Tuesday, January 17, 2012


Regardless of the best efforts of resistance forces to utilize stand-off attacks in the form of IED/EFP, sniper attacks, sabotage, and other methods, the reality is that irregular warfare often ends up requiring the ability to close with and kill the enemy at “bad breath” distance. Further, outside of the stand-off “hit-and-run” techniques noted above, one of the most efficient applications of guerrilla direct-action operations is to get “belt buckle-to-belt buckle.” Intentionally fighting at “danger close” distances allows the guerrilla fighter to negate, or at least greatly reduce, the conventional security force’s ability to take advantage of the technological advantage offered by indirect-fire support and CAS.

While the ability to utilize personal small-arms at the mechanical limits of their effective range is a critical skill for the guerrilla fighter, the ability to “run-and-gun at close-quarters battle ranges is equally important, if not more so (the ability to engage at intermediate-distance ranges MAY be offset by the application of mechanical ambushes with IED/EFP attacks, sabotage, and other stand-off methods).

OUTRAGE: Feds Spend $1.6 Million to Restore “La Raza” Murals Celebrating “Aztlan” and Che Guevara

At a time of record debt, rampant unemployment, and a financially strained citizenry – our Federal government somehow can afford a whopping $1,600,000 to restore “Chicano” murals depicting communist butchers Che Guevara and Fidel Castro, and with maps featuring “Aztlan”– the mythical “nation” that La Raza activists demand be taken from the United States to create a new ethnically-pure proto-Mexican state.

The funds are being provided by the Department of Transportation and is called a “federal transportation enhancement” (as if there are no unsafe bridges across America that could use the funds!)


Homeschool Printables and Resources

Via Survival

NCPatriots of ’61 – Captain John Newland Maffitt

North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"

Born at sea on 22 February 1822 and enroute with his parents from Ireland to New York, later Connecticut, Maffitt was predestined for life as a sailor. At the age of five, uncle Dr. William Maffitt, brought him to Fayetteville, North Carolina due to his parents dire financial straits; at about nine or ten years he was sent for schooling at White Plains, New York under Professor Swinburn. Thanks to friends of his father, thirteen year-old Maffitt acquired a midshipman commission to the US Navy, with first orders to the USS St. Louis, then at Pensacola and bound for the West Indies. A task that marked his later years of service was being posted to the US Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1842 under the eye of Professor Bache, and surveying the harbors of Nantucket, Wilmington, Savannah and Charleston – a channel at the latter still bears his name.

Commanding the USS Dolphin in 1857 and USS Crusader, 1859-1861, Maffitt captured New York-financed slavers bound for Spanish colonies in the West Indies – slaves bartered for in Africa with New England rum and Yankee notions. His capture of the Northern-slaver Echo alone in 1858 liberated 318 Africans aboard who were returned to their homeland.

Maffitt resigned his commission in May 1861 and became a lieutenant in the Confederate Navy, first assigned as an aide to General Robert E. Lee and making preparations for the defense of Charleston. In early 1862 he was ordered to the steamer Cecile to run the blockade to obtain needed supplies. In April of that year he took command of the CSS Florida which began his legendary career as a blockade runner – battling his way through Northern warships at Mobile Bay and capturing or sinking many tons of Northern shipping. He attained the rank of Commander in May, 1863 for meritorious conduct.

In the summer of 1864 Maffitt was given command of the ironclad CSS Albemarle which dominated the Roanoke River in North Carolina and seriously threatened the Northern occupation forces at New Bern. In September he returned to blockade-running service by taking a large load of cotton aboard the CSS Owl to Bermuda; with the same ship he made several more trips through General Scott’s very porous anaconda. It is reported that the monetary value of Maffitt’s service to the American Confederacy amounted to nearly $15 million of captured or destroyed Northern shipping – notably Confederate naval forces destroyed the Northern merchant marine, never to recover.

Rather than surrender his ship after learning of Lee’s surrender in April 1865, he returned the Owl to agents in Liverpool and remained in England. After two years in command of the British merchant steamer Widgeon and trips between Liverpool and South America, Maffitt settled on a 212-acre farm near Wilmington called “The Hammocks.” The Wilmington area had been his home during much of his service in the Coast Survey -- he was married for the third time to Emma Martin, daughter of a Wilmington merchant, in November 1870.

