September 17, 2016


I'm a writer.  Specifically, I write mostly about the technical aspects of self-reliance and preparedness.  Towards this end, I've got 30 years of accumulated experience and education in the Heinlein tradition.  It's a long enough time frame to have a vague idea of what it's all about.

I've come across a lot of groups.  Some have their act together, and those generally don't advertise their existence.  You won't hear about them because I respect their privacy and their level of competence.

Then you have the ones who don't.  Some of them are just starting out, and come to me with questions which I'm more than happy to answer. You won't hear about them because I respect their privacy, the fact that they are in  learning mode, and that they want to get their shit together.

The others...  If they are publicly recruiting and are willfully ignorant, especially if they are in my locale, then I'm going to call them out. Because I don't want someone getting killed.

This 3% thing will result in deaths if it follows itself to conclusion.  By adopting that particular term, you are implying that you will fight a standing, legally-elected government should it (continue to) engage in certain actions you find objectionable. The term used is insurrection. Look it up. Unless the social and political course of this country alters its course drastically in the future, that's going to be a hell of a check you're going to have to cash.

Think about that.

Then read the words of the man who created it.

If you decide to go that route, now think about the advisability of tossing that term out in public to describe yourself.  Or joining up with someone who does.

It doesn't matter if you're just a group of harmless preppers who happened to take on the name because it sounded cool and buzzwordy.  It's not the latest buzzword for you to toss out.  It's more like a buzzsaw that will decapitate you if you're not careful with it.

And you know who could be doing the enforcement for the powers that be?

The militia.

The Congress shall have power to to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
- US Constitution, Article I, Section 8

Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.- 10 USC § 331
 Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
- 10 USC § 332
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
- 10 USC § 333
Consider that all Obama or Clinton had to do is invoke 10 USC § 332 under some pretense (pick one) and subject every YouTube Commando from ages 17 to 45 to the UCMJ for the duration of the emergency. (See 10 USC § 311).

And it's all constitutional.

And furthermore, most of your fellow citizens (you know the other 97%) will either smile and nod approvingly, or just won't care either way.

Hopefully this has given you something to think about.

And with that off my chest, it's back to the regularly scheduled tech talk.  


  1. and speaking of another venue, which one of us going to drag back to our locals screaming to serve whom..

    meanwhile the flakes and fuzziewuzzies whom claim too be experts can't even survive one day without their apple toy

    like "American survival guide" or "backwoods home"

    see you on the ridge comrade


  2. "Consider that all Obama or Clinton had to do is invoke 10 USC § 332 under some pretense..."

    Why, then, has Obama not done this?

    1. Probably because it's not in their best interest at present. Regardless of their actions, or inaction, the law is in place, and it's totally "constitutional".