“We have a weapon more powerful… than any in the whole arsenal of the British Empire! That weapon… is our refusal!” 

– Michael Collins

The police in America have proven once again that they are above the law and have a license to kill as the charred remains of Christopher Dorner were cooling in the cabin in California.  The more thuggish aspects of the constabulary were on the mainstream news despite the twisted and sycophantic relationship of the press in lionizing tyranny everyday in the hero worship of the thin political black and blue line.

The readers who have read my essays over the years are aware of the case I have made for why cops are the primary danger to all individual freedom and liberty in any tax jurisdiction on Earth. No political bad actor in any account of human history could deprive anyone of liberty or enforce tyranny absent a police force.   The vicious and nonsensical drug war has so retarded human progress with the caging and maiming and killing of hundreds of thousands of Americans and permeated the entire American society with laws piled on laws to do everything from making every financial transaction transparent to the rulers for “money laundering” to the creation of a legal system whose only sense of justice is in name only, I am surprised America even continues to chug along..

Two important questions have surfaced after the Dorner tragedy; first, have the police in California stepped over a Rubicon with the summary execution of Dorner in broad daylight?

The increasing militarization of police and the literal criminalization of everything has seen the rise of the fabled and dreaded Orwellian state where no one is safe and if one pays close attention to what just happened in the mountains of California, you discover that all judicial processes and civil rights niceties were overlooked and the police immediately murdered Dorner by burning him alive.  They were even so brazen as to casually issue the orders to fire the cabin most likely under the guise of officer safety, the curious mantra that gives the police their license to kill and get away with it.  The officer safety conceit releases them from all responsibility that saddles the averages citizen in self-defense thus the hundreds of thousands of videos on the internet and written and oral testimonials of victims of this officer safety madness.  Will Grigg, the most able chronicler of police misbehavior in America, has already made the rock solid case of just how risk-free and safe is the occupation of the praetorians in America.

Dorner was hunted in the fashion he was because he was not one of the 98 percent of bad cops that give the two percent a bad name.  The media is between a rock and a hard place because if Dorner were a “right-wing” man who did not belong to an Federally accredited victim group whose opinions of gun possession were quite the opposite of his manifesto, he would be the poster child of why the police are not only right but should immediately move to phase two of seizure and confiscation of all cosmetically offensive weapons in individual citizen’s hands who are not wearing a statist costume of one stripe or another. But Dorner is Diane Feinstein in male drag with the usual government supremecist superstitions that so pollute the minds of our rulers and their sycophantic media.  The notable exception is that the Senator would not deign to handle weapons herself (except the pistol she has a permit for) and leaves those to her peons in her security detail.


    The Los Angeles Police Department is in the grips of a challenging moment as it seeks to eliminate, read kill, one of its own gone rogue, Chris Dorner.  The curious thing concerning this incident is the one undeniable fact, mainstream media has no choice but to cover an event they would prefer to fade to black.  The cops and media are both caught in a conundrum.  It is not the fact this guy is on a rampage of murder and mayhem, but he is not a right-wing bitter clinger.  How do the cops, cop apologists and main stream media spin this left-wing racist, socialist government supporter, anti-gun cop killer into someone they can use to confiscate lawful citizens weapons?

The first question is what set this loon off on his killing spree.  He posted his manifesto on Facebook for all to see and analyze.  https://wap.myfoxla.com/w/main/story/84473837/  I find it intriguing he posted this on my birthday.  A small present perhaps to me showing what one dedicated man can do to established authoritarian rule if willing to sacrifice his life?  I issue my thanks for letting me see the results though I do not agree to his tactics.  Killing innocents is not the approach of a libertarian such as me, but I digress.  Mr. Dorner states in his manifesto, “

In 8/07 I reported an officer (Ofcr. Teresa Evans/now a Sergeant), for kicking a suspect (excessive force) during a Use of Force while I was assigned as a patrol officer at LAPD’s Harbor Division. While cuffing the suspect, (Christopher Gettler), Evans kicked the suspect twice in the chest and once in the face. The kick to the face left a visible injury on the left cheek below the eye. Unfortunately after reporting it to supervisors and investigated by PSB (internal affairs investigator Det. Villanueva/Gallegos), nothing was done. I had broken their supposed “Blue Line”. Unfortunately, It’s not JUST US, it’s JUSTICE!!! In fact, 10 months later on 6/25/08, after already successfully completing probation, acquiring a basic Post Certificate, and Intermediate Post Certificate, I was relieved of duty by the LAPD while assigned to patrol at Southwest division. It is clear as day that the department retaliated toward me for reporting Evans for kicking Mr. Christopher Gettler. The department stated that I had lied and made up the report that Evans had kicked the suspect.

This tidbit of information is a common thread in the law enforcement community.  One does not cross the thin blue line and identify the criminal element inside the force.  Once in the force the only illegal activity taking place and subject to justice is OUTSIDE of the force.  The die was set for Mr. Dorner and he crossed the line in the view of his fellow “law” officers.  He was an aberration in the force.  How dare him!  Of course LAPD now has to reopen the investigation into Mr. Dorner’s firing. As reported on FOXNEWS.com,  On Saturday, Chief Beck said officials would re-examine the allegations by Dorner that his law enforcement career was undone by racist colleagues. While he promised to hear out Dorner if he surrenders, Beck stressed that he was ordering a review of his 2007 case because he takes the allegation of racism in his department seriously.  The key takeaway to watch for here is an identified scapegoat.  Yes, he was fired unjustly and we found the offending culprit who will be rightly excoriated publicly.  This is if the offending person is not conveniently retired and beyond the LAPD’s purview.

The LAPD is now crapping enough bricks to build a new pyramid.  It could be the 8th wonder of the world, a dung tower built and dedicated to the fear of individuals generally only accustomed to dishing it out on the population.  It is an example of turning the tables on a group who operate without fear of retaliation for their brutality.  Yes, there are limited cases where a cop is brought to face the music but generally this only takes place if the citizenry provides irrefutable video evidence of their actions.   As stated by a friend of mine, the 98% of bad cops making the 2% of good cops look bad.  The point he makes if there really is only a small percentage of “bad” cops abusing their power all cops are indicted because of their refusal to expose fellow cops, not crossing the thin blue line making them all guilty participants.  Peruse the available pictures and stories available on the Internet and gauge the reaction of the police.  Fear has driven these gun happy cops over the deep end in the pursuit to terminate Mr. Dorner.

