Archive for the ‘Tea Party's’ Category

ATF knocking doors of recent firearms purchasers

CITIZEN MILITIA ARRESTS POLICE

Armed Citizen Militia Shows Up At Occupy Phoenix Alex Jones’ Infowars There’s a war on for your mind!

AMERICAN MILITIAMAN WARNS CONGRESS TO BACK OFF!

Steven Seagal Tells All New World Order

American Militia Timeline

EVERYONE NEEDS TO SEE THIS : OBAMA’S DRONES WAR ON WOMEN AND CHILDREN!

Advertisements

Alex Jones
Infowars.com
March 10, 2012

The impeachment of war criminal Barack Obama has begun but the globalist controlled traitor media is blacking this huge news out.

Can the President Kill You?

Posted: 03/08/2012 by Lynn Dartez in 2012, Tea Party's, We The People

by Andrew P. Napolitano

Recently by Andrew P. Napolitano: What If Democracy Is Bunk?

Can the president kill an American simply because the person is dangerous and his arrest would be impractical? Can the president be judge, jury and executioner of an American in a foreign country because he believes that would keep America safe? Can Congress authorize the president to do this?

Earlier this week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder attempted to justify presidential killing in a speech at Northwestern University law school. In it, he recognized the requirement of the Fifth Amendment for due process. He argued that the president may substitute the traditionally understood due process – a public jury trial – with the president’s own novel version of it; that would be a secret deliberation about killing. Without mentioning the name of the American the president recently ordered killed, Holder suggested that the president’s careful consideration of the case of New Mexico-born Anwar al-Awlaki constituted a substituted form of due process.

Holder argued that the act of reviewing al-Awlaki’s alleged crimes, what he was doing in Yemen and the imminent danger he posed provided al-Awlaki with a substituted form of due process. He did not mention how this substitution applied to al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son and a family friend, who were also executed by CIA drones. And he did not address the utter absence of any support in the Constitution or Supreme Court case law for his novel theory.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that the government may not take the life, liberty or property of any person without due process. Due process has numerous components, too numerous to address here, but the essence of it is “substantive fairness” and a “settled fair procedure.” Under due process, when the government wants your life, liberty or property, the government must show that it is entitled to what it seeks by articulating the law it says you have violated and then proving its case in public to a neutral jury. And you may enjoy all the constitutional protections to defend yourself. Without the requirement of due process, nothing would prevent the government from taking anything it coveted or killing anyone – American or foreign – it hated or feared.

The killing of al-Awlaki and the others was without any due process whatsoever, and that should terrify all Americans. The federal government has not claimed the lawful power to kill Americans without due process since the Civil War; even then, the power to kill was claimed only in actual combat. Al-Awlaki and his son were killed while they were driving in a car in the desert. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Constitution applies in war and in peace. Even the Nazi soldiers and sailors who were arrested in Amagansett, N.Y., and in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., during World War II were entitled to a trial.

The legal authority in which Holder claimed to find support was the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was enacted by Congress in the days following 9/11. That statute permits the president to use force to repel those who planned and plotted 9/11 and who continue to plan and plot the use of terror tactics to assault the United States. Holder argued in his speech that arresting al-Awlaki – who has never been indicted or otherwise charged with a crime but who is believed to have encouraged terrorist attacks in the U.S. – would have been impractical, that killing him was the only option available to prevent him from committing more harm, and that Congress must have contemplated that when it enacted the AUMF.

Even if Holder is correct – that Congress contemplated presidential killing of Americans without due process when it enacted the AUMF – such a delegation of power is not Congress’ to give. Congress is governed by the same Constitution that restrains the president. It can no more authorize the president to avoid due process than it can authorize him to extend his term in office beyond four years.

