he was born in Hawaii.” It has gone beyond, “I didn’t know.” The evidence that Obama is a foreigner without any claim to the presidency is overwhelming. Now it’s time to make the top brass do its job. For if they have become just like the politicians and will not take action to remove a usurper, they will also need to be replaced.

The phone number for the Department of Defense is 703-571-3343. Their mailing address is 1400 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1400.

The Prophetic Significance of the White House Agression Against Israel

2010-04-30T07:56:00.000-07:00

l wonder how the 78 % of American Jews who voted for BHO feel about all of this. What the hell are people thinking? Will they never learn that Hitler was a Socialist and on the same page as Carl Marx. Hitler was on the left not on the right as the progressives have been telling us for 60 years. Hitler was a left wing extremist now believed by American Jews to have been a right wing extremist. I suspect that this is the reason American Jews feel that they have more to fear from the right but it is not true. Stalin on the far left killed at least 7 million in the Ukraine by seizing their crops and leaving them to die. Is Stalin on the right or on the left? Mao killed 70 million of his people, was he on the right or on the left. Pol Pot killed a couple of million of his people, was he on the right or on the left? 100 million people killed by their own governments during the 20th century. Nearly all of these slaughters were committed by left wing governments including Hitler.

The bumper sticker slogan that I have heard from so many Jews, "We have always had more to fear from the right than from the left," shows am amazing lack of knowledge regarding history. All people including Jews have always had more to fear from left wing governments which have murdered millions of civilians around the world. I think that this lack of understanding is why the Jews in this country support the left. How much more will BHO have to do to undermine the security of Israel before the Jews in this country figure all of this out. American Jews are by and large an educated group, there must be reasons for this loyalty to the left and this is all that I can come up with.

Friday, April 9, 2010

The Prophetic Significance of The White House Aggression Against Israel

Reuters reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pulled out of a planned trip to Washington next week for a 47-country nuclear security summit hosted by the White House. The report says that Netanyahu learned that Turkey and Egypt planned to raise the question of Israel's nuclear arsenal and try to force it to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Israel has never confirmed nor denied possession of nuclear weapons as part of its security protocol. Netanyahu was planning on attending the conference because the White House had reassured him there would be no discussion on Israel's undeclared nuclear arms, but rather an opportunity to lobby support for sanctions against Iran.

Jerusalem news outlet NRG says that the White House has adopted a new policy of denying visas to Israeli Nuclear Research Center scientists who routinely came to America for continuing education on nuclear technology. In addition, One scientist told NRG, "I do not understand why all the top security is silent when our great friend is working against us in such a blatant manner." But the policy extends beyond visas. Nuclear Engineering Professor Zeev Alfasi stated that "the United States doesn't sell anything nuclear-related to the Dimona reactor, and that means absolutely nothing. Radiation detectors, for example, have to be purchased now in France because the USA refuses to sell these to Israel."

In a January 27 report, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs stated that massive US weapons sales to Arab rivals in the Middle East have eroded Israel's military superiority over its neighbors. The report said over the last year, the United States refused to approve any major Israeli weapons requests. At the same time, the White House has approved more than $10 billion worth of arms sales to Arab League states, including Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Israeli Government sources asserted that the refusal represented a White House policy to link most arms sales to Israel to progress in the US plan to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank.

Fact is, there is an Arab who occupies the Oval Office. He was brought up in the Muslim faith tradition, his grandfather, father, and step father all Muslims. In an interview with New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof in March 2007, he "recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent...[He] described the call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset." Is it no wonder this man is coming against Israel? In Zechariah 12:9, the Lord, speaking of the latter days, says, "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem." Prepare yourselves for the days ahead.

Have a Blessed and Powerful Day!

Bill Wilson
Word of Life Ministry
www.dailyjot.com

New Orleans Revisited

2010-04-30T07:52:00.000-07:00

Click here to see video

I recently learned a great more detail about Francis Scott Key and the writing of the National Anthem. There was so much I never knew and I was moved to tears to learn the details. The entire story would take pages to describe. I will only mention that hundreds of British ships, virtually the entire British Navy fired 2,000 cannon balls weighing nearly 200 pounds each at Ft. Mc Henry occupied by Americans soldiers and civilians. The British told the Americans that when our flag was pulled down they would know that the Americans were beaten and the bombardment would stop. After hours of shelling, the stubborn Americans would not lower the flag. The British in desperation ordered their gunners to aim for the flag. As the flag was shredded and the flag pole damaged the Americans ran up a second flag. When the damaged pole would no longer stand Americans volunteered for certain death to hold the flag pole up. When the battle ended and the British withdrew, the flag pole stood at an odd angle. You see the only thing that was holding the flag and pole were the bodies of dead Americans who sacrificed their live to keep our flag from falling.