Other than expending an immense amount of taxpayer money to track this killer down the people of the state of Kalifornia are faced with two more facts.  First, they are subject to being gunned down by overzealous jackbooted public protectors.  Dorner manhunt: 7 cops mistakenly fired on newspaper carriers – latimes.com  The LA Times story tells us, “At least seven officers opened fire on a mother and daughter team delivering newspapers, mistaking their blue Toyota Tacoma for the grey pickup being driven by a disgruntled ex-cop suspected of killing three people in a violent revenge campaign, law enforcement sources said”.  It seems delivering papers in LA when the police are in a frenzy does carry with it some risk, especially if you are in a pick-up truck.  The fact these two women, one 47 yrs old and the other 71, posed a clear and present danger to these seven highly trained law enforcement personnel.  Second, the Kalifornia taxpayer can fully expect to pay a high financial recompense to these unfortunate women.  Glen T. Jonas, the attorney representing the women, said the police officers gave “no commands, no instructions and no opportunity to surrender” before opening fire. He described a terrifying encounter in which the pair were in the early part of their delivery route through several South Bay communities. Hernandez was in the back seat handing papers to her daughter, who was driving. Carranza would briefly slow the truck to throw papers on driveways and front walks.  This is a must read article since it truly highlights the actions of out of control police with those dreaded assault rifles.  This story reminds me of the Tucson SWAT murder of former Marine Jose Guerena on May 5, 2011.  They also defended their actions vehemently after letting him bleed out as his wife begged the onsite command to allow EMT to treat him.  The cops in LA opened fire, allegedly without warning, at these two Hispanic women without verifying their targets.  Law enforcement sources told The Times that at least seven officers opened fire. On Friday, the area was pockmarked with bullet holes in cars, trees, garage doors and roofs.  Gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling knowing how accurately these cops are when called to lay down fire.  Most reports indicate they fired over 47 rounds but only managed to hit the little ladies twice.  Gives me hope.  Not surprising though is the LAPD Police Chief’s statement concerning this shooting.  “After the investigation is completed, Beck and an oversight board will decide if officers were justified in the shooting or made mistakes that warrant either punishment or training”.  I find it amazing any rational person can believe these uniformed clowns are justified in the ambush of these women.

Kalifornia, prepare to pay as these idiots walk scot free.  Not surprising, the LAPD is attempting to buy these women off with trinkets.  LAPD Cmdr. Andrew Smith says the department’s Chief Charlie Beck met with the women in their Torrance home Saturday to apologize and tell them he had arranged for someone to donate a new pickup truck.  They continue in the police statement to classify the shooting as an accidental shooting.  This is absurd at face value.  Did the rounds accidentally fire themselves?  Almost 50 accidental discharges and only two accidental hits on target for these highly trained professionals.  Only in the land of cop reality could this possibly be construed an accidental shooting.  Beyond the realm of rational thought.  Maybe it is time for Kalifornians to question whether the uniformed thugs should have their cosmetically offensive assault rifles with large capacity magazines taken from them.  It is apparent from this behavior the results would be a safer community.  Misidentified, cars, trees, and surrounding neighborhoods would be a safer place, at least we know two Hispanic women who might agree.  I can only think of a few reasons the LAPD would offer this vehicle and the women would accept.  The legal counsel for the women is incompetent, the legal counsel feels threatened, or the LAPD will attempt to add language to the acceptance document absolving them of all future claims from the women.  Buyer beware.

There are a few takeaways from this event.  First, one determined shooter has scared the living daylights out of the authorities in southern Kalifornia and paralyzed normal operations.  The authorities will not even release the number of “law” enforcement agents roaming the streets, highways, and now mountains searching for Mr. Dorner.  He has them in such a quandary they are no longer allowed to patrol without being in teams.  Second, he has been able to effectively elude them because he understands their tactics and Standard Operating Procedures.  Third, everyone is in danger while this guy is on the loose.  Not from him since he identified his enemies, cops, but from the “law” enforcement agencies.  Fourth and paramount in my mind, one guy did this to the establishment.  Imagine for a minute multiplying this scenario by 100, 1000, 5000, 10000 angered citizens as the government attempts to circumvent our right to bear arms.  I do not mention 2nd Amendment Rights in this since it is irrelevant.  Bearing arms is our birthright, endowed on us by our creator.  Our right to protect family and property usurp any manmade document endorsing the ability to protect life, family and property.  Actions on a scale this large would cripple the government.  They could not field a force large enough to address the resolve of this many angry citizens without violating the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

The question begs to be answered in light of this event.  Will the government gun grabbing zealots recognize the danger they face?  Will they be able to comprehend the simmering anger floating just below the surface in the country?  Will they extrapolate the numerical advantage this angry population poses to an out of control tyranny?  Based on Kalifornia’s latest proposed 10 page gun grabbing idiocy I doubt they understand.  Are California Democrats creating ground zero for the next revolutionary war?  This event is one to watch as it plays out.  What if he had simply had two coordinated partners in this drama?  Scary thought to think about if you are a cop or mainstream media mouthpiece.  What if it would have been media figures as the targets instead of cops?





If the US is capable of anything, it is the author of an imperfect future in which the best of intentions always seems to yield bad fruit. In order to project the potential consequences of what the American defeat in Afghanistan will look like, it is instructive to reflect on the US involvement in Vietnam. History certainly does not repeat itself but it certainly rhymes over time.

Could the United States have secured a free South Vietnam?  Did the United States have all the necessary political and military capital to prosecute a major land conflict in Southeast Asia and create a self-sustaining nation neutral or beneficial to American security interests in the area?  I would suggest the United States did not and will not for the foreseeable future have the capability to answer the latter in the affirmative and therefore the answer to the former question is a definitive no.  America, despite it formidable might with no technological peer will lose.

