Sunday, April 21, 2013

mike vanderboegh in CT 4/20/2013

I can't say it any better than mr. vanderboegh, ( http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com ) so I'll just let him speak. go over there to his blog and say thank you for coming all the way up here to shake his fist in the face of tyranny.



My name is Mike Vanderboegh and I'm a smuggler. I am from the great free state of Alabama and I am a Three Percenter.
If you need to pigeonhole my politics I consider myself a Christian libertarian. I believe in free men, free markets, the rule of law under the Founder's Republic and that the Constitution extends to everyone regardless of race, creed, color or religion.
I most especially believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms as the ultimate guarantor of liberty.
I have also been called a "seditionist" by members of the current regime. If faithfully fulfilling my oath to the Founders' Republic and unrelenting hostility to those who would undermine and overthrow it makes me a "seditionist" then I cheerfully plead guilty.
The Three Percent movement I founded has been denounced by that paragon of moral virtue Bill Clinton and I am a perennial "honorable mention" on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of dangerous folks. I have even been the subject of an eighteen and a half minute rant by Rachel Madcow on MSNBC and the current Attorney General of the United States knows -- and despises -- me by name because of the Fast and Furious scandal that, with my friend David Codrea, I broke the news of on the Internet. Eric Holder would not be surprised to know that the feeling is mutual.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence calls me an "insurrectionist" because I don't believe, as they do, in a government monopoly of violence, but rather in a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as a bulwark against tyranny. Well, as my friend Kurt Hofmann says, "It is better to be despised by the despicable than admired by the admirable" and I suppose my remarks here today will only reinforce my enemies' opinions of me. I think I can bear the burden.
Yesterday was the anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775, but also of the liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto in 1943 and that of the Branch Davidians at Waco fifty years later to the day -- two examples of what happens when governments exercise a monopoly of violence.
It is proper, then, to contemplate the lessons of the date in history -- April 19th -- then, now and in the near future. What I say now I say with reluctance, sadness and not a little bit of dread, but say it I must.
FOR SILENCE IN THE FACE OF TYRANNY IMPLIES CONSENT -- AND I DO NOT CONSENT!
Neither do I believe that you consent, for you would not be here today if you did. But what I say is not easy to say nor easy to hear and many of you will not like it.
"An unconstitutional law is void." So says the standard legal text American Jurisprudence. That is certainly true. The tricky part is how we are to make that point when the local, state and federal executive and legislative branches as well as the courts are in the hands of the domestic enemies of the Constitution. Every one who is currently trying to take away your right to arms starts out by saying "I support the 2nd Amendment." Let me tell you a home truth from Alabama -- Barack Obama supports the 2nd Amendment about as much as Adolf Hitler appreciated Jewish culture, or Joe Stalin believed in individual liberty. Believe what politicians do, not what they say.
So what shall we do about this current spate of tyranny breaking out all over?
The facsimile of a semi-automatic pistol that some of you hold in your hands was smuggled into your state from the South. Manufactured in Georgia, trans-shipped to Alabama, it came across your state line in the trunk of a car. The fact that the authorities of your state have not yet banned "sponge guns" is immaterial. It could as easily been a whole trunk full of real pistols. Indeed, before this year no one thought that other firearms and related items would ever be banned -- but they have been. No one thought that the authorities of your state would pass laws making criminals out of the previously law-abiding -- but they did. If they catch you violating their unconstitutional laws, they will -- when they please -- send armed men to work their will upon you. And people -- innocent of any crime save the one these tyrants created -- will die resisting them.