Maffitt presented an address at the May, 1879 Memorial Day service in Wilmington, stating that: “the cause defended [by the Confederacy] was that of self-government and constitutional liberty. The cry from the North was The Union!, The Union! – but they manifested naught save contempt for the Constitution that sealed and sanctified that Union.” Maffitt died on 15 May 1886 after a three month-long illness.

Lt. J. Pembroke Jones, who commanded the Wilmington-based ironclad CSS Raleigh said of Maffitt: “He was the warmest-hearted and most generous friend and the most congenial companion I ever knew. He was always the life of the mess, full of fun and tender sympathy for all around him. He was born a sailor and a splendid officer, and I have never known one more beloved.”

(John Newland Maffitt, James Sprunt, Southern Historical Society Papers, August 2, 1896)

NCPatriots of ’61 – Captain John Newland Maffitt

Messy Mondays: Seven Lies about Homeschoolers

Via The Arctic Patriot

Homeschool Curriculum Excellence - Robinson Self-Teaching

Violence solves a lot

Via Western Rifle Shooters Association

Verbatim Post

One of the more insidiously deceptive lines of the socialist-liberal agenda is the banal phrase: "Violence doesn’t solve anything." How much retrospection is required to understand that Hitler wasn’t stopped by peace marches, negotiations, or "conflict resolution" sessions? It is a horrible, disgusting task, but evil acts, whatever shape they take, must eventually be countered by a superior, violent force.

The liberal doesn’t seem to understand that the threat of counter violence is perhaps the most effective preventative of actual physical conflict. Liberal pacifists in modern times mocked the phrase "peace through strength" as though the pragmatism contained within such an idea were rooted in some atavistic, macho, testosterone-poisoned psychosis that had been propagated by alpha males throughout history.

Can’t the liberal understand that bad people are prevented from committing evil acts by their fear of punishment? Perhaps at a childhood level, the threat of adult disapproval or the disapproval of one’s schoolyard peers keeps the behavior of the youngster in some kind of conformity to morality. But it doesn’t take long for the criminally-minded teenager to realize that he really doesn’t care what other people think. Crime pays. Evil is profitable. Bullying works. Unless, that is, you are harshly confronted with the realization that your malicious behavior will be rewarded by a beating, a bullet, or a prison cell.

A peaceful, free society, of which America (even with its flaws) is the most outstanding example in all of recorded history, is preserved by the willingness of its people, either singly or as a group, to commit decisive acts of righteous violence to counter evil activity.

Hebrew scholars agree that one of the Ten Commandments has been mistranslated. "Thou shalt not kill" is more accurately translated from the ancient Hebrew as "Thou shalt not murder." The punishment for murder in ancient Israelite communities was stoning. Murderers were killed by the citizens. They were executed. And stoning was the most effective way to spread the responsibility for the execution through the mass of individuals who were willing to pay the price for living in a peaceful, moral society. Because of its face-to-face horror, the compassionate individual would, one might imagine, actually cast the first stone …to make sure it knocked the murderer immediately unconscious, in much the same way the ethical hunter or fisherman puts his quarry out of its misery as quickly as possible. The ancient Hebrews forced personal responsibility on each individual via the group act of stoning.

It comes down to individual responsibility. It comes down to the individual being willing to act with righteous force when confronted by certain criminal behaviors. How many of your would idly stand by and watch a man torture a helpless pup? You would first yell at him to stop. If he continued, you might grab at him or throw yourself between him and the bleeding, cringing animal. What if he slaps you aside and continues his barbarity? You look around and see a two-by-four on the ground. How many of you would not take that two-by-four to the man with a clear conscience? Sorry, there are no cell phones around. You can’t call the cops or the Humane Society. You have to act now! What do you do? Are you really going to stand by and watch the travesty, all the time telling yourself that "violence doesn’t solve anything"?

If you would club the animal torturer with a two-by-four, how much quicker should you come to the defense of a human victim? I grew up in the Marxist-Socialist, namby-pamby Bay Area, and I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard some pompous person tell me "I could never kill anyone!" I even said it a few times myself during my naive teens and 20s. It felt so good to utter that unctuous homily. But I don’t feel that way anymore.

I would kill another human being. I would do it to save my own life or the life of an innocent victim. The act would probably make me physically ill. I might have to live with it in my mind for the rest of my life, but I pray I would have the courage, yes, courage, to stop consummate evil with whatever means became necessary.