The Vietminh in Saigon accidentally gunned down LTC A. Peter Dewey of the office of Strategic Services (OSS) in September 1945.  What is important to know from this solitary death is that Ho Chi Minh and his Vietminh regretted this and did what they could to atone. Uncle Ho had his finger on the international pulse both within the ranks of the small and large C comintern and the importance of crafting and staying on message first and consistently. Dewey would not be the first American to fall there.  He would be followed by tens of thousands of other dead and hundreds of thousands of physically and mentally injured Americans during the long American night in Vietnam that would emerge within a generation.

The North Vietnamese and its attendant unconventional legions were tough, resourceful, well-trained and consistently had their eyes on the end-state Ho Chi Minh sought – a unified ideological peninsula with like-minded neighbors that suborned all colonial influence to self-determination.

The French had a robust religious and commercial presence in Vietnam since the 17th century but it remained of minor influence due to the constant in-fighting and civil wars between Vietnamese rulers and the sheer breadth and depth of the country. In 1861, things came to a head and the French militarily invested themselves in the country and established a vigorous colony. Vietnamese resistance to the French was to maintain a low boil, robust renewal during the Japanese occupation in WWII and literally see the French kicked out of the country after the disaster in Dien Bien Phu in 1954.  The French were to suffer the same fate with eerie parallels in Algeria by 1962.Throughout its long history, the Vietnamese had bested Mongols, Chinese and the French. The Americans would be next.

Ho Chi Minh, hoping for U.S. support, confided to an OSS agent that he would welcome “a million American soldiers… but no French”.  Giap echoed that theme, telling a Hanoi crowd to regard the United States as a “good friend” because “it is a democracy without territorial ambitions” In early September, U.S. intelligence agents in Hanoi reported to Truman’s Secretary of State, James Byrnes, but the Vietnamese were “determined to maintain their independence even at the cost of their lives,” since they have nothing to lose and all to gain”.  But the United States and its wartime partners, inexorably if not deliberately, preceded to restore French rule.” [1]

This would be the other nail in the coffin for US ambition in the region.  America’s cultural intelligence for the region was near zero and the threat of a communist “domino effect” hastened decisions that would haunt American top policy makers for decades.



45 human beings legally disarmed the state of New York under the leadership of the Governor Cuomo.  A state with a population of 19 million people has been disarmed in a significant fashion for those foolish or sheepish enough to comply with the law.  The country is bombarded with media propaganda on a continuous basis on the moral high ground and fairness of democratic processes. In one fell swoop, the rulers of the tax jurisdiction of New York have proven not only the folly and charade that is representative democracy but abridged the most fundamental right of all – the right to self-defense.  Ironically, the legislators had accidentally disarmed the only ones who should be subject to total disarmament in the prosecution of their duties – the police.  This was quickly remedied by the worthies in Albany and all is well with the continuing weaponization of the police.

As I have mentioned before, absent the police, no political bad actor in history has any power to deny rights or exploit tyrannical rule. None. This would be a reason why the politicos would behave in a most uncharacteristically efficient manner to correct that oversight. Now the governor and his entourage will continue to have heavily armed private praetorians at their beck and call to provide security much like the Private Security Detachments (PSD) that protect VIPs and general officers overseas and in the combat zones in America’s neo-imperialist quagmires around the globe.

As with so much in government, what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the mundanes that dot the fruited plain and have their wealth and resources filched at gunpoint on a perennial basis.

Not only is there a tremendous government animus toward any aspect of self-reliance as I discussed earlier but there is a very real fear of the general population having a peer competitive capability to defend themselves at the same level of a government’s military offensive capability. I will leave it to others to drone on endlessly about the Constitutional Second Amendment and its mystical and sanctified capability to keep Americans in arms.  The evidence would prove otherwise with the endless parade of legislation and laws that have effectively removed modern military analogs such as fully automatic firearms and crew served weapons and suppressors and grenades and mortars and the list is endless on what you cannot legally possess without going through a government probe search that would make the NKVD blush in admiration.  Most of these items are simply prohibited.

I believe the “20,000 gun laws” is a canard and that 300 may be nearer the number according to the Brookings Institution: All 300 or whatever the true number may be certainly infringe in a substantive and material way on the ability of the common folk to maintain a peer armory and capability against their oppressors.

The most informative answer to the question of “how many gun-control laws?” is then “about 300 major state and federal laws, and an unknown but shrinking number of local laws.”

In my state of Arizona, the local laws are shrinking due to state preemption and the heroic efforts of the Arizona Civilian Defense League.  Since the systematic disarmament of blacks toward the end of the nineteenth century and the raft of weapons prohibition legislation since 1934 to include Ronald Reagan using the black possession of firearms a causus belli in 1967 to get the 1968 Gun Control Act rolling, the government assault on individual possession has not ceased.

The Second Amendment of the vaunted but toothless Bill of Rights has been ravaged, savaged and rendered to the point of being a nice slogan and perfect bunting for a rally but effectively an empty promise and a worse protector of individual arming.

One can get all the quaint quotes from the Founding Era and make all the legalistic arguments one wants but you find yourself in the same pathetic position of the wacky and deluded Sovereign Citizens adherents trying to outwit the robed government employees with their rapier wit and deep Blackstonian understanding of the law. Not.

The Second Amendment will do nothing to stop gun prohibition in America.  The Constitution was built to create a system first and foremost that fleeces and relieves citizens from their wealth and will concomitantly disarm its citizens if the objections to the former become too disturbing to the rulers.

Those who think another case in front of the Supremes will seal the deal and sanctify their individual rights to bear arms are in for a rude surprise.  Remember Scalia’s infamous words in the Heller decision reserving the right of rulers to remove “dangerous and unusual weapons” from the ruled class.  It was a curious and ambiguous drawing from the US v. Miller decision concerning the employment of a militia weapon (in this case, a trench style shotgun).  As we have seen from so many decisions, the Supremes will find a way to twist the language to suit their propensity for restricting rights instead of expanding them.

