Archive for Police State

No, America isn’t Communist. It’s only 70% Communist.

“The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world, unite!”

Most people remember Karl Marx’s most potent points and phrases, and the mountain of corpses his disciples left behind, especially in the 20th century.

However, most forget or don’t even know the specific policies that Marx advocated.

Within his 1848 Communist Manifesto, Marx outlined a list of ten short-term demands. These, he thought, would be the precursor to the ideal stateless, classless communist society.

Ironically in today’s world, Marx’s demands look pretty much mainstream. Read more

Lessons from Ferguson: Policing goes Paramilitary

Paramilitary Police Draw Down on Man in Ferguson, Missouri

Paramilitary Police Draw Down on Man in Ferguson, Missouri

The events leading up to the shooting death of an 18 year old man in Fergusson by a police officer are under investigation and the “facts” appear to be conflicting. What are not in doubt are the events that transpired after the shooting. Citizens genuinely concerned and outraged wanting a full and impartial investigation rose up in peaceful, legitimate protests, but so did the most criminal elements within our society. It appears that not only was the race baiting, rabble rousers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton ready to pounce and exploit this shooting, but so were many hoodlums that exploited the protests to rob, loot, and destroy. The media was right on their heels to cover the ratings generating violence and President Obama wasted no time wading into what can only be considered divisive racial politics his track record suggests he favors stoking. However, as prepared citizens, what really should concern us is at least two-fold and goes far beyond the distractive on-going racial narrative from Missouri. Read more

Department of Homeland Oppression and the FBI Target Gun Owners in Walmarts across Virginia

Think your latest purchase of a firearm or ammunition from Wal-Mart was innocent? The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), aka Department of Homeland Oppression, in coordination with the FBI doesn’t think so and wants to know who you are. In fact, they believe you may be a potential domestic terrorist according to reports from Wal-Mart sales managers.
Over the last two weeks our field reporters dispersed across Northern Virginia to question sales representatives selling sporting goods throughout Virginia after rumors surfaced of agents questioning sales representatives. What they found should is shocking. In Wal-Mart after Wal-Mart, our reporters were able to verify that FBI and or DHS special agents had recently visited the stores requesting information on any suspicious buyers. According to sales managers working in the retail chain Wal-Mart, special agents requested information about anyone that appeared suspicious, attempted to buy ammo in bulk, or made anti-government comments. The special agents inquired specifically about anyone that made statements relating to sovereign citizen movements and buyers that seemed out of place to the sales manager warning that they could be potential domestic terrorists. In the event the sales manager had information, they were instructed to contact various agents from the FBI and DHS.
Make no mistake; DHS and the Justice Department consider you a threat to the US. If you buy ammunition in bulk to save money, exercise your constitutionally protected First Amendment, or are otherwise having a bad day your name and information could be passed on to the FBI or DHS for investigation as a potential terrorist. This information then goes to fusion centers across the nation where you are labeled and placed on watch lists as a domestic threat. Often this information is then used to generate faux “probable cause” to obtain a search warrant that will be justified under the nebulous national security exceptions to the rule of law and basic civil “RIGHTS.” Once a warrant is obtained, agents will execute a high risk, “no-knock” warrant most likely in the middle of the night and heavily armed to arrest you and ransack your home looking for anything they can construe as a threat. Often things as innocent as duct tape, old wire, and water barrels that many of us have in abundance are cited as “bomb making” materials or evidence of “terrorist” activities. God forbid if you are caught with a book that is politically incorrect on top of the duct tape and old wire.
If you think you have nothing to hide because you are “innocent” and have done nothing wrong, don’t be fooled because you are not exempt. Remember, all it takes is the impression of a Wal-Mart sales clerk to get labeled. Who knows, perhaps, you came across as unfriendly, maybe you were disturbed that they didn’t have any 9mm ammunition in stock, or maybe the sales clerk is just a bad judge of character. Either way, it doesn’t matter in a spy state where intimidation tactics abound and citizens are coerced into spying on their fellow neighbors by the government. Many honest Americans have had their lives ruined by being “swatted” or by unjustly becoming the subject of investigation by an overly militaristic gestapo agent at DHS or the FBI. Being “watch listed” is an extremely dangerous threat. We have seen numerous examples of how these “tips” have led to egregious acts on the part of law enforcement. At best you are questioned and labeled for surveillance. However, the worst examples include raiding the homes on innocent victims, which led to the incarceration of harmless citizens, pets being shot, children kidnapped by Child “Protective” Services, and even the killing of the unsuspecting homeowner that reached for a gun in self-defense as gestapo agents broke down their door in the middle of the night.
You need to protect yourselves. Option one is to maintain a low profile and not use traceable means of commerce such as credit cards instead of cash when purchasing guns or ammunition from retailers. However, that alone apparently constitutes you being a potential threat according to memos released by DHS and doesn’t solve the issue. A better method may be to use sunlight to disinfect and inoculate your local stores before the feds can hijack your information. Use the size and finances of these companies to fight our battle for freedom. To do this, directly contact your local sporting goods retailers and have a frank, honest, and open discussion about these gestapo tactics with their management. Make it clear to store managers that you are not comfortable shopping at their stores if you know you are going to be spied on and your information potentially handed to the government. Insist that your privacy is respected and demand proof. Further, ensure their employees are briefed on the underhanded government tactics and how that violates basic civil liberties.
Contrary to what the government desires, companies still require profits to exist and no matter what the government wants, the companies; especially large retailers like Wal-Mart, will begin to push back against the government (legally if necessary), when they are boycotted and their profits begin to shrink. We have witnessed this in the case of internet companies and NSA spying. Even Google and AT&T have begun to legally push back against government spying as they recognize their profits are not immune and free men and women across the globe will take their business elsewhere if their privacy is not ensured. The bottom line is if the management pushes back on protecting our basic civil rights, organize local and regional boycotts of the retailer. Make it impossible for them to conduct profitable business if it becomes clear that they are supporting domestic targeting of innocent Americans. When the knowledge of what the retailer is doing goes viral, contemporary precedents suggest that the retailer will cave to customer demands.