Instead of presenting evidence of al-Awlaki’s alleged crimes to a grand jury and seeking an indictment and an arrest and a trial, the president presented the evidence to a small group of unnamed advisers, and then he secretly decided that al-Awlaki was such an imminent threat to America 10,000 miles away that he had to be killed. This is logic more worthy of Joseph Stalin than Thomas Jefferson. It effectively says that the president is above the Constitution and the rule of law, and that he can reject his oath to uphold both.

If the president can kill an American in Yemen, can he do so in Peoria? Even the British king, from whose tyrannical grasp the American colonists seceded, did not claim such powers. And we fought a Revolution against him.

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

March 8, 2012

Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel, and the host of “FreedomWatch” on the Fox Business Network. His latest book is It is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom.

Copyright © 2012 Andrew P. Napolitano

The Best of Andrew Napolitano

NewsWithViews

By Chuck Baldwin
February 16, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Both, Liberals and Conservatives are Selling Out America

There may have been a time when the words “conservative” and “liberal” meant something, but that time is no more. Today, “conservatives” in government are doing as much to promote Big Government, as are “liberals.” In fact, if one were to honestly evaluate the twelve years of the George Herbert Walker Bush and G.W. Bush administrations, one could say that “conservatives” even eclipse “liberals” in promoting Big Government. Under the two Bushes, the federal government expanded (and even exploded) to levels that for-real liberal Democrats could only dream about.

Let’s get realistic. Just because a politico says he or she is “pro-life,” or “pro-family,” or “pro-marriage,” etc., does not mean that they are going to do anything to help save the country. Come on, folks; think! “Conservative” Republican administration appointments have dominated the US Supreme Court since the infamous Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions that effectively legalized abortion-on-demand. And we are no closer to overturning Roe and Doe after almost forty years of electing “pro-life conservatives” than we were the year after the Roe and Doe decisions were rendered. And for the first six years of the 21st Century, “conservative” Republicans dominated the entire federal government, and still the Roe and Doe decisions stand.

And when it comes to marriage and family, there is not a darn thing that Washington, D.C., can do to “save” it. Washington can no more “save” the family than it can “create” jobs! Washington is not God–the attitudes of most Washington politicians and national newscasters notwithstanding.

Herein lies the real problem: both “conservatives” and “liberals” expect Washington, D.C., to be the panacea for all the nation’s ills. Oh, the left and right come to Washington expecting different solutions, but they both come to Washington, D.C., for the solution. Both “conservatives” and “liberals” expect the federal government to “fix” America. But, in this regard, Ronald Reagan spoke with great profundity when he said, “Government [especially the federal government] is not the solution to our problem; government [especially the federal government] IS the problem!”

Hear President Reagan’s quote.

Both “conservatives” and “liberals” look to the federal government to establish and enforce their parochial agendas. “Liberals” look to Washington for the establishment of “social justice,” while “conservatives” look to Washington for the establishment of “military justice.” The net result is the federal government keeps getting bigger and bigger regardless of who controls the White House, Congress, or Supreme Court.

“Conservatives,” whether Christian or not, are just as culpable in the expansion of Big Government as are “liberals.” In fact, when it comes to the expansion of military adventurism, “conservatives” are the most culpable. And when it comes to the ever-burgeoning police state that is currently taking shape in the United States, “liberals” and “conservatives” are equally to blame. Let’s face it: both “conservatives” and “liberals” are in the midst of an intense and illicit love affair with Washington, D.C.

The way many “conservatives” have embraced the candidacy of Rick Santorum is a prime example of how skewed their understanding of historic, constitutional principles really is. Santorum goes around talking about “pro-life” and “pro-family” issues, while his voting record in the US Senate demonstrates that he is just another conservative-talking, big-spending politician. He has voted for so many Big-Government bills and endorsed so many Big-Government toadies that it is incredible that anyone could refrain from laughing out loud when he calls himself a “conservative.”

Check the factual record of Senator Rick Santorum.