Much like the recent decisions on police surveillance, the government rule-enforcers will simply find other means or suborn the law.  It is what they do.

I am suggesting that a sole reliance on the Second Amendment will never fail to disappoint if decriminalization of weapons is not the first and only effort.  Much like the illegal mood enhancers chased by the Drug War, the worst thing that can happen is legalization because then the Forces of Darkness can regulate and tax to their heart’s content. Decriminalization of weapons and self-defense is the only course of action.

I would like to briefly address the “need argument” so popular with the disarmament talking heads in the government and media.  The common canard is that a free people must establish some kind of need and until such time as permission is given by the rulers, this is forbidden. Why do I need a Kalashnikov or grenade or fully automatic firearm?

The answer is deceptively simple: any population in any tax jurisdiction on Earth should be a peer competitor in weapons and training to the standing military and constabulary within those boundaries for a very simple reason; no government on Earth has ever remained within the confines of its creation and none has ever disarmed its population without severe penalties to individual rights and freedoms.  At one end of the spectrum, the Communist nations used it as a means for wholesale pogroms against the disarmed citizens and at the other end have guaranteed a hazard-free workplace for those who break laws for a living (the private sector criminal element) leading the ironic position of the vaunted United Kingdom being the most violent nation in Europe.

When politicians ask after the mere needs of a citizen, there will always be an agenda designed to deprive the populace of their loot or their liberty.  After all, it is a favored tactic of the collectivists to satisfy their constituents in the Free Shit Army by rhetorically asking why the wealth should not open their wallets wider and be dragooned into surrendering more of their private earnings for the herd.

Why do we need cars that exceed the speed limit?  Why do we need to have 120” LCD televisions?  Why do we need to have ball bats, hammers and pipe wrenches if they are so harmful?

Some of the worthies and talking heads in the media and blogosphere spend countless hours wringing their hands over the baleful effects of firearms yet they ignore the far greater death toll at the hands of government approved doctors or the government subsidized hell-holes in the inner city where the ruler’s policies have created perverse family structures and the inevitable obesity epidemic that result from following the government diet program.  Whatever government touches, it blackens, deadens, and deepens the crisis it raced to resolve.

Draw a line in the sand and just say no to disarmament.



Gun owners are second-class citizens in America viewed with severe derision and contempt by the elites in both the halls of political and media power in the US.  Much like rednecks and pit-bull members, they are rhetorical punching bag that gets knowing sneers from the freedom-phobic salons at the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Department of Fatherland Security alike.  They have been tucked into a rhetorical cubbyhole with preppers, private food gardeners and other such miscreants for whom self-reliance is a watchword if not a lifestyle.

The modern American gun owner is in the same position as the Irish and blacks of yore who not only suffered official sanction as less than equal but were subject to penalties up to death in both government and private hands.

ALL governments despise private gun ownership because it is not only a primary threat to their ability to control and harness subject populations but existentially all collectivist are perversely uncomfortable with the atomistic ability to not only a threat but to make that neutralization lethal.  The battle at Lexington and Concord that inaugurated the divorce from Great Britain was over weapons and munitions ownership – nothing less and nothing more.  Not only was the fight about guns, it was about that ultimate divorce proposition marrying guns and secession.  One can suppose that the rulers in America have an abstract fear of the individuated ability to defend and also project power but the true fear on their part is the self-reliant aspect.  If the singular American can defend himself then the most important cog in any political machine, the cop, becomes irrelevant if not an anachronism and without cops, no nation can sustain tyranny and enforce bad laws.

James Yeager, an outspoken gun trainer in TN, recently had his CCW suspended because he dared to exercise his free speech rights.  The police spoke-mouth was priceless:

James Yeager, 42, had his permit suspended based on a “material likelihood of risk of harm to the public,” the department said in a statement. 

Col. Tracy Trott of the Tennessee Department of Safety said it didn’t take him long to reach a decision after viewing the comments on the Internet.

“I watched it twice to make sure I was hearing what I thought I heard,” Trott said. 

“It sounded like it was a veiled threat against the whole public. I believed him. He had a conviction in his voice, and the way he looked into the camera, I believe he’s capable of a violent act,” Trott said. 

This from a privileged and badged member of the praetorians for the nomenklatura yet this is the modus operandi for cops everyday.  The current discussion on guns is a curious house of mirrors where the individual American gun owner must be wary day after day for new depredations against his right to defend himself yet the talking heads make no mention of the sanctioned government murder of innocents on a daily basis by cops in America and the imperial machine abroad.

The other irony is not only that Yeager is a former small town police chief himself but this great advocate of revolution and tactical savvy submitted and compromised by getting the permit in the first place so the line in the sand may be more mercurial than he lets on.

Many gun rights advocates make the critical mistake that the argument must rely upon the Constitution and the Second Amendment as the touchstone for preserving the right yet the very same documents have given the rhetorical nod to such rights atrocities as the 1934 National Firearms Act, The 1968 Gun Control Act, the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act and the raft of anti-armament nonsense that has been endorsed by ALL the political entities in Mordor on the Potomac.  The Constitution is to the protection of individual gun rights what the crucifix is to the vampire;  the Second Amendment has the same teeth that Scalia applied to the Heller decision when he discussed “dangerous and unusual weapons”, the asteroid sized loophole the government can use to ban the possession of any weapons it considers injurious to its safety and existence.

It is fortunate the drug-addled (official government sanctioned psychotropics, of course) young man who gunned down the children and their state stewards in the government school in CT did not employ a hammer or pipe wrench, otherwise carpenters and plumbers would be rubbing their hands in angst at the possible loss or confiscation of their tools.  Joe Biden would be discussing the valorous and critical legislation necessary to prevent any more such holocausts.

This national discussion frames the argument incorrectly.  The trope concerning the need for such weapons in private hands being a question by the government is a chimera; the state is not in the business of safety of the population; its business is the safety of government interests and nothing else.  This is not about high capacity magazines and cosmetically offensive weapons, these are merely the tools of last resort that make very citizen a peer in lethality and self-ownership.

And the government will have none of that.