Perhaps this will add more meaning the next time you hear the National Anthem played or sung. The words have even more meaning for me now. When I think of more than 1 million Americans who have given their lives for this country and our Constitution to which each had sworn an oath to protect I must accept my responsibility to do no less. I have taken the oath to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic and have risked my life in uniform many times. I have never fought for any thing more important than the battle that lies before us.

Everyone should watch this video so they can be prepared for what is coming. I will say this in as few words as possible. I will not be enslaved and I will not be disarmed by ANYONE, I repeat ANYONE. I will never start trouble and I will never be an aggressor. I pray to God I will never be forced to defend myself from other Americans but I will not shrink from my duty. Each of us must decide for ourselves what we will do if our remaining liberties are stolen from us. What will you sacrifice to defend your children's freedom. What will you risk to defend the Constitution. When I think about the Americans who died to hold up the flag at Ft. Mc Henry I know what I must do. I will work as hard as I can to help return our nation to Constitutional law and individual liberty through the political system. If the effort, in which millions of Americans have recently dedicated themselves should fail, I will be prepared to defend the Constitution, my community and my self by other means. Recall Katrina and be prepared, and remember that what happened in New Orleans occurred when Bush was the President, not the would be Fascist who now occupies the office.

Army Preps for Tea Party Terrorists

2010-04-30T07:42:00.000-07:00

This article sites specific military orders for US Army troops to conduct training scenarios including the use of deadly force against Tea Party protesters and other "extremist groups." Some Military Officers who are true patriots and believe in their oath to the Constitution blew the whistle on this madness. The administration is testing the waters to see what the Army Command Staff will go along with. This is also a way of conditioning troops to the idea of using force against the American people.

As a combat solider allow me to explain how this works. The US Army can not take 18-20 year old young men and tell them to go out and kill people, most of them simply will not do it. I am not talking about killing Americans, I am talking about killing foreign enemies. Studies have shown that 80 or 90 percent of front line troops in combat would not fire their weapons during the early battles in WWII. God fearing Americans have an aversion to killing other folks. The Army then changed the way they indoctrinated and trained their troops. During the later part of WWII the reluctance to kill was largely overcome. In Korea the percentage of American troops who were willing to shoot the enemy was higher and in Viet Nam it was higher still.

The change in the training was simply this. Dehumanize the enemy. Teach your troops that the enemy soldiers they are fighting are not really human beings. For example, our troops were not taught to kill Japanese people, they were taught to kill "Japs, Nips and Monkeys." They did not kill German people, they killed "Nazis, Krauts and the Hun." In Korea the enemy were "gooks". In Viet Nam it was VC, NVA, Charlie, Victor Charlie. Islamic terrorists are of course "rag heads." I will never forget the billboards posted all over Ft. Polk LA where I attended advanced infantry training prior to going to Viet Nam. There were posters of American soldiers thrusting bayonets into Viet Cong guerillas with captions like, "Bong the Cong." Every where one turned there would be something to desensitize recruits to the idea of killing "the enemy." Police Officers do the same thing. Police Officers do not kill people, they kill "Perps, scum bags, gangsters" and so on. With out this dehumanizing process many troops would be be incapable of using deadly force.

Now we have the major news media, the President of the United States and prominent members of the Democratic Party telling the American people and the US Army that the Tea Party is a dangerous, extremists organization. They label Tea Party members not as Patriotic Americans, but as "Tea Baggers, racists, radicals and terrorists". The dehumanizing of the Tea Party members and other Americans who disagree with this administrations policies has begun. Watch as this dehumanizing process, which will make the use of force by the US Army against American citizens seem acceptable, grows each day.