Yet despite the cost, these unconstitutional laws MUST be resisted. For if not now, when? And if not us, who? This is no longer a "slippery slope" leading to firearm registration and eventual confiscation -- it is a precipice that some states have already plunged over and that the federal government threatens to follow. Arrests are happening NOW. When, if not now, shall we resist? Will we allow ourselves to be shoved back once again, from the free exercise of our God-given, natural and inalienable rights to liberty? -- Shoved back once more, muttering but compliant?
THAT IS HOW WE GOT TO THIS PLACE --- WE NEVER SHOVED BACK WHEN WE COULD DO SO WITHOUT VIOLENCE. Where does it stop? When we are all disarmed slaves?
The Founders knew how to answer such tyranny. When Captain John Parker -- one of the three percent of American colonists who actively took the field against the King during the Revolution -- mustered his Minutemen on Lexington Green, it was in a demonstration of ARMED civil disobedience. He might have retreated at the British approach, but he didn't. He might have ordered his men to lay down their arms, but he didn't. His defiance was silent but plainly stated. A veteran of the French and Indian War, he did not want a war. He knew intimately the horrors of war. BUT HE ALSO KNEW THAT SOME THINGS ARE WORSE THAN WAR. The British could not tolerate his silent defiance -- and someone fired a shot.
But even before the shot heard 'round the world, the colonists understood their weaknesses and their military needs and did something about it. They smuggled. They smuggled Dutch gunpowder and French flints. They smuggled tents and uniform cloth and artillery and ammunition. Boston was the high headquarters of anti-British smuggling and John Hancock was its prime minister. Connecticut was a small empire built on patriotic smuggling. The colonists knew what to do and they did it, regardless of the risk -- regardless of all the King's ministers and the King's soldiery.
They defied the King. They resisted his edicts. They evaded his laws and they smuggled. Lord above, did they smuggle.
Now we find ourselves in a similar situation. The new King Barack and his minions have determined to disarm us. We must determine to resist them.
No one wants a new civil war (except, apparently, the anti-constitional tyrants who passed these laws and the media toadies who cheer them on) but one is staring us in the face. Yes, a civil war is staring us in the face. To think otherwise is to whistle past the graveyard of our own history. We must, if we wish to avoid armed conflict, get this message across to the collectivists who have declared their appetites for our liberty, our property and our lives --
WHEN DEMOCRACY TURNS TO TYRANNY, THE ARMED CITIZEN STILL GETS TO VOTE.
Just like King George, such people will not care, nor modify their behavior, by what you say, no matter how loudly or in what numbers you say it. They will only pay attention to what you DO.
So defy them. Resist their laws. Evade them. Smuggle in what they command you not to have. Only by our ACTS will they be impressed. Then, if they mean to have a civil war, they will at least have been informed of the unintended consequences of their tyrannical actions. Again I say --
Defy. Resist. Evade. Smuggle. If you wish to stay free and to pass down that freedom to your children's children you can do no less than to become the lawbreakers that they have unconstitutionally made of you. Accept that fact. Embrace it. And resolve to be the very best, most successful lawbreakers you can be.
One last thing before I go. On Thursday I smuggled a half-dozen 30 round AR-15 standard capacity magazines into Connecticut in deliberate disobedience of the new state diktat.
So to Martin Looney, Mike Williams, Larry Cafarro and John McKinney I'd like to say this:
I JUST COMMITTED A "D" CLASS FELONY, YOU TYRANNICAL MORONS -- PROVE IT -- WHICH YOU CAN'T -- AND CATCH ME IF YOU CAN.
And I'll tell you something else. When the new ammo restrictions go into effect the first week of July, I'll be back -- with two full crates of 7.62x39 ball ammunition and I will transfer said ammunition into the hands of a Connecticut citizen without the state's permission or paperwork.
And after I break their unconstitutional laws again, I'll be sitting in Frank Pepe's Pizza down in New Haven waiting for Looney and Company to come arrest me --
ANY TIME THEY THINK THEY CAN MAKE IT STICK AND FEEL FROGGY ENOUGH TO TRY.
Thank you.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

intellectual honesty, projection, and the numbers game.

"the government can regulate weapons because it's illegal for you to own nuclear weapons, rocket launchers, howitzers, and attack aircraft!"

people like this probably know the difference between artillery and arms. they're using it to justify their fears. they're afraid. afraid of what they might do with such equipment. and as such, to think of themselves as "normal", they projects that onto others. and since "normal people would go wild and just start destroying things for no reason", well..we all have to suffer for their lack of self control. at least, that's how they rationalizes it.

well, understand this..you're not normal. if that were normal human behavior, we'd be living in the middle of a perpetual war zone. we are one of the most heavily armed nations on the planet. and yet any violent shooting is national news BECAUSE it's so unusual. if you don't trust yourself with guns..don't buy guns. same way if you don't trust yourself with a multi-thousand pound gas-burning projectile with 4 wheels that kills more people than guns do..that would be a CAR,...don't buy one.

right now they're playing a dangerous game. you want to take away guns from people who mean you no harm, and in fact would probably help you if you were in trouble. many of those people have military training. all of those people have shown near-infinite levels of patience with being accused of being the worst sorts of people on the planet.

how long do you think that patience will last? how long can you poke a sleeping wolverine with a stick, before you will need surgical assistance removing it from parts of your anatomy?

run the numbers. if only 3% of gun owners stand up and say no, we outnumber all of local, state, and federal law enforcement AND the entire department of defense. that's an awful small percentage of gun owners. do you think we can come up with just 3% who are more interested in leaving a future to their children and grandchildren that is free of fascist ideas than they are in their own short-term safety and comfort? walk into any VFW or American Legion hall and announce that they're rounding up gun owners, and see how many old men stand up and tell you "not on my watch, they're not".

Monday, April 30, 2012

"You should never hand someone a gun unless you are sure where they will point it"

"Babylon 5" By Any Means Necessary (1994) " You should never hand someone
a gun unless you are sure where they will point it. Your mistake."

WAY to many people, of both sides of the political persuasions, are too eager to
give POWER to the government when their guy is in charge.

they don't seem to understand that POWER is a like handing government a gun..
which then gets passed on to the next office holder. who more than likely is
someone you wouldn't want to have that power.

you never know who the next guy will be. do democrats understand that what Obama
is doing RIGHT NOW (ruling by executive orders and regulations) is NOT something
they'd be happy about if the next guy has an (R) next to his name, and used those
same powers to HIS agenda?

neither side looks to the future. both sides are about "what can I grab for ME right
now?"..instead of thinking "is this a power that government should have?".

 I think Washington was right about political parties. they have ceased to represent the
people and their best interests and now exist simply to perpetuate themselves and gain
more power at the expense of anyone in their way.

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the
course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and
unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for
themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have
lifted them to unjust dominion."

GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

"organized" vs "unorganized" and "what do we do until then?"

organization is not as big of a problem as people realize. individual preparedness is far more important, and unfortunately less common.

does anyone else remember the "starfish vs spider" model? this was how the tea parties confounded the left for so long. we had no leader to attack. no central group to demonize, infiltrate, or scandalize.

organization like this HAPPENS. it happened with the tea parties. it happened with the 912 project. I fully believe that if mr.beck had not started the 912 idea, it would have manifested out of the tea parties organically.

all this takes is one brave soul to stand and say "NO MORE" . the rest will happen, so long as the individuals have prepared. it happened at concord bridge. it happened at the Battle of Athens,TN in 1946

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw

someone will lead. we will not pick this person. fate will pick them. odds are they won't want the title...which is good, because this process is the same way that dictators arise. any man who would willingly seek out that sort of power over other men is someone to be watched closely..more closely that you'd watch a thief. a thief steals THINGS. a leader like that steals EVERYTHING.

now, on to "what to do while we wait"

don't have a gun yet? time to get one. you don't need a fancy uber-"assault"-rifle with all the bells and whistles.a WW1 bolt-action rifle will do just fine. as will a winchester .30-30 or any other hunting rifle. and then practice practice practice.

the hard part will not be rifles. we have plenty of those to go around (at least, many of us do) it will be AMMO. figure out what arms will be available to you and get AMMO for them. 200 rounds minimum, more as you can afford it. common calibers are preferable if you don't know what will be available. .30-06, .308/7.62 NATO, .223/5.56 NATO, .45 ACP, 9mm, 12GA. choking the ammo supply will be how they beat us into submission. they can't directly cut off food, power, internet, gas, water, ect because that means more recruits for us. but they CAN cut off our ammo without waking the mass of couch potatoes out of their slumber.