The mass shooting by the evil predator in Connecticut on Friday in the federal and state mandated gun-free zone at the government school is a tragedy.  Like so many of the shootings, the thousands of wrong-headed and hoplophobic regulations that promote disarmament of “non-credentialed” citizens has left thousands dead and more wounded.  The usual suspects among the government supremacists are dancing on the graves of the children by calling for more restriction on individual protection and seeking to disarm greater swaths of the population that don’t meet the approval of the government.  Mind you, this will not disarm the greatest threat to individual safety, the police nor will it disarm the greatest threat to world peace, the American military.  The legislation and regulation will only target the “law-abiding”, that vast population of earning cattle that roam the tax jurisdiction called the United States.

Not only will the plantation dwellers be stripped of arms and the articles of self-defense, they will be forced to make convincing noises about why that makes everyone safe including, of course, the children. Many observers have made the case for the absurdity of all of this far more ably than I, whether concerning the Second Amendment, criminal fear of armed citizens and the ocean of statistics that can be manipulated by both sides of the weapons debate.  That is not the distillate of what I am asking.

The central question remains:  is there a consistent meme in the government-media complex case for weapons disarmament and prohibition.  There is and it is rather simple.  The government’s primary war is one it has waged and will fight through eternity for its very existence.  Whether democratic, communist or socialist or every difference in between; the state must extinguish individual self-sufficiency wherever it finds it.

The urban incubation of collectivist ideas is part of the reason.  City folk pride themselves on their lack of self-sufficiency.  They proudly open small refrigerators containing merely condiments and empty larders and brag about the sheer number of restaurants and cuisines available to them just a short jaunt away on government transit of one type or another.  Collectivism finds a natural germination here because one of the real societal divides is between urban folk and ruralites.

The urban enclaves in a democracy provide the majoritarian voice needed to rob various minorities of their rights and privileges whether these are notions of color or creed.  Unlike free(d) markets, government programs and initiatives and regulatory regimes are always a zero sum game that takes from one party to benefit another.  Unlike free(d) markets, there is always an injured party and in the case of civilian disarmament, this becomes quite literally true.

This urban voice dominates the government-media complex de jure and de facto despite the irony that the attacks and imputations against gun-owners rivals that of the Democratic fears of armed blacks at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century and the double-speak that informs the media coverage of government police savagery nation-wide.

The government hates individual ownership of guns for a basic reason that pales in comparison to their use against tyrannical behavior by said government; private ownership of defense at the atomistic level in any society lessens dependency on the government for anything; once this capability to defend against both private and public predators reaches a peer competitor level with these aforementioned forces, the balance tips in favor of individual autonomy and tips the scales toward self-sufficiency.

Self-sufficiency is the cardinal sin and self-reliance in a voluntary community from the family to friends to business associates always undermines the government’s ability to control its subjects.  Guns in the hands of the population is the first building block to this twisted and inhuman arrangement that makes all inhabitants of a nation-state not only the clients of the warfare-welfare state but the potential inmates of the established penal system through actual caging, parole or probation for regulatory statutory violations of the myriad rules of the state.

No state on Earth whether the US or North Korea or Germany or the Sudan can sustain itself absent police forces and the increasing equivalency of American private arms to the assigned weapons of the 19,000 (!) government police agencies in the US is a direct threat to these coercive arms of the state but more importantly, diminish the monopoly on protection these police forces advertise but rarely fulfill.

The US War on Self-Reliance has been going on since the formation of the Republic but started to gain significant steam with the War of Northern Aggression and the Lincolnian consolidation of federal supremacy over state action.  Scratch the surface of every regulation in the monstrosity called the Federal Register and it boils down to destroying individual self-reliance in a voluntary community.

While the government’s fear of individual armament has a component of fear for its very existence in the event of sedition, rebellion or revolution, the overweening imperative is the constant and consistent destruction of any form of behavior that divorces the individual from dependence on the government no matter how large or inconsequential. Think of this way, once the government strikes and blots out all individual initiative which is the essential building block of self-sufficiency, its only fear for existence would be the delivery of its own demise through its behavior such as the impending economic collapse authored by the worthies in the Treasury and the Congress.

Why does the government conduct raids on illegal vegetables whether drugs or organic?  Why did they fight homeschooling tooth and nail?  Why are preppers and survivalists being demonized?  Why is practically every human transaction on American soil subject to some form of rules or regulation?

Put in perspective, the War on Self-Reliance is job one for any form of government; otherwise, the ability to threaten and cajole compliance and obedience starts to diminish rapidly when the subject populace can take care of itself unassisted, thank you.

The latest Sturm und Drang on display by the government spokes-apparatchiks for individual disarmament is merely part of a larger tapestry to dissolve and eliminate individual autonomous action.

Nothing less and nothing more.

Why secession and why New Hampshire?
New Hampshire is our home. The Granite State has a “Live Free or Die” state motto and it suits us perfectly. NH is a very independent-minded state with about 41% of its voters being “undeclared” (they’re not registered with any political party). We feel this creates the best intellectual climate of any state for discussing important federal issues that negatively effect the people of the states.

While the list of reasons to declare our independence seems never-ending, one very basic concept that all NH citizens can understand is money. NH is consistently one of the biggest donor states, every year. As you know, a “Donor State” is a state that pays more to the Federal Government than it receives. From 1986-2005, New Hampshire was ranked as a Top 5 donor state out of the 50 states, every single year for 20 years. NH citizens consistently pay more to Washington DC than they receive. Independence will mean we can keep our money right here at home rather than begging Washington DC for part of our money back.

What are your prospects for success?

Success to us will mean that enough NH citizens will be informed about the benefits of independence to make a very real impact on the direction of NH. Since we’re a non-profit, tax deductible foundation, success to us will not necessarily be legislative success. If NH citizens are educated on the issues and talking about them with their friends, family members, co-workers, and classmates, we’ll be successful.