And it is for this reason that I am a fervent advocate of the right of the law-abiding and sane individual to possess and carry a firearm. The right to self-defense is not only a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution, it is a duty, a command of "Nature and Nature’s G-d" (to quote Jefferson) that each of us must confront if we are to preserve freedom and moral civilization in our communities and nation.

Modern-day "gun control" is not something invented in America by Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. Adolph Hitler used firearms and ammunition registration to create the paper trails that facilitated the eventual confiscation of the firearms of his opponents in Nazi Germany. America’s Gun Control Act of 1968 bears such an amazing resemblance to the Nazi German law that every school child should be made aware of the similarity. Or perhaps we should all think about a very simple fact: slaves can’t own guns.

Perhaps the world isn’t the way we wish it would be. We all might wish that evil men could be persuaded from their vile behavior with bleeding heart entreaties, a kiss on the cheek, or proper toilet training. But it ain’t that way, folks, Pacifism is a sickness, an actual moral perversity, and dangerous when its effects spread to anyone else beside the pacifist. You may choose to walk to the cattle car, but damn you if you let your children be led up the ramp. You must never allow any group or government to steal your right to exercise armed lethal force in a just situation.

One of the greatest instructors in the defensive use of firearms used to say to his graduating classes: "May you never have to use what you have learned here." And in that spirit I would like to see an American citizenry that is armed to the teeth and as skilled in the use of pistols and rifles as we are in the driving of automobiles. Am I insane? Somehow, looking at the tragic lessons of history, I don’t think so.

NOTE: This is a reprint of an article Kirby Ferris authored for the Coastal Post Newspaper of Main County, CA in 1998; minor updates and edits have been made for JPFO.

Frequent JPFO contributor and strategist, Kirby Ferris, collaborated intensively with Aaron Zelman over the last two years of Aaron’s life. Ferris is currently the Research Director of JPFO.

See all of Kirby Ferris’ articles.

© Copyright Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership 2012.

Ron Paul. What A Kook!...

Green Mountains Homesteading
Verbatim Post

Totally and completely Kooky! Listen to what he would do...

Repeal the Brady Bill, which sets up virtually all the infrastructure the government needs to implement national gun registration.- Nuts!

Stop any attempt at renewing of the so-called "Assault Weapons" Ban, which banned an entire class of firearms based on little more than looking scary.- Off the deep end!

End U.S. membership in the anti-gun United Nations to ensure American tax dollars are not used to fund global gun control schemes like the so-called "Small Arms Treaty".- Crazy!

Repeal the dangerous "Gun-Free School Zone Act," which virtually guarantees that bloodthirsty criminals will face no opposition should they choose to go on a rampage.- Bananas!

And I'm not just the only remaining candidate to answer the National Association for Gun Rights' Presidential Survey 100% - I'm the only remaining candidate proud enough of my record to respond at all.- Loony!

As President, you have my word that I'll lead the charge to repeal every single unconstitutional gun-grab currently on the books...(GCA '68?, NFA 1934?)- Unhinged!

BTW, Under a Paul presidency the departments of Energy, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce and Interior would cease to exist. Their elimination would slice about $179 billion from the federal budget and cut about 134,000 federal jobs.- Straightjacket time!!

...What a Kook! Who would ever vote for such a man!


CS5 – Concealable Subsonic / Supersonic Suppressed Sniper System

Via The Dorkfish Express

McMillan has developed a rifle they call the C5, or Concealable Subsonic / Supersonic Suppressed Sniper System. It’s a rifle that breaks down into a 23.5 inch long package for easy transport in a backpack or briefcase, yet still is accurate out to 800 meters with a .75 MoA guarantee. But that’s not all…


Ron Paul or Obama - YOUR CHOICE

Military Versus Defense: Ron Paul Smacks Down WSJ's Seib

"Congressman Paul, South Carolina has seven major military bases, but you want to make major cuts in defense spending, several hundred billion dollars in the coming years. What do you say to people in this state?" – Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib. .... "I would say your question suggests you are very confused about my position. I want to cut money, overseas money. I don't want to cut defense spending. We would save a lot more money and have a stronger national defense. Watch out for the military-industrial complex!" – Ron Paul ... YouTube, South Carolina debate, January 16, 2012

Dominant Social Theme: The US can't cut military spending because it will leave the country vulnerable to its enemies.