By Guiles Hendrik
All rights reserved.
July 14, 2014

An Open Letter to Connecticut Law Enforcement

Connecticut has a storied history in the founding of our republic.  As a state at the forefront of the Revolutionary War, its patriots stood firm in the face of tyranny.  What they helped achieve was nothing short of miraculous in respect to the new nation with freedoms and liberties never before known to previous generations of countless subjects.  In the coming days and weeks, you as law enforcement officers will be ordered to enforce a draconian gun control law against the wishes of the very same type of men that stood against tyrants and freed our nation from monarchy.  Will you go door to door and arrest those patriots that refuse to lay down their arms in the face of unconstitutional legislative action?  I ask that you do stand down and refuse to obey those orders for the common good.

Many of these peaceful citizens will be farmers, teachers, carpenters, doctors, soldiers, sportsmen, fireman, and former law enforcement that have dedicated their professional lives to the betterment and protection of their fellow citizens.  They are the true first line of defense for their families and communities.  They are you and me.  You will be told that these “former” law abiding citizens are suddenly now dangerous felons that pose an existential threat to peace in your state.  Those that refuse to hand over their lawfully obtained and peacefully maintained firearms will be deemed outlaws and you will be tasked with stamping out this rebellion.  How will you justify your actions?  Are you “just doing your job” like the Gestapo’s foot soldiers?  Will you use maximum force for officer safety at the risk of innocent citizens being harmed or killed?  When you have to kill your fellow citizens to disarm them will it be worth it?  When your actions lead to more deaths of children and innocents will it be justified?  Will your actions truly serve good or evil?  Are you willing to risk your life for the leftist bureaucrats that care nothing for you and look with contempt at law enforcement behind closed doors as brutish, uneducated, hired guns?  Will you stand with the people of your communities or the tyrants in government?  Do you realize that this issue is far bigger than Connecticut?

Consider that until you begin to breach doors and enter the homes of peaceful citizens at gunpoint, there was no threat.   There was no bloodshed.  There was no violence in these communities emanating from these lawful gun owners.  If you enforce this unconstitutional law, it will be you that brings violence and bloodshed to the innocent.  You will surrender your title of protector of the innocent and become the very evil you claim to stand against.  You will lose all standing amongst the citizenry as legitimate.  You will become nothing more than the armed thugs of the elite and deserve your earned fate.  Ironically, you will be the very threat against which, citizens were given the right by law to be armed.

A healthy republic relies on the action of free men with unimpeachable integrity, inquisitive minds, and steadfast moral constitutions.  Your founding fathers left a clear mandate for you to resist tyranny in every form at every opportunity.  Every one of you should intuitively understand that surrendering arms is not about protection but about the total power and control of the state at the expense of a citizen’s freedom and liberty.  The power of the government is inversely proportional to the freedom of the people; the more powerful the government, the less free the people.  However, the power of a nation is directly proportional to its freedom and liberty; the more free the peopl                                                                                                                                                                                             e, the stronger the nation.  Remember that even the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, stated as recently as last month that you should not enforce laws you feel are unconstitutional.  Further, the oath many of us took was to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  This is your moment to stand firm with your fellow citizens against tyranny and let it be known that you will not be a part of their oppression.  Do what tyrants fear most and stand up to them.  Without their brutish enforcers, the schemers have no power.  I ask each and every one of you to show true courage and utterly refuse to enforce Connecticut’s unconstitutional gun control laws.  Prove to the tyrants that the old blood of patriots is still alive and well amongst New England’s citizens and you will defend liberty and freedom today as your forefathers did in 1776.  Stand firm, stand united, but do not stand for the schemers that seek to disarm and control our nation.  Refuse to enforce this law.

 

Sincerely,

Guiles Hendrik

Why Edward Snowden Threatens the US Government

Recently, there has been talk in political circles entertaining the notion of granting amnesty for Edward Snowden under the condition he doesn’t release anymore secrets respective of the activities of the National Security Administration (NSA).  However, although there is significant public support for his amnesty inside the United States and abroad, it is highly unlikely the US Government will grant Snowden amnesty.  The reason for this is not because the US is worried about further damage to our national security.  This damage was complete shortly after Mr. Snowden arrived in China and certainly by time he was debriefed by Russian intelligence officers.  Further, many of the programs and capabilities Snowden purportedly exposed were already known by foreign intelligence and had been leaked in domestic alternate media outlets.  No, it is not the fear of what foreign governments may glean from the revelations, but what the American people will learn that is driving the angst at the White House.  The bottom line is that controlling elites within the US Government are angry and want revenge for Snowden’s official exposure of some of their most valuable and potent tools to surveil, track, and control the citizens of the US.  The real damage Snowden did was to expose and weaken the secret police state that had been quietly built over decades in a dramatic fashion and for that he should be applauded as a hero irrespective of the obvious collateral security damage exposing the programs required, which was unfortunate and no doubt costly.  Nonetheless, the need to uphold an oath to the Constitution superseded any in-house whistleblower policies and procedures that are more far more appropriately designed to silence dissent and protect political careers than to ensure freedom and liberty are preserved.