I have discovered most political solutions are unworkable if more liberty and freedom is the desired outcome. I do reserve judgment on secession as a last political act they yield positive results. What are your thoughts?
 Personally, I feel as though, historically, liberty has increased through multiple strategies. Politically, there’s the example of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, which instantly increased the freedoms of American blacks. Acts of peaceful civil disobedience – like that of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Lysander Spooner’s American Letter Mail Company – have increased awareness and led to increased liberty. Jury nullification, like the kind that’s happening in NH, has also been very effective. I feel as though people should engage in the activism that they feel is most effective and that they’re most comfortable with. However, people must learn liberty before they can become activists in the area of their choice. We feel that’s the area where our Foundation can help.
What is the advantage of the non-profit status under the IRS and does that restrict your activities in any fashion?
Certainly our official tax-deductible, 501(c)3 status (which is currently under initial IRS review) has helped us already by adding credibility to our efforts and stressing the seriousness of our Foundation. By taking this route, we’re saying “we’re not just a Facebook group; we’re serious”. We’ve already been interviewed by multiple sources and more are on the way.

Our speech is definitely restricted as a tax-deductible foundation, but this can be a blessing in disguise. For example, when we’re asked which political party, political candidate, or legislation we support, we can confidently say that we’re actually not allowed to comment too much on those types of questions. This will prevent our opponents from pigeon-holing us as an arm of any political party. In some ways, we’re more free and protected.

The other obvious benefit is that all donations are tax-deductible. After we work hard and prove that our Foundation is worthy of support, we expect the larger donors to take a look at us. If we’re successful in NH, the implications are global.

In Texas v. Smith (1869), the Supremes rendered secession illegal (surprise!) but the Miller/Swayne dissent provides an interesting backdrop to why the court was wrong even from a Constitutional perspective. What do you think?

 As you say, it’s not surprising that the federal government would tell citizens that they can’t leave the federal government. That’s the equivalent of a possessive, wife-beating, lying, unfaithful husband being anointed the judge at his own divorce proceeding; he’s always going to side with himself and rule that the wife can’t leave him.

The federal constitution doesn’t specifically address the issue of a state separating, but the right to leave is implied with the 10th Amendment. Furthermore, there aren’t very many constitutions that actually specificaly give the people the option of revolting and/or leaving. However, that’s another thing that makes NH different. The NH constitution specifically mentions this right in Article 10, The Right of Revolution, which says, “…whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government”. This, to me, is another detail that helps NH in our quest for independence.

Any coordination with the Free State Project New Hampshire?

There is absolutely no coordination between our Foundation and the FSP and there never will be. Some of their members are supporting our efforts and some of their members are definitely against everything we do.

I think every state should have one of these organizations and eventually a cross-country consensus can be built. Do you anticipate a research arm to your institution; a clearinghouse for national and global secession movements and trends?

This is a great idea that would certainly help a lot of people in this world. Right now, we’re only concerned with NH independence. In the future, after we gain our independence in NH, perhaps we could transition into a more national organization.

Is America as a centralized polity too big to succeed? 

America is without a doubt too centralized and too enormous to succeed. Really, America’s fate has been sealed for several decades. When a nation grows too big – both in territory and in population – it’s inevitable that a separation is needed. One city trying to control the lives of over 315 million people, even for the biggest fan of centralized government, can’t last forever. Inevitably, when asked how the country should be governed, the people living in one area of the country are going to disagree with the people in another area of the country. A peaceful separation would solve the grievances.

Do you think that a plurality of multitude of different nations in north America will lead to more peaceful and prosperous times?

In my opinion, peace will be the ultimate benefit of a break-up of the United States. Never again will American citizens pay for wars half way around the world that have little or nothing to do with the security of the US. It’s true that without central banking and a fiat currency, there would be no chance of achieving the level of centralization currently demonstrated in Washington DC. But to me, the loss of human life is the biggest tragedy. The fewer large, centralized nations there are in the world, the lesser the odds are of war.

One of the reasons the US was so prosperous is because of a giant (mostly) free trade zone between all of the 50 states. As long as Americans realize this and continue a similar policy in the post-US world, Americans will be more prosperous than ever before.


One of the reasons why our nation has prospered is that we have been able to capitalize on our individual abilities, abilities that are diverse and unequal. It’s the differences and “unequalness” among people that allows for innovation, invention, new technology, growth, prosperity and progress. To enforce equality upon the populous is not only unnatural (equality does not exist in nature), but it prevents the very prosperity we all desire, resulting in class warfare. It’s no accident. As more “equalizing and redistribution legislation” becomes the law of the land, more poverty and class warfare develop. This will continue until the populous empirically learns the hard way that the State, no matter which party is in power, is their enemy and learns to withhold their consent at the voting booth by abstaining. Most people hate monopoly power (even the non-coercive variety), but the populous gives the State the monopoly on the use of force without even a whimper. With such power over the individual, the State will use that monopoly power to enslave us until we collapse into the Orwellian dark ages or war annihilates us all. Most people know about the danger of stepping into the lion’s den or getting burned when they play with fire, but to most people these are only allegories with no relevance in their own lives. However, all voters assume a similar great danger when they step into the voting booth. They are collaborating with their own enemies who present them with lots of goodies to lure them in, but eventually make them offers they can’t refuse, “Godfather” style. To add insult to injury, the voters revere those very same enemies with donations to their elections, and name buildings and bridges after them and build statues of their likenesses in the public parks all over the land. As long as the populous values equality over freedom and relies upon the voting booth to try to establish that equality, the societal deterioration will continue, as can be seen in today’s climate of unrest, unemployment, despair and insecurity.

Some argue that it is not equality that the voters seek but equality of opportunity. There is no such thing as real equality of opportunity since we are all born unequal. Take two people, for example, Bill Gates and myself. We were born with equal “legal opportunity” but actually we were born with reality-based unequal opportunity. By birth we started out in this world with unequal opportunity by virtue of the fact that Gates was born smarter, more committed to his goals, and able to take greater risks than I. I had the same “legal opportunity” to accomplish what Gates accomplished but I failed to do so. Our inequality illustrates the difference between Gates’ accomplishments and my accomplishments. Does that make Gates an undeserving evil exploiter of us all? On the contrary, Gates’ success made life better for me as it did for everyone else on the planet. The same holds true for Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt and J.P. Morgan, most of who were born extremely poor, but with great intellectual abilities. They didn’t invent or create poverty, since poverty is a natural condition of all life. They helped cure poverty for millions of people. Where the average person sees no opportunity, these great benefactors of mankind saw opportunity and were willing to take extreme risks that most of us are not willing to take.