I'm sure people are thinking "what good can my little rifle do against a tank? or a bomber?"

http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2008/07/vanderboegh-handgun-against-army-ten.html

(I will pull out one important quote. from of all places, "a bug's life"..which was loosely based on "the magnificent seven"..which in turn was loosely based on "the seven samurai")

Hopper: You let one ant stand up to us,then they all might stand up! Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one and if they ever figure that out there goes our way of life! It's not about food, it's about keeping those ants in line. That's why we're going back! Does anybody else wanna stay?

remember that this isn't all about riflecraft. some elements of the french resistance were preparing YEARS before the german invasion, storing the needed equipment and conducting training, and they were successful partly because they had all of that to draw on when the time came. these elements had outside help and funding..which we will never get..so we must prepare even more. learn first aid (or more, if you can), get out and exercise in the wild. practice walking up on people in ordinary situations without them noticing your approach. get and learn how to use a radio, even if it's just an old CB. think of what will be needed when this whole mess solidifies into something more tangible.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

progressivism, scorpions, and crossing the rubicon

like all scorpions, progressives cannot divorce themselves from their stings. they simply tell you, as we all drown, that it's "in their nature" and how "this is for the good of everyone".

the rank-and-file WANT to be touchy-feel-good about themselves types... but they're being led by people that don't have a problem with exterminating large parts of the population to obtain their goals.

we've seen this before. every time progressivisim has been tried it has ended in the mass extermination of the opposition.

so, progressives...how many of us are you prepared to kill for your socialist utopia?

we won't quietly go to "re-education camps" that turn into death camps. there will be a lot of loud sounds and blood. mostly yours.

which brings to mind a better question... how many of you progressives are personally prepared to die for your socialist utopia?

high time to re-think where your leaders plan to place that stinger. if you try to take us down, we will make damn sure you go down too.

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Washington knew..BE PREPARED TO FIGHT OR BE SLAVES!

"unhappy it is, though, to reflect that a brother's sword has been sheathed in a brother's breast and that the once-happy and peaceful plains of America are either to be drenched with blood or inhabited by a race of slaves. sad alternative! but can a virtuous man hesitate in his choice?"

George Washington, upon hearing of the battle of lexington and concord 1775

Friday, January 28, 2011

open letter to glenn beck

(sent to glenn yesterday. my guess is that it will be ignored. but it is important and I thought I should share it.)

mcveigh was definitely NOT a constitutionalist. no matter what he said he was. have your researchers look into the links between him and Elohim City Oklahoma..a "christian identity"/nazi settlement. he spent a few weeks there before heading to oklahoma city.

the only "constitutional" group he attended he was thrown out. bodily. like, 5 guys grabbed him and he caught some air as he went out the door. he wanted to blow stuff up and no one wanted anything to do with him..they knew he was a "fruit or a plant" (a crazy person, or a spy sent by or employed by the FBI or ATF) and no group worth a damn wants either.

the "huttaree milita" you have been talking about does not fit the definition of "militia" as anyone else knows it. they were a private religious-based paramilitary group. you had to have a certain set of religious beliefs to belong. the militia is not a religious organization beyond the religions of the communities they represent. the militia, in it's truest form IS the community itself. any group calling itself a "militia" that is not part of the community is misnamed.

this sort of misnaming happens because the word "militia" has been sensationalized. suddenly everyone who wants to sound more "bad" adds the word "militia" to the name of their group. it's sort of like the words "liberation front" from the '60's.

militias are not anti-police...we treat them like every other government official. when they are within the boundaries set by the constitution, we have no problem. when they step outside those boundaries, we have a problem. again, the same as any other government official. and this is not a problem we solve with force unless force is brought to us first. we reserve the God-given right, enumerated under the 1st amendment, to call a jack-booted thug a jack-booted thug. we understand that police are more likely to be our allies than enemies, and they are human and make mistakes or get bad training/advice. we would like to see them get the opportunity to correct those mistakes, but they don't get to wipe thier boots on the constitution or bill of rights just because they are somehow a special class of citizen.

oh and glenn...you should define the moment that George Washington decided to use violence against what was then the recognized government of the american colonies. was he anti-government? a terrorist? if we had LOST the revolution you can be sure he would have been defined as both.

there IS a point where you have been backed against a wall. where all your other options have been removed. where nonviolence brings one of two things..slavery or death.

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. " Sir Winston Churchill.

I will not live as a slave. I will not fire the first shot. I will not start a fight. but when a fight is brought to me, I will follow god's law.

Habah l'hargecha hashkem l'hargo -- "If someone is coming to kill you, rise against him and kill him first. However, it should never be done with glee." the Talmud

Allen Tanner
III%