The government is now on the defensive trying to cover up and hide its illegal and unconstitutional surveillance activities that up until now were effectively hidden behind the curtain of secrecy.  The President’s inside circle is undoubtable worried that if the full scope of the surveillance activities to include what the President himself has ordered and authorized ever gets out to the public, the Administration would be finished and the President could possibly be impeached.  President Obama is feeling so much pressure he was forced to address the nation over the NSA’s spying in a manner intended to be perceived as reigning in the excessive surveillance.  However, the President’s statements and actions show he has no intention whatsoever of curtailing the unconstitutional domestic surveillance.  Instead of curtailing the domestic spying apparatus, President Obama has hypocritically acted and doubled down to protect the crown jewel of his police state, which he vehemently criticized when it was in its infancy under the control of former President George W. Bush.  The White House has forced the NSA (as well as broader intelligence and defense communities) to hide programs even deeper and review the vetting of anyone associated with these programs.  It has launched witch hunts for leakers with the intent to not just find and punish anyone willing to uphold their oath to the Constitution, but instill fear in anyone contemplating outing a classified, illegal, government program.  It has also launched disinformation campaigns with the collusion of its controlled media to convince people the programs have actually been effective at thwarting domestic terrorism even though reports released from Congress state the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on these programs over the last two decades have not prevented a single attack.  Further, the White House has spared no expense pressuring politically appointed judges to throw out lawsuits.  President Obama has also used all of his political capital to collude with Congress (not just Democrats) to stifle any hint of legislation that would restrict, defund, and or stop the unwarranted, mass, domestic surveillance of the American public.  Make no mistake, if President Obama and the elites have their way, the police state will only grow more powerful.

The notion that the government must know about every detail of every citizen’s life is enemy of freedom and liberty.  This power is the holy grail of any police state and the information derived from this wide net of surveillance will be stored, analyzed, and used for near unlimited control of any population.  We have written often about the false and dangerous logic behind the oft cited statement, “If you are not doing anything wrong you don’t have anything to worry about.”  Simply taking an opposition standpoint to this government has already resulted in a number of people killed by drones and historically speaking, simply being literate was enough for the Soviet “Progressives,” also known as the Bolsheviks, to execute millions.  Logic would conclude that if the government was indeed not interested in this information for control, then the programs would have little to no value and it would happily cease these extremely expensive programs.  However, the government has doggedly pursued these programs at an immense cost and in secret violation of the law to satisfy what historically has been shown to be any government’s unquenchable desire for more power.  Only the most naïve and ignorant citizens could feel comfortable with this type of excessive, unconstitutional violation of one’s privacy.  For those supporting these programs from within the government, only through extensive manipulation of reality could one justify these programs for “good” and even then this would require a nearly blind (stupid) belief that those senior policy makers telling them that these programs are “legal” and “authorized” are genuinely, good, honest, trustworthy, and have the public’s best interests at heart.  In fact, the mere notion that a person that shuns expansive power would also be the same person that seeks political office is contradictory and the notion of an “honest” politician is plain ridiculous.  In fact next to no one would say they “trust” politicians, but yet when one is ordered to conduct an illegal government operation, these employees act as if they are robots carrying out the orders because the system “told them to do it.”  Further, although their work may seem to be legitimate on the surface and focus on what they “are told” is a real terrorist target, these programs are so compartmentalized, there is little or no way for those subordinate minions to know the full scope of how the information being collected is being used and to what end it serves.  Those of you that believe you are justified because someone with “rank” ordered you to conduct a certain act should remember the lessons of Nuremberg.  You cannot hide behind orders and you must answer to a higher law.

If you value your freedom and liberty, you must demand your privacy is respected.  You must demand the domestic spy state is permanently dismantled and defunded.  Inform your neighbors.  Organize and rally the masses to force bought politicians to act.  You must bring cases to court and doggedly sue the government for violating your Constitutional Rights.  Vote out any and every politician not aggressively acting to stop this spying regardless of party affiliation.  If that is too much for you then at least donate money to those organizations and individuals that are working to stop the police state.  These groups are numerous and growing such as Campaign for Liberty http://www.campaignforliberty.org/ and the Rutherford Institute https://www.rutherford.org/.  Your support to organizations like these is invaluable and does have an impact.  Both of the above institutions have already forced legislative debate, bills, and successful suits against the government on behalf of your civil liberties and freedoms.

 

By Guiles Hendrik

January 21, 2014

All rights reserved.

Why are Armored Guard Posts in Target’s Parking Lot?