When one analyzes the motives of the “true believers” in “equality,” we see that what they really want is equal results, which is beyond utopian. An ideology of equal results is insane and immature, an ideology that can only be implemented by law, (at the point of a gun). The one who points the gun in fact creates immediate conflict between himself and the victim, and a multitude of conflicts have flared up right before our eyes over the past 50 years. Government means guns and the more government, the more guns and the more guns, the more conflicts. It’s no coincidence that as government has grown since WWII, we have found our country involved in external and internal conflicts at a continually increasing rate.

When one nation aims its guns at another nation it is considered an act of war. When one’s own government points its guns towards its own unarmed citizens, in the attempt to coerce equality it is just as much an act of war. At least countries at war have the ability to agree on a truce and the fighting will stop. However, within a nation, a truce is never offered since the guns of the law are forever present. They hang over the necks of all of us just waiting for someone to step out of line in order to rationalize its use. Like the Sword of Damocles we now all live with a sense of foreboding engendered by a precarious situation, especially one in which the onset of tragedy is restrained only by a delicate trigger or chance. Presently our precarious situation involves our economic system veering closer to the edge of a cliff. While this very dangerous situation continues, the legislators call for more equality and redistribution legislation, condoned and sanctioned by most of the population. The delicate trigger in this case is continuing on the same path of coercive legislation.

The equality ideology is to a nation what hurricane Sandy was to the Northeastern states and what hurricane Katrina was to New Orleans. It will annihilate whatever good that has been produced by the builders, creators, inventors, innovators and investors of the past, leaving misery in its wake—witness the attitude of laziness and desire for more free stuff and equality by the people of Greece today as Greece slips into possible oblivion. America is on the Grecian path. It’s only a matter of time.

There is no middle ground between equality and freedom. For equality to even be attempted, freedom must be sacrificed upon its alter. At its very inception, the first “equality” law had to take away the freedom of someone or coerce someone to take an action that they would not have taken if they were free to follow their own judgment. The fact that equality must be coerced proves that it defies the laws of nature. The attempt to coerce equality is the very factor that will lead to its failure. Unfortunately the damage will be done in that attempt. In the long run, if 100% freedom does reign, optimum equality will take care of itself by providing prosperity and contentment to the citizens. When the entire nation is enveloped in prosperity, security and contentment, inequality stops being an issue. We must not be fooled into thinking that we have already tried freedom and that it failed. It is not freedom that failed. It has been the absence of real 100% freedom that failed.

Since the State has had control over the education system of the nation it has been very easy for the State to misrepresent what is taught. Our schools have been teaching that we live in a “free” country and everyone seems to believe it. Like the “doublespeak” mentioned in the novel “1984”, our schools teach that our coercive political system has created and is maintaining “freedom”, thus obfuscating the true culprit in the battle between freedom and slavery. That culprit is the ideology of Statism itself.

We must choose one or the other. We can’t have both at the same time. It’s either freedom or slavery. It’s true that equality will be the outcome of Statism, namely the equality of poverty, equality of despair, equality of unemployment and extreme national debt, which is the natural consequence of a system whose coin of the realm is coercion. Is that the equality we all want? It’s either peaceful co-existence among human beings or perpetual disharmony. It’s either freedom or Statism.