Alexander's Essay – April 29, 2010

Army Preps for Tea Party 'Terrorists'

"The duty imposed upon [the president] to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will 'preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.' The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose; and without it, be the form of government whatever it may, it will be utterly worthless for offence, or defence; for the redress of grievances, or the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people." --Justice Joseph Story

A few months back, the commander in chief or our Armed Forces, that erstwhile community organizer Barack Hussein Obama, denigrated a large cross section of Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement -- those who advocate for Essential Liberty and Rule of Law.

Obama identified them as malcontents, "waving their little tea bags."

Since then, the Obama administration and their Leftmedia sycophants have endeavored to characterize Tea Party attendees as rude, radical, racist, redneck, enemies of the state.

In fact, Americans who attend Tea Party rallies are from all walks of life, as noted in the Patriot Declaration, Patriots who are peacefully and constitutionally petitioning their government for redress.

As I noted in my tax-day essay, Tea Parties are "not a call for revolution but for restoration -- a call to undertake whatever measures are dictated by prudence and necessity to restore constitutional Rule of Law."

However, Obama's words do have consequences.

This week, I was contacted by a number of military personnel, enlisted and officer ranks, who expressed concern about a military exercise underway at Ft. Knox, the U.S. Bullion Depository. As with most such exercises, the Ft. Knox alert occurred in stages, as if real time intelligence was being provided at various intervals.

The first intel advisory was issued on Friday, 23 April 2010, and identifies the terrorist threat adversaries as "Local Militia Groups / Anti-Government Protesters / TEA Party."

You read that right: "TEA Party"!

The alert states that plans for the demonstration may have been interrupted by "Federal and local law enforcement" raids on a "White Supremacists Organization," but "TEA Party organizers have stated that they will protest at the Gold Vault at a future date."

Further, the intel advisory states, "Anti-Government - Health Care Protesters have stated that they would join the TEA Party as a sign of solidarity."

In accordance with the exercise, Ft. Knox post security is placed on high alert because, "these groups are armed, have combative training and some are former Military Snipers. Some may have explosives training / experience," and "a rally at their compound / training area is scheduled."

Another intel update was issued on Monday, 26 April 2010, noting that the "rally at the Militia compound occurred," and "Viable threats ... have been made." The intel on the rally notes, "Many members were extremely agitated at what they referred to as Government intervention and over taxation in their lives. Alcohol use 'fanned the flames.' Many military grade firearms were openly carried. An ad hoc 'shoot the government agent' event was held with prizes (alcohol) given for the best shot placement."

The report states further, "Components of bomb making are reported to have been on the site. Some members have criminal records relating to explosive and weapons violations."

In response to the "immediate threat," the exercise stipulates, "local detention centers are being made ready for mass arrests." Both the "QRF I and QRF II" are placed on two hour recall, and the "5-15 CAV" was ordered to "draw weapons from holder and store in most available arms room," and "coordinate with MASA for immediate ammunition draw; have equipment readied for immediate use, i.e. vehicles staged and loaded IAW 5-15 CAV SOP; LMR's charged."

QRF refers to Quick Reaction Force. QRF I is the 16th Cavalry Regiment. QRF II is the 194th Armored Brigade.

The 26 April order gives specific instructions for the 5-15 CAV (a 16th Cavalry battalion) to have weapons, ammo, vehicles and communications at ready, and it places the other 2,200 members of the units on two-hour recall. In other words, these orders are to gear up for defending Ft. Knox against Tea Party folks and their co-conspirators who oppose nationalization of our health care sector.

Now, for almost 30 years I have participated in the development and implementation of small and large scale military exercises within the U.S. and around the world.

Such exercises are critical to the readiness of our forces, and the standard for the real time intel reports in these drills requires thinly veiled references to assets of existing or collateral threat vectors such as communist regimes such as China and real terrorist networks such as al-Qa'ida, etc.

Perhaps the writers of such exercises today should focus on response plans for, say, an Islamic terrorist who attacks a post. (See Ft. Hood / Major Nidal Malik Hasan.)

The Ft. Knox exercise is not only amateurish in its construct, but also sets an ominous political precedent.

The military officers and enlisted personnel with whom I spoke are all dedicated uniformed Patriots who are loyal, first and foremost, to their oath to "support and defend" our Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Their concerns about this exercise mirrored my own. As one put it, the exercise "misrepresents freedom loving Americans as drunken, violent racists -- the opponents of Obama's policies have been made the enemy of the U.S. Army."