Today while shopping at Target I noticed something unusual in the parking lot.  Rising above the middle of the parking lot was a large, mobile guard post.  It had many cameras, dark tinted windows, and appeared armored.  Further, there was a police cruiser parked at its base.  Seeing this, I wondered, what could possible justify making the parking lot of Target look like a federal penitentiary.  Perhaps it was just a new “Supermax” Target?  Was there some imminent terrorist threat against Target?  Should I pack my kids up and flee now for safety?  No one in management seemed to have any comment so it must have just materialized out of thin air.

The reality is the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is becoming ever more overt in its actions toward implementing a complete police state.  As the tower attests, DHS has been working overtime to militarize our local police forces.  In fact, DHS has spent billions of taxpayer dollars to provide local police with equipment designed for full scale warfare.  In short, they are using your money to build the infrastructure to totally control you and every aspect of your life.  The DHS provided equipment includes items like Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) armored vehicles, microwave and ultra low frequency emitting “crowd control” devices, high tech intelligence and surveillance equipment to include drones, and mobile guard towers.  Previously these items were only seen on overseas battlefields and used against America’s most unsavory enemies, but now in keeping with the militarization and takeover of local police, DHS has handed these items out like candy to local cops.  The unstated, but nonetheless real effect of the change in police demeanor from peace officers to storm troopers has been to imbalance the delicate Constitutional balance between the power of the State and the collective power of the people to challenge the State effectively in the event the State becomes illegitimate.

There are neither credible threats against Target to justify this militarized checkpoint nor is there any chance this waste of tax payer dollars would prevent an attack should there actually be one.  This ominous icon of a war zone is designed to desensitize the population to the fact they are monitored, spied on, recorded, and no longer free to even shop for socks without the government’s all seeing eye prying upon their every move.  This type of emerging soft tyranny must be identified, highlighted, resisted, and ultimately shut down at every single emergence.

This particular tower in Potomac Yard Shopping Center (Alexandria, Virginia) was procured by wasting taxpayer dollars and put into use by the Alexandria, Virginia Police Department.  After discussing the tower with local law enforcement the consensus seems to be that the tower was emplaced to thwart a rise in thefts during the holidays around store parking lots.  After all, who wouldn’t want better “public safety?”  However, that rationale fails the logic test.  First of all, after follow-on observation it appears the tower is an overpriced scarecrow because it wasn’t manned and perhaps the video monitoring wasn’t even active.  As such, there was no one actually present to “prevent” a crime.  At best this would only support follow-on investigation if the cameras were operational and pointed in the right direct.  Thus, an unmanned tower provides no more security than store cameras already in place.  Second, the policing is being done on commercial property with your tax dollars.  If Target parking lots are not safe, it is incumbent upon Target to bear the burden of the cost of making their premises safe and secure for shoppers and not Alexandria Police Department.  If the threat is really that high to shoppers as the government would like to scare you into believing, then where is the data to support this and why would we dare take our families out Christmas shopping?  Third, the cost of purchasing, maintaining, moving, emplacing, monitoring, and manning these towers must run into the millions of dollars.  This is an extremely high price tag for what the tower provides and approaches a complete waste of tax dollars.  Fourth, to actually make it effective for its purported purpose of preventing thefts in parking lots during the holiday season, it would have to be manned with a minimum of two officers for at least two shifts a day to cover the shopping hours.  This surveillance would effectively remove significant manpower from a police department’s normal shifts and result in a reduced ability to respond to actual calls for help and criminal activity.  Finally, one must ask whether they want this type of life.  People must use their god given mind to envision where this leads in the future.  A life where the pettiest of crimes results in a justification for a police state is abhorrent to a free society.  There is no freedom of anything when on every corner, at every moment of our lives, armed government goons are ready to swoop in and enforce the smallest of infractions with overwhelming violence.

I ask all of you to contact Target and demand these icons of our emerging police state be immediately removed from their premises or we will boycott their store.  We have already begun a local campaign and to date, Target management has only officially responded by email with a generic “sorry for the inconvenience.”  This is unacceptable and we must make our voices the loudest in the room.  Further, we need to educate the management of Target and other retail stores on what is unacceptable to us as their customers in respect to further police state actions.  By combining our efforts and getting the word out to other internet outlets, talk radio, TV, and our friends and family about these excesses we can expose these tyrannical actions and stop them.  Please take action today and use all your personal clout to impress others to action.

Target’s contact information is as follows:

Potomac Yard Shopping Center

Target

3101 Jefferson Davis Hwy

Alexandria, VA 22305-3042

(703) 706-3840

https://www-secure.target.com/HelpFormLinkPageView?catalogId=10051&langId=-1&storeId=10151&krypto=cQcHDksCxhgmutHxyjlq48%2BIHqzAFPvRjj%2BCK5QVyor4h0nGk1rMzeFOGnDn4aO%2FNM%2F4KjfHQ4%2BK%0AdgJRkZ2wBjKToFcNk5ho24f6ObC44dg%3D&ddkey=http:HelpFormLinkPageView

 

By Guiles Hendrik

December 15, 2013

All rights reserved.

The Disenfranchisement of America and the Plan to Reverse It

The Constitution says that the number of representatives shall not exceed one representative for every 30,000 constituents.  This ratio was roughly equal to the actual ratio of representatives to the population at the time the Constitution was ratified.  However, today, most states have less than one representative per 700,000 people.  The result of this massive dilution of federal representation in Congress has been a near total disenfranchisement of the population and consolidation of power within two establishment political parties.  In order to begin restoring the balance of power to the people, breaking the party gridlock within Congress, and restoring liberty we must build popular support to overturn the arbitrary limit of 435 representatives set in 1929.  The sooner we build awareness and draw media attention to this issue, the greater the pressure will be on Congress to increase its size and begin to return the power to their constituents.