Free-Market Analysis: A little later perhaps than Ron Paul supporters would have liked, the eminence of conservative libertarianism has in many ways hit his stride. This video clip (see below) shows how Ron Paul is now capable of cutting moderators, and generally debate opponents, to pieces when they make a verbal slip. We can surely recall other inspiring Ron Paul moments but this, in our humble opinion, is the best we've seen.

In this video Ron Paul makes a firm distinction between defense spending and military spending. It's overdue, in our view, because Ron Paul has been continually criticized by neocons on this issue. He's loony, they complain. He would leave America defenseless.

Not at all. The difference between military spending and defense spending is a critical one. If the general public ever begins to make the proper connections, this distinction could cause a major change in the way US voters visualize how Washington DC "protects" them.


Grandmother beaten at Chuck E. Cheese - DEARBORN, MI

Fake-gun fine unreal: 30K penalty forcing B’klyn store to close

Now this is a real stickup!

The owner of a discount store in Brooklyn says the city is holding him up for $30,000 in fines he can’t afford — all because he stocked six toy sheriff sets that included plastic guns.

And now the .44-caliber fines for the orange-tipped, obvious fakes are forcing him to close for good.

“It doesn’t make any sense,” said Khaled Mohamed, 23, manager of 99¢ Target in Flatlands, which has been ordered to pay a staggering $5,000 fine for each gun offered for sale — the maximum under the law.

The store “cannot pay that fine at all,” said Mohamed, arguing that the punishment imposed on the Utica Avenue odds-and-ends shop is way out of proportion to the violation.


Family rescued after being trapped in car hanging off cliff

Via The Feral Irishman

Triple WOW!

Republicans: I will vote for Ron Paul, or I will vote for Obama. Your choice.

Kent for Liberty
Verbatim Post

I don't believe in voting. Neither do I believe politics is an ethical way to get anything done. But, I wonder if or how a political threat might work. Yeah it probably violates the ZAP in that if voting is an initiation of force (which it seems it might be), then threatening to vote is advocating or delegating an initiation of force.

However, ignoring all that for a moment...

I wonder what would happen if liberty lovers, en masse, told Republicans in no uncertain terms that if they nominate anyone other than Ron Paul, we will all vote for Obama. Even if we have to register to vote to do it. Even if we otherwise would never even consider voting, period.

Think of it as putting a mortally injured, dying America out of its misery, if the offer of medicine* is refused.

Just a thought.

I may try this out on my "conservative" relatives. Or, I may post the "threat", without all this post's contemplation, and minus all the uncertainties, somewhere in this form:

Notice is hereby given to the Republican party and all Republican voters: You have a chance to do the right thing. You can nominate Ron Paul. If you nominate anyone other than Ron Paul, I will register to vote, and I will vote for Obama. I will encourage all of my liberty-loving friends, contacts, and acquaintances to do the same- even if they have not voted before or in many years. You will be throwing away your nomination by nominating anyone other than Ron Paul. Is that what you really want to do? It's your call.

Added: I just thought of a shorter way to phrase this threat: "Republicans- I will vote this time, for the first time in years. But, I will either vote for Ron Paul, or I will vote for Obama. Your choice." And, no, I don't really intend to vote.

(*Yeah, it could be debated whether this is medicine or a placebo. Or even a poison. I'd still enjoy seeing what Repubs would say or do if this idea went viral. I'm not perfect.)

Global Currency Pushed by Marxist Bankster, Stiglitz; Warned of by Ron Paul


Two videos, one by a *snake, the other by a **snake hunter.

**Ron Paul: They Want A One World Currency!

From April during the 2011 Bankster Spring INET and IMF planning sessions, *Joseph Stiglitz is interviewed by anti-American, Russia Today:


Comment by Grumpy:

Stigliitz is proposing the demise of the US. Once our currency is not the world reserve currency, “they” can tell us what our money is worth in exchange for the new currency–could be pennies on the dollar or zero. That’s the fastest way to bring Americans in line with the new world order–take away their assets overnight.

What is so sad about what Paul says is that EVERY elected official should feel this way. What a shame that he is a lone wolf.

Lee-Jackson Day, Lexington, VA

Red Sky Over Dixie

Grecian site