“The IDF was not ready for this war.”
–         The Winograd Report
Now that Israel has declared war (again) on Gaza, its last foray in 2006 against Lebanon bears closer examination.
Hezbollah occupied an emerging intermediate spectrum capability between irregular and conventional conflict through careful preparation, intense knowledge of the threat they faced and a careful examination of past behavior to influence stratagems employed to defeat the Israeli enemy. Hezbollah employed a dual strategy to literally rain terror on Israeli settlements proximate to the Lebanese border and draw the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) into a quagmire to establish their stalemate or defeat.
The small number of non-state actors who conducted the fighting numbered at approximately seven thousand against a modern first world army and air force numbering orders of magnitude greater.  Hezbollah sought to own the operational fight and most likely succeeded beyond their wildest expectations. COL John Boyd would contend that the Hezbollah architects of the conflict compromised the enemy’s decision cycle and never let go.
Hezbollah had several advantages:
  •  They owned the defensive turf and made judicious use of years of intense preparation of the killing fields to drive home their advantage.
  •  Conducted a dual-purpose stratagem to terrify Israeli civilians through rocket attacks to draw a response and lure the forces in to isolate them and destroy in detail.
  •  Intense training and a keen doctrinal knowledge of IDF tactical behavior both mounted and dismounted.
  •  Clausewitzian friction would ensure that the un-forecasted benefit to Hezbollah would be the severe doctrinal dissonance and confusion that would cripple the IDF at the operational level.
  •  A very sophisticated information operations campaign to amplify every victory and use every setback as a means to emphasize the underdog position of the victims of the “invasion”.
The IDF had fought a self-identified successful counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign against the Palestinians in the contiguous problem areas to Israel.  Its entire force had fallen to exclusively orienting the forces to irregular warfare efforts while ignoring the full spectrum operations implications of atrophied training in conventional mechanized and armor warfare much less the basic notions of light infantry tactics beyond the practice of call for fire.  This continues to plague most Western armies even after the morbid lessons that the IDF provided for military observers around the world in 2006.
“In fact, Hezbollah inflicted more Israeli casualties per Arab fighter in 2006 than did any of Israel’s state opponents in the 1956, 1967, 1973, or 1982 Arab-Israeli interstate wars. Hezbollah’s skills in conventional war fighting were clearly imperfect in 2006—but they were also well within the observed bounds of other state military actors in the Middle East and elsewhere, and significantly superior to many such states’.” [1]
This from non-state actors, no less, and the implications for future operations by both Israel and Western nations engaging the Arab world may pause and take note.  This especially in light of the fashionable Revolution in Military Affairs the IDF foisted upon itself through the adoption of an Effects Based Operations (EBO) doctrinal shift which proved disastrous not only for its shoddy implementation but the sheer martial poverty of a vision that placed much more emphasis on expectation than tangible delivery of fight power as Van Creveld would advise. “Unfortunately, the new IDF doctrine failed to incorporate a large land maneuver component into its effects-based approach.” [2] The employment of exclusive use of air assets also assured the Israelis of tremendous civilians’ casualties both real and exaggerated which turned into a public relations nightmare for the attackers and an unexpected boon to Hezbollah.
The Israelis deployed an army and air force which entered a quasi-conventional campaign unprepared for that spectrum of conflict blinded by poor intelligence and logistical shortfalls that quickly transmitted a global picture of a once-vaunted and historically feared army reduced to a military shambles barely able to get out of its own way much that of harm.
Hezbollah had not transitioned into a world class fighting organization for its size overnight.  Through decades of careful observation and grooming of cadres and development of operational arts suitable to their notions of combat effectiveness and capability, orchestration of the offensive and defensive parameters were crafted and retooled.  One may suggest that some study was given to the first Battle of Grozny by their Islamic brethren fighting a similar mechanized and armored threat in an urban enclave:
 “ Many outright errors were committed during the hasty preparation of the force as well. For example, the operations plan omitted technical support resources (such as communication equipment) and there was no coordinating agency linked with the president’s administration to resolve political problems. The administration’s information/propaganda machinery also failed to prepare the mass media to report positively on the reasons for the intervention or to illuminate the national interests at stake. Thus, Russia lost the political and information battles in the first days of the conflict. Many of these problems were aggravated by the fact that at the time of the intervention, Russia did not have a national security concept, and only an outdated military doctrine.
In addition, three powerful ministers (Defense, Internal Affairs, and Internal Security) all had troops in the fight but failed to integrate their efforts. As one source noted, “The enormous losses of the early days were caused by the poor level of professionalism of the command/staff element, which underestimated the enemy and was staggeringly negligent in coordinating actions among individual units and subunits as well as among the various types of forces.” [3]
The Russians fought with an old and anachronistic doctrine that did not account for the enemy or terrain and the IDF fought with a doctrine that was untried and found to be severely wanting.  The doctrine made the fatal error of trying to take one operational arm, in this case, air and make it the exclusive vector of success instead of combining and synchronizing the dimensions and operating systems of battle. An over-reliance on “precision munitions” resulted in civilian casualties that simply compounded the military incompetence into a political disaster for Israel worldwide obviating their storied ability to play the underdog in any conflict.
Hezbollah prevailed through both a mostly brilliant operational plan tethered to a strategic vision and quickly adapted to opportunities the martial incompetence of the IDF presented them.  None of the authors cited in this essay find the Hezbollah forces without fault in some ways but the entire short war proved that the Western powers need to stand and take notice of the increasing operational savvy of non-state actors and armies.The recent green-on-blue violence in Afghanistan is yet another variation on the theme of an occupied or aggrieved non-state force grabbing the decision cycle at the operational level and helming it decisively.
The campaign of Hezbollah in 2006 is simply a harbinger of things to come.
[1] Stephen Biddle and Friedman, Jeffrey, “The 2006 Lebanon Campaign and the Future of Warfare: Implications for Army and Defense Policy.” Strategic Studies Institute, 2008.
[2] Matt Matthews, “We Were Caught Unprepared: The 2006 Hezbollah-Israeli War.” The Long War Series Occasional Paper 26, U.S. Army Combat Studies Institute Press Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

[3] Thomas, Timothy. “The Battle of Grozny: Deadly Classroom for Urban Combat.” FMSO. https://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/battle.htm (accessed October 16, 2012).


The notion of unconditional surrender for either Germany or Japan is a popular notion and it in fact extended the length of the conflict. Like all of its historical antecedents, it stiffens the spine of resistance and more so in cultures attuned to a warrior ethos. Peace entreaties from the Japanese government emerged as early as January 1945 and they were apparently ignored. It looked like this:

Specifically, the terms of the Japanese peace offers of late January 1945 were as follows:

  1. Full surrender of the Japanese forces, air, land, and sea, at home and in all occupied countries.
  2. Surrender of all arms and ammunition. 
  3. Agreement of the Japanese to occupation of their homeland and island possessions. 
  4. Relinquishment of Manchuria, Korea and Formosa.
  5. Regulation of Japanese industry.
  6. Surrender of designated war criminals for trial.
  7. Release of all prisoners. [1]

I suspect Truman’s intended audience for the nuclear bombs was a cautionary tale for Russia since even he realized a bipolar world was emerging and he knew who the contestants were. The revisionists and mainstream historians both argued over the casualty figures proffered by the Truman administration after the war.

If you look at the annihilation of huge Japanese forces on the mainland in Russian East Asia in the Soviet-Japanese campaign in August 1945 you see the scale of conventional force dissolution the Japanese were suffering.

There are a number of revisionist challenges to the conventional interpretation and I find them compelling.

“The revisionist challenge to the traditional interpretation became a source of fierce debate after the publication of Gar Alperovitz’s book, Atomic Diplomacy, in 1965. He contended that the United States used the atomic bomb primarily for diplomatic purposes rather than for military requirements, particularly to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union in the emerging Cold War. The argument that Truman ordered the atomic bombings of Japan primarily as an anti-Soviet weapon for fighting the Cold War became a prominent, though not unanimous, feature of atomic bomb revisionism.” [2]
We have to be careful to suggest casualty figures as high as one million when even MacArthur scoffed at their accuracy.  I am not even proposing an invasion would have been strategically sound but at our level of inquiry it is incumbent upon us to always remain skeptical.

I recommend a careful reading of Walker, very instructive.
[1]  McLaughlin, John. “The Bomb Was Not Necessary.” The Cutting Edge. https://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=12499&pageid=16&pagename=Opinion (accessed September 21, 2012).

[2] Walker, J. Samuel. “Historiographical Essay Recent Literature on Truman’s Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground.” Diplomatic History Winter 1990 (1990),