To begin, for a republic such as the United States to have a functioning representative government, there must be adequate and real representation of the citizen body.  The representatives must be answerable to their constituents and not political parties.  The notion today that a single representative can adequately represent the interests of over 700,000 people is lunacy normalized through decades of slowly eroding the individual’s political value to the point of nonexistence.  Further, the faux representation perpetrated upon the American people today has only been possible because politicians realize that their power is proportional to the number of people they represent.  The exact opposite is true for citizens.  The fewer citizens that are represented by a single representative, the more direct representation and influence the citizen possesses.

The Founding Fathers of the United States had much to say on the topic of what fair representation at the federal level would look like.  James Madison understood the danger of too few dictating to the many and adequately summarized his thoughts as the smaller the House, relative to the total population, the greater is the risk of unethical collusion or myopic groupthink.  In contrast, “Numerous bodies … are less subject to venality and corruption.”  [James Madison, 14-August-1789]   Federalist Paper Number 56 (February 19, 1788) describes this ratio stating, “…it seems to give the fullest assurance, that a representative for every THIRTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS will render the [House of Representatives] both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it.”  Note that the number “THIRTY THOUSAND” was capitalized in the papers for emphasis.

Melancton Smith’s observations deserve special attention as he, perhaps more than any of the other delegates to the Federal Convention, understood the gravity of the situation.  He knew that the power to determine the number of representatives could not be left to the ruling elite, which all too often become addicted to power.  This would be “a power inconsistent with every principle of a free government, to leave it to the discretion of the rulers to determine the number of representatives of the people.  There was no kind of security except in the integrity of the men who were entrusted; and if you have no other security, it is idle to contend about constitutions.” [Melancton Smith]  Smith elaborates on his valid and time proven point that we cannot expect the House to unilaterally increase the number of representatives.  “To me it appears clear, that the relative weight of influence of the different states will be the same, with the number of representatives at sixty-five as at six hundred, and that of the individual members greater; for each member’s share of power will decrease as the number of the House of Representatives increases.  If, therefore, this maxim be true, that men are unwilling to relinquish powers which they once possess, we are not to expect the House of Representatives will be inclined to enlarge the numbers.  The same motive will operate to influence the President and Senate to oppose the increase of the number of representatives; for, in proportion as the House of Representatives is augmented, they will feel their own power diminished.  It is, therefore, of the highest importance that a suitable number of representatives should be established by the Constitution.” [Melancton Smith]

Alexander Hamilton, an opponent of writing limits on representation into the Constitution, provides interesting insights into his logic.  For starters, it appears he neither conceived nor intended the federal government to have the sweeping powers that it possesses today.  “The subject on which this argument of a small representation has been most plausibly used, is taxation.  As to internal taxation, in which the difficulty principally rests, it is not probable that any general regulation will originate in the national legislature.” [Alexander Hamilton]  How Hamilton would have reacted to the reality of the Federal Income Tax, Obama Care, and the litany of other internal taxes levied since the ratification of the Constitution is anyone’s guess, but based on his above statement, one could surmise he would have altered his position on the need to include specific representational limits in the Constitution.  This conclusion is further supported by Hamilton’s statements respective of his belief that the federal government’s powers were limited and would never extend into one’s private life.   “The powers of the new government are general, and calculated to embrace the aggregate interests of the Union, and the general interest of each state, so far as it stands in relation to the whole. … Were the laws of the Union to new-model the internal police of any state; were they to alter, or abrogate at a blow, the whole of its civil and criminal institutions; were they to penetrate the recesses of domestic life, and control, in all respects, the private conduct of individuals,—there might be more force in the objection; and the same Constitution, which was happily calculated for one state, might sacrifice the welfare of another.” [Alexander Hamilton]  Of course we know now that the federal government has grown so oppressive and omnipresent as to invade every aspect of one’s private life.  As such, Hamilton’s grounds for objection, however implausible he may have believed them to be at the time, turned out to be the very grounds that time has proven most required the Constitution to dictate an equitable ratio of representatives to constituents.

Based on the rather clear intent of the individuals ratifying the Constitution, one may wonder how did the number of Representatives become fixed at 435?  The answer is rather simple; because Congress passed a bill in 1929.  The bill sought to prescribe a national policy under which the membership of the House shall never exceed 435 unless Congress, by affirmative action, overturns the formula and abandons the policy enunciated by this bill.  Respective of the number 435, there is no real reason other than that was the number of representatives at the time and the House found it advantageous to their political power to limit the growth further.  Of course the population of the United States has massively grown since 1929, which in effect increased the representation ratio to such an astronomically large number that the mere notion of representation was utterly destroyed.  However, this has only bolstered the power of the representatives and political parties, which have gerrymandered districts to the point of making the election of independent, grassroots connected representatives nearly impossible.  Except for those who are independently wealthy, election and reelection campaigns in super-sized districts require that the representatives raise huge sums of money on a nearly continuous basis.  This makes representatives beholden to the parties and big donors that funded their campaign instead of the constituents they purportedly are there to represent.  In short, this allows special interests, lobbyists, and other corrupting elements to highjack the representative.

To put the state of disenfranchisement in perspective, it is worth noting that Russia as compared to the United States has over 50% better representation of its people.  In fact, the United States has the second worst ratio of population to House representative in the world.  Surely as the “leader of the free world” the United States could muster better representation.

pastedGraphic.pdf

 

Challenging this notion one may surmise that a larger House would result in even more gridlock in Congress.  However, with an approval rating consistently below 10% and the inability to so much as even pass a budget, it would be hard to imagine a more dysfunctional Congress.  Further, if the above maxim that a smaller legislative body would be much more productive held true, then the Senate would certainly be very efficient.  However, the Senate is as dysfunctional as the House when it comes to operation.  In fact, there are rarely more than a handful of Congressmen from any chamber present during session and even fewer actually engaged in meaningful debate.  In part, this is because the work of the Congress is broke down into committees, which would be no different if the House increased its numbers.  As for anyone that doubts a large body could pass legislation, California is often used as proof this is untrue.  In fact, California has for decades effectively voted on hundreds of propositions.  If the millions of people in California can effectively vote on legislative initiatives, it should be simple for even ten thousand representatives to vote on similar legislation.  Naysayers may also point out that the government is too big already and adding more Congressmen will just make it worse.  This is also untrue and in fact just the opposite would most likely be the outcome.  As the number of representatives increase, Congress will have to become more representative of the people.   The House will be more, not less motivated to reduce the size of the government.  This is because the representative will be far more accountable to their constituents, which will be much better able to monitor their actions.  It is also worth noting that an increase in actual representatives may be closer to an overall neutral growth in government employees because fewer staff members are required to support smaller districts, which would balance against larger staffs to support larger districts.

Each state is guaranteed at least one representative, no matter what its population.  States with a single member in the U.S. House of Representatives are Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.  The District of Columbia has a non-voting delegate in Congress who has all the powers and rights of a representative, but is not permitted to vote.  Currently, the approximate number of constituents to a representative is around 705,000.  If the ratio was closer to 1:50,000 we would have a House with about 6,100 representatives.  This increase could be dealt with by regionalization of Congress much like the Federal Court Districts, which could have interactive debate via the web and electronic voting.  It would also mean your vote once again counted and you would have real influence at what approximated to what most experience at the state level of politics.  It would once again be difficult for any one party to control Congress.  It would be even more difficult for special interests, big businesses, and lobbyists to buy off Congress simply due to the sheer number or representatives, which would require immensely large sums of money and unavailable financial and manpower resources to gain a majority of support for pork legislation.  The result would be a more accountable, more effective, and more representative Congress.

The notion that we could once again have realistic representation in Congress is not a pipe dream.  It is an obtainable goal that is well within the feasible realm of effective change initiatives liberty minded citizens can unite around.  We must build the awareness of the population that the status quo is unacceptable and that the 1929 law that disenfranchised us today must be overturned.  We need to all write our Congressmen, get on talk shows and radio, use social media, and empower the grassroots movements around this nation to take this goal on as a part of the platform.

 

By Guiles Hendrik

December 9, 2013

All rights reserved

 

 

 

The Debates in the Federal Convention

August 6, 1787

As the proportions of numbers in different States will alter from time to time; as some of the States may hereafter be divided; as others may be enlarged by addition of territory; as two or more States may be united; as new States will be erected within the limits of the United States, the Legislature shall, in each of these cases, regulate the number of representatives by the number of inhabitants, according to the provisions herein after made, at the rate of one for every forty thousand.

— Reported by James Madison

Overcoming the Greatest Prepper Weakness: The Individual versus the Community and a Plan for the Future

One of the greatest assets to preppers is that they are self-reliant and able to independently operate.  However, it is also their greatest vulnerability.  No matter how tough, how well-trained, how well armed, or how well prepared an individual is, there is only so much one person can do.  Numbers matter.  As an individual, you must eventually sleep and can’t stand guard indefinitely.  You can only be at one place at one time.  A second set of hands on nearly any labor intensive task is better than one.  If sick or injured it is very difficult or impossible to provide prolonged self-aid or surgery.  If directly confronted by an organized and numerically superior force, the odds are decidedly against the individual.  You can only accurately fire one weapon, at one target, at one time.  Further, your best odds of survival if attacked by superior numbers would be to try and escape, but even then it is pretty easy for a larger number of pursuers to head you off and corner even the craftiest of evaders.  As such, for any realistic, long term survival plan, one must build a prepared community.  A community is the foundational bedrock of a society and a nation.  The community is where the individual can truly make a difference and build a better life.  Today’s article is my appeal to you to take action to improve your life, to create new and better communities, and to take back our nation.  I will provide each of you with the template to not just resist, but triumph.  Each one of us has the ability to change the status quo in the present day and no longer be at the mercy of the state, which at one time, represented us as citizens.  Make no mistake, survival is a long term struggle against both nature and tyranny that comes with sacrifice, but we can overcome the odds best through collective action.