By the same token, it is absolutely incredible that “conservatives,” especially Christian “conservatives,” could so quickly and firmly reject the candidacy of the man who most likely is going to go down in history as the greatest congressman to ever sit in the US House of Representatives, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Patrick Henry was probably the greatest governor that the United States has ever seen; and Daniel Webster was probably the greatest senator that the country has ever seen; and I am personally convinced that history will regard Congressman Ron Paul as our greatest US House member. For his entire political career, Congressman Paul has stood like a rock for the fundamental principles of liberty and constitutionalism, and, yet, many “conservatives” reject his Presidential candidacy. They would rather support Big-Government toadies like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney. Egad!

Have people not wondered why the direction of the country has not changed one iota regardless if “conservatives” or “liberals” are running things? One would think that at some point people would wake up to the fact that until we start electing civil magistrates who take their oaths to the Constitution seriously, and who truly understand the nature of our federalist form of government, and who are truly committed to the preservation of the Bill of Rights, and who truly understand and appreciate the jurisdiction and authority of the states, nothing is going to change in this country. Nothing! And in 2012, there is only one man in the Presidential field who has an intellectual grasp and moral commitment to all of the above: Ron Paul. I will say it yet again: it will not matter to a tinker’s dam if anyone other than Ron Paul is elected President in 2012.


Advertisement

Furthermore, if Americans do not wake up to the importance of electing State governors, attorney generals, senators, legislators, and county sheriffs who understand that their primary responsibility as a State office holder is to safeguard the rights and liberties of the citizens of their respective states FROM THE USURPATION AND OVERREACH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, our liberties are lost–no matter how many “conservatives” we elect!

Ladies and gentlemen, face it: the left-right paradigm is a hoax! It creates false conflicts and masks true problems. It caters to the increase of socialism on the one hand and fascism and corporatism on the other hand. It saps our strengths and augments our weaknesses. It blinds our eyes to the warning clouds above us and deafens our ears to the sounds of the sirens around us. It turns friends into adversaries and adversaries into friends. It dulls our senses and sharpens our illusions. It removes true courage and gives false hope. It sullies our character and shines our betrayal, and it puts shackles around our feet and greases the skids of oppression.

Instead of worrying about whether one professes to be a “conservative” or a “liberal,” we should be concerned about whether the people we vote for understand the fundamental principles of liberty and constitutional government and have the moral character to defend such principles at all costs. Furthermore, we should be concerned that both “conservatives” and “liberals” look to government for the solutions to our problems instead of looking to the Natural Law principles of our Creator. Yes, Martha, the Golden Rule really does matter–even in Washington, D.C.

P.S. Readers should know that I have withdrawn my candidacy for Lieutenant Governor of the State of Montana. Here is my press release in this regard:

“Yesterday (Sunday, February 12), I called gubernatorial candidate, Bob Fanning, and told him that I was withdrawing my name as a candidate for Montana’s Lieutenant Governor. When Bob and I announced my candidacy for Lieutenant Governor here in Kalispell, I said, ‘We are in this race to win.’ I realized then that, in order to be competitive, there were certain criteria that had to be met. I knew our campaign had to raise a sizeable sum of money; and knew that we had to put together a quality campaign organization. Since making our announcement back in November, this campaign has accomplished neither task. Therefore, it is more than obvious to me that this campaign has no chance of being successful in the primary elections. And I have too much respect for the people of Montana than to ask them to support a candidacy that cannot at least be competitive. People who believe in a political campaign enough to invest their time and hard-earned money in it have a right to expect that the candidates they support can deliver a successful campaign.

“I believe that my departure from the Governor/Lieutenant Governor race will allow me to continue to pursue whatever opportunities the people of Montana would believe were best suited for those abilities and attributes that I may have in our mutual pursuance of liberty and constitutional government. And, no, I will not endorse a gubernatorial candidate at this time.