They were equally concerned that command staff at Ft. Knox had signed off on this exercise, noting, "it has been issued and owned by field grade officers who lead our battalions and brigades," which is to say many Lieutenant Colonels saw this order before it was implemented.

It's not likely that Ft. Knox Commanding General James Milano or Deputy Commander Col. David Teeples, or even the regimental and brigade commanders for the 16th Cav and 194th AB, actually read the exercise scenario, but that doesn't absolve responsibility for such an egregious example of political exploitation of U.S. forces.

One officer insisted, "The American people should require greater accountability of their commissioned officers, that they abide by their oath and never allow politically motivated propaganda like this exercise on any post or base again."

Another observed, "Whether this is complacency by officers who do not see such orders as a problem, or worse, officers who recognize the problem but do not insist the orders are changed, this is a serious problem. We are discussing the training of American citizen soldiers in the use of potentially deadly force against a specific group of political dissenters. There is never a time in an officer's career in which he does not have a duty to apply critical thought to the orders he is given and asked to give. It is my opinion that any officer that has allowed these orders to persist, to reach the level of junior officers and soldiers, has demonstrated a lack of judgment or apathy towards what his duty requires of him. Either way, we should demand more of the commissioned officers, who we as a nation empower to lead our sons and daughters into battle."

Indeed, and at best, the blatant malfeasance on the part of the individuals who composed this exercise reflects poorly on the uniformed services.

The antidote to this patent misrepresentation of peaceable Patriots is to expose it with the Light of Truth. As our motto Veritas vos Liberabit affirms, the Truth shall set you Free!

(Note: To report examples of politically motivated "exercises" in either the civilian or military sectors of our federal government, please contact us -- NewsTip@PatriotPost.US)

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander

Publisher, PatriotPost.US

Cheap Tomatoes

2010-04-30T07:33:00.000-07:00

This is actually very true. Another study I read said the average illegal alien was making well between 30 and 35 dollars in hour in welfare, housing, food stamps, free medical care, etc. This in addition to what ever he is being paid under the table for wages. So he really does not make 5 dollars an hour, he makes 35-40 dollars an hour. His employer pays 5 and you and I pay the other 35. Read all the way to the end. This is what is coming to Utah if we do not act quickly:

CHEAP TOMATOES?
This should make everyone think, be you Democrat, Republican or Independent.

From a California school teacher - - -

"As you listen to the news about the student protests over illegal immigration, there are some things that you should be aware of:

I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large southern California high school which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students average lower socioeconomic and income levels.

Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell Gardens , Huntington Park , etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title 1 schools.

Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program. When I say free breakfast, I'm not talking a glass of milk and a roll -- but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten.

I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight. About 75% or more DO have cell phones. The school also provides day care centers for the unwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids.

I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing
funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for anything; my budget was already substantial. I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free education in America ...

I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students, here in the country less than 3 months, who raised so much hell with the female teachers, calling them "Putas"(whores) and throwing things, that the teachers were in tears.

Free medical, free education, free food, free day care etc., etc, etc. Is it any wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this country but to demand rights, privileges and entitlements?

To those who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants contribute to our society because they LIKE their gardener and housekeeper and they like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE costs.

Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs, more crime, lower standards of education in our schools, overcrowding, new diseases. For me, I'll pay more for tomatoes.

Americans, We need to wake up.

It does, however, have everything to do with culture: It involves an American third-world culture that does not value education, that accepts children getting pregnant and dropping out of school by 15 and that refuses to assimilate, and an American culture that has become so weak and worried about "political correctness" that we don't have the will to do anything about it.

If this makes your blood boil, as it did mine, forward this to everyone you know.

CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?

Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage.

Consumers don't want expensive produce.

Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs.

But the bottom line is cheap labor. The phrase "cheap labor" is a myth, a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as "cheap labor."

Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200 free.

He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.

He qualifies for food stamps.

He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.

His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.

He requires bilingual teachers and books.

He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.

If they are, or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI. If qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicaid. All of this is at (our) taxpayer's expense.

He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.

Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.

He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.

Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6..00/hour left after paying their bills and his.

Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT!

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING TO THE CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS OF EITHER PARTY. AND WHEN THEY LIE TO US AND DON'T DO AS THEY SAY (or what we ask?), WE SHOULD REPLACE THEM .