Man is neither designed nor equipped to be a solitary animal.  Individually we are weak and vulnerable and would have long ago become easy prey and gone extinct if it wasn’t for banning together.  Since the earliest prehistoric times, man has grouped together in bands and tribes to survive.  Modern man is no exception as we live today more interconnected than ever.  This interdependency has allowed us to specialize, to survive, and to even have leisure.  Man was designed with neither the long claws and fangs of apex predators nor the acute hearing and swift speed of prey.  We don’t come with fur to protect us from temperature extremes and have long since lost our immunities to many parasites commonly found in food and water.  Man’s greatest asset, his mind, combined with strength in numbers has demonstrated that he can overcome nearly any extreme and challenge.  This maxim is as crucial for survival today as it was ten thousand years ago when small bands of Ice Age hunters and gathers grouped together to fend off ferocious predators and take down massive game.

Communities and villages sprang to existence out of the mutual need for security and distribution of labor.  Someone always needed to tend to the fire and be on the watch for predators so that others could safely sleep.  While some hunted the others cooked and farmed.  In modern times, these families became bands, then tribes, and then nations.  As nations grew, man’s greatest threat ceased to be lions and tigers, but his fellow man.  Nation state violence led to the need to collectively organize in even greater numbers or risk being numerically overwhelmed by a neighboring nation.  Internally, the rise of nations led to the rise of brutal tyrants and the further need organize the masses in resistance in order to escape slavery and death at the hands of the king’s mercenaries.

Today, the modern prepper faces all of these challenges.  At the most local level, the prepper must find a way to accomplish the daily tasks of a subsistence existence.  The chores of simply acquiring and preparing food and water, staying warm or cool, maintaining shelter, and creating or fixing the means to accomplish the former are enough to rapidly overwhelm anyone.  However, the prepper must also provide for his common security against potentially large bands of hostile people and what appears to be an increasingly hostile government.  Individually, or at least as a family, it is certainly possible to scratch out a subsistence level of existence as long as you are never confronted by a hostile group.  However, it is simply not realistic to believe that one could independently sustain for the long term when faced with hungry bands of violent, armed, thugs or a hostile, state sponsored tyranny.

As previously stated, I don’t care how prepared you “think” you are; if you are trying to subsist with just a handful of people, an organized group of basically trained thugs with a proclivity for violence will quickly overwhelm you and certainly seize whatever preps you have stored.  This is not a situation of maybe, but an absolute.  The preppers that fail to learn and internalize this are living in a fantasy world.  Preppers that ardently stick to their small groups in remote and isolated areas only delay the inevitable.  This paradigm may be best illustrated by how law enforcement represents a small percentage of the population, but effectively controls the masses by being able to quickly mass and achieve local (tactical) numerical superiority against any resistance.  Individually, there have been literally millions of people arrested that were tough, prepared, and well-armed, but I can’t think of any in recent memory that have successfully fought off a determined attempt at seizure by the police.  Sadly, government has never proven capable of leaving individuals alone and hungry mobs have never shown the proclivity to take the moral high road and starve when the option to loot for food existed.  Eventually, preppers that failed to organize BEFORE a collapse or crisis and build communities will each be independently identified, targeted, and wiped out by thugs or hostile government forces.

The solution to this is not a new one.  It is as old as mankind.  Like minded individuals will once again need to band together to collectively survive.  This is and will be an essential, critical, FACT that preppers must accept.  Preppers need not build communes or cede their independence, but do need to build communities.  These communities need to be aware, prepared, and organized in a manner that they are effectively self-sustaining and self-governing.  It is equally essential to also build the population numbers in a concentrated manner that will change the voting demographic so that elected representatives will not only properly represent, but be of the same mindset of their constituents.  We have seen some of these successes in Montana and Idaho, but are failing to coalesce in an organized manner nationwide.  Only by achieving, at minimum, at first, tactical numerical superiority in targeted regions will free, independent, liberty minded individuals be able to live a life of freedom with liberty in something more than their imagination.

Communities built around self-sustainment are by their very nature resilient to natural disasters, grid failures, and crime.  By locally producing food, water, and power a community can almost completely eliminate the major vulnerabilities of today’s societies.  The society is healthier, happier, and more connected.  By once again localizing industry, the community can build, fabricate, or repair nearly anything and have a vibrant localized economy.  Further, by having a large pool of like-minded citizens, the community can fend off both political and physical attacks.  One threat can be defeated through the ballot box and the other through tactical numerical “superiority.”  To illustrate this point, 100 groups of eight preppers could disperse across the 50 states (two groups to a state).  These small groups have zero political influence or protection and could be rounded up and wiped out in a single night by either hostile thugs or government forces operating in groups so small local law enforcement could field them.  However, if you combined these groups in one area, you would have the local tactical strength of upwards of 800 people.  This is a sufficient number to not just swing, but control elections in smaller districts, install a like-minded sheriff and deputies, and present a unified defense requiring at least a battalion of military regulars to engage with any chance of success.  Imagine getting back to a time and place where instead of fearing police, the local police actually acted to “defend” the locals and keep the peace with the full weight of the people and the law behind it.  Imagine a place where you could walk down the street and not be filmed, photographed, tracked, and fined for violating one of a seemingly infinite number of overbearing regulations.  Now consider the literally millions of like-minded “preppers” that exist in the cities, towns, and the rural expanses of America.  If the media is to be believed, tens of millions of these people are already organized under the nebulous title “Tea Party.”  By concentrating these numbers we not only make being prepared and living free mainstream, but the lifestyle sells itself.  Don’t waste your strength and try to fight the numbers in states like California, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York.  Let those states wallow in their own filth, debt, and ever increasing taxes.  Instead, take charge and opt out of them.  Stop paying into those defunct systems and move away.  Concentrate in places where we can control the elections, the schools, the local law enforcement, and ultimately empower our way of life.  To use the cliché, “if we build it, people will come” is justified.  As we set ourselves apart and demonstrate a workable better life, more and more people will turn away from their current unsustainable, rat race existences and seek something better for themselves and their families.  People want this and are thirsty for leadership, but to date, few have stepped up.  If we lead, the masses will follow.

The model outlined above is feasible, suitable, and something that could be quickly accomplished in the near term.  Much debate surrounds the “optimum” prepper retreat location, but it is unnecessary because few states truly fit the bill.  Further, most of the debate is academic because true survival will not come from hiding and hoping tyranny will overlook you.  Instead, we must recognize “prepping” is not just an action but a way of life that must be protected and nurtured.  To truly survive, we must come to terms with reality and engage in an effective course of action with a chance of long term success.  We must change the debate and public perception of preppers.  We need to show the public we are absolutely no threat, peaceful, and reframe ourselves as a persecuted minority requiring protection, much like the Amish or Mennonites.  To effect this we must concentrate our numbers in specific localities.  The best prepper locations to concentrate at first will be areas of low population density, but ample natural resources.  Further, it is only reasonable to first target locations within states that predominately tend to support freedom, liberty, and independence or in short, support a prepared lifestyle and are not burdensome with respect to taxes and regulation.  This means that an ideal state probably will not have a large, leftwing, urban center like New York City, Philadelphia, or San Francisco that disproportionately biases the elections.  That immediately rules out states such as California, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York.  You would also want to avoid locations with staggering debt or other lingering problems that would be materially detrimental to building new communities.  Out west, states such as Idaho, Montana, North and South Dakota, and Wyoming offer the best options to concentrate.  Idaho has long been recognized as an ideal redoubt and is already demonstrating that this model works.  Not only have local and state leaders been elected, but representatives at the federal level have been elected and are now insulating Idaho from many of the problems facing the rest of the nation.  In fact, businesses are also moving to Idaho.  Gun and ammunition manufacturers in particular have found Idaho a great place to set up business.

In the east, West Virginia may well be on its way to becoming the prepper redoubt of choice.  West Virginia’s topography is well suited to the defense and has a very low population density.  There are entire areas of West Virginia that have zero electronic emissions.  The federal government has also recognized West Virginia’s suitability for surviving an apocalypse and has built various “hollow mountains” throughout the state.  Unlike many other potential redoubts, West Virginia is a realistic location to bug out to from most areas along the East Coast and is not prone to natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, or large earthquakes.  It is also well protected from potential nuclear blasts and is not seen as a high value target for terrorists.  Further, West Virginia really doesn’t have any major metropolitan areas that will spill millions of refugees into the surrounding hinterlands.  The climate is very suitable for growing a variety of crops and the state is rich in natural resources that range from salt and coal to timber and natural gas.  West Virginia tends to not be heavy on regulation and the people are generally conservative minded and live already as semi-preppers.  West Virginia also has the potential to be a leader in alternate energy.  It has endless ridgelines for wind and solar power as well as many streams and rivers suitable for various scale hydroelectric systems.  West Virginia is an outdoorsman’s paradise, yet is still located close enough to eastern population centers that it will have increasing influence.  Given the low population density and the affordability of homes and property in West Virginia, it would be relatively easy for preppers in the mid-Atlantic to relocate and take up residence in a few targeted counties such as Hampshire, Hardy, Mineral, and Grant counties in the eastern panhandle.  By concentrating in these counties and gaining a strong percentage of the voting block, like minded preppers could essentially establish a food hold in the heart of the mid-Atlantic and establish their own model community.  Note that it is not necessary to even gain a voting “majority” in these counties because the influence of a well-organized and active electorate will be more than sufficient to sway, skew, and control any local election.  Further, voter turnout; especially at the local level and during primaries, tends to be extremely low so it would be possible to not only oust incumbents on tickets, but stack the local and state governments with our candidates.  From those initial gains, we could fundamentally change how local and then state governments operate in the near term and demonstrate a better way of living to the nation.  Ultimately, we will fundamentally change the thinking nationwide and to this end, achieve our goals of independence, liberty, and sustainable living.

I challenge each of you today to disseminate this message as widely as possible, to as many people as possible.  Sow the seeds of liberty and freedom again in people’s minds.  Let them know that they don’t have to accept the status quo and can change their situation now.  There are no longer empty frontiers to escape to and waiting till the SHTF will be too late.  We must pick our ground wisely now so that we can stand our ground later.  By doing something as simple as moving your state of residence (even if that doesn’t mean you physically move) so that you can (and must) vote in Idaho or West Virginia, we absolutely can improve our lives and the lives of others.  Follow my lead and begin the process of stacking the deck in these two states where as little as a hundred votes can control the officials elected at the local and state level.  Idaho and West Virginia are not the end, but the beginning.  From these two localities we can expand our communities to the surrounding regions and states, but we have to begin somewhere and we have to begin now.

 

By Guiles Hendrik

November 3, 2013

All rights reserved.