LEFT-RIGHT PARADIGM IS A HOAX

By Chuck Baldwin
February 16, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Both, Liberals and Conservatives are Selling Out America

There may have been a time when the words “conservative” and “liberal” meant something, but that time is no more. Today, “conservatives” in government are doing as much to promote Big Government, as are “liberals.” In fact, if one were to honestly evaluate the twelve years of the George Herbert Walker Bush and G.W. Bush administrations, one could say that “conservatives” even eclipse “liberals” in promoting Big Government. Under the two Bushes, the federal government expanded (and even exploded) to levels that for-real liberal Democrats could only dream about.

Let’s get realistic. Just because a politico says he or she is “pro-life,” or “pro-family,” or “pro-marriage,” etc., does not mean that they are going to do anything to help save the country. Come on, folks; think! “Conservative” Republican administration appointments have dominated the US Supreme Court since the infamous Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions that effectively legalized abortion-on-demand. And we are no closer to overturning Roe and Doe after almost forty years of electing “pro-life conservatives” than we were the year after the Roe and Doe decisions were rendered. And for the first six years of the 21st Century, “conservative” Republicans dominated the entire federal government, and still the Roe and Doe decisions stand.

And when it comes to marriage and family, there is not a darn thing that Washington, D.C., can do to “save” it. Washington can no more “save” the family than it can “create” jobs! Washington is not God–the attitudes of most Washington politicians and national newscasters notwithstanding.

Herein lies the real problem: both “conservatives” and “liberals” expect Washington, D.C., to be the panacea for all the nation’s ills. Oh, the left and right come to Washington expecting different solutions, but they both come to Washington, D.C., for the solution. Both “conservatives” and “liberals” expect the federal government to “fix” America. But, in this regard, Ronald Reagan spoke with great profundity when he said, “Government [especially the federal government] is not the solution to our problem; government [especially the federal government] IS the problem!”

Hear President Reagan’s quote.

Both “conservatives” and “liberals” look to the federal government to establish and enforce their parochial agendas. “Liberals” look to Washington for the establishment of “social justice,” while “conservatives” look to Washington for the establishment of “military justice.” The net result is the federal government keeps getting bigger and bigger regardless of who controls the White House, Congress, or Supreme Court.

“Conservatives,” whether Christian or not, are just as culpable in the expansion of Big Government as are “liberals.” In fact, when it comes to the expansion of military adventurism, “conservatives” are the most culpable. And when it comes to the ever-burgeoning police state that is currently taking shape in the United States, “liberals” and “conservatives” are equally to blame. Let’s face it: both “conservatives” and “liberals” are in the midst of an intense and illicit love affair with Washington, D.C.

The way many “conservatives” have embraced the candidacy of Rick Santorum is a prime example of how skewed their understanding of historic, constitutional principles really is. Santorum goes around talking about “pro-life” and “pro-family” issues, while his voting record in the US Senate demonstrates that he is just another conservative-talking, big-spending politician. He has voted for so many Big-Government bills and endorsed so many Big-Government toadies that it is incredible that anyone could refrain from laughing out loud when he calls himself a “conservative.”

Check the factual record of Senator Rick Santorum.

By the same token, it is absolutely incredible that “conservatives,” especially Christian “conservatives,” could so quickly and firmly reject the candidacy of the man who most likely is going to go down in history as the greatest congressman to ever sit in the US House of Representatives, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Patrick Henry was probably the greatest governor that the United States has ever seen; and Daniel Webster was probably the greatest senator that the country has ever seen; and I am personally convinced that history will regard Congressman Ron Paul as our greatest US House member. For his entire political career, Congressman Paul has stood like a rock for the fundamental principles of liberty and constitutionalism, and, yet, many “conservatives” reject his Presidential candidacy. They would rather support Big-Government toadies like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney. Egad!

Have people not wondered why the direction of the country has not changed one iota regardless if “conservatives” or “liberals” are running things? One would think that at some point people would wake up to the fact that until we start electing civil magistrates who take their oaths to the Constitution seriously, and who truly understand the nature of our federalist form of government, and who are truly committed to the preservation of the Bill of Rights, and who truly understand and appreciate the jurisdiction and authority of the states, nothing is going to change in this country. Nothing! And in 2012, there is only one man in the Presidential field who has an intellectual grasp and moral commitment to all of the above: Ron Paul. I will say it yet again: it will not matter to a tinker’s dam if anyone other than Ron Paul is elected President in 2012.


Advertisement

Furthermore, if Americans do not wake up to the importance of electing State governors, attorney generals, senators, legislators, and county sheriffs who understand that their primary responsibility as a State office holder is to safeguard the rights and liberties of the citizens of their respective states FROM THE USURPATION AND OVERREACH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, our liberties are lost–no matter how many “conservatives” we elect!

Ladies and gentlemen, face it: the left-right paradigm is a hoax! It creates false conflicts and masks true problems. It caters to the increase of socialism on the one hand and fascism and corporatism on the other hand. It saps our strengths and augments our weaknesses. It blinds our eyes to the warning clouds above us and deafens our ears to the sounds of the sirens around us. It turns friends into adversaries and adversaries into friends. It dulls our senses and sharpens our illusions. It removes true courage and gives false hope. It sullies our character and shines our betrayal, and it puts shackles around our feet and greases the skids of oppression.

Instead of worrying about whether one professes to be a “conservative” or a “liberal,” we should be concerned about whether the people we vote for understand the fundamental principles of liberty and constitutional government and have the moral character to defend such principles at all costs. Furthermore, we should be concerned that both “conservatives” and “liberals” look to government for the solutions to our problems instead of looking to the Natural Law principles of our Creator. Yes, Martha, the Golden Rule really does matter–even in Washington, D.C.

P.S. Readers should know that I have withdrawn my candidacy for Lieutenant Governor of the State of Montana. Here is my press release in this regard:

“Yesterday (Sunday, February 12), I called gubernatorial candidate, Bob Fanning, and told him that I was withdrawing my name as a candidate for Montana’s Lieutenant Governor. When Bob and I announced my candidacy for Lieutenant Governor here in Kalispell, I said, ‘We are in this race to win.’ I realized then that, in order to be competitive, there were certain criteria that had to be met. I knew our campaign had to raise a sizeable sum of money; and knew that we had to put together a quality campaign organization. Since making our announcement back in November, this campaign has accomplished neither task. Therefore, it is more than obvious to me that this campaign has no chance of being successful in the primary elections. And I have too much respect for the people of Montana than to ask them to support a candidacy that cannot at least be competitive. People who believe in a political campaign enough to invest their time and hard-earned money in it have a right to expect that the candidates they support can deliver a successful campaign.

“I believe that my departure from the Governor/Lieutenant Governor race will allow me to continue to pursue whatever opportunities the people of Montana would believe were best suited for those abilities and attributes that I may have in our mutual pursuance of liberty and constitutional government. And, no, I will not endorse a gubernatorial candidate at this time.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

“I wish Bob Fanning much success in his future endeavors and am honored that he would ask me to be his Lieutenant Governor running mate.”

I want to thank readers for their support and prayers for me and my family as we continue to fight for the principles of liberty and constitutional government in our country, and especially in the great State of Montana.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

© 2012 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved



Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. Chuck and his family reside in the Flathead Valley of Montana. See Chuck’s complete bio here.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

Eight simple truths you need to know about 2012

Posted: 01/04/2012 by Lynn Dartez in 2012, Tea Party's

by Simon Black

Date: January 3, 2012
Coyhaique, Northern Patagonia

Yesterday we discussed certain events that, in my view, are nearly mathematical certainties. Things like a restructuring of public pensions and Social Security in Europe and the US. Western governments blocking Internet and mobile networks. War. The US government being forced to issue debt in a foreign currency.

All of these events are underpinned by a simple premise:

1) Public and private debts included, most western nations are insolvent. Big time.

2) History shows that economic growth in such an environment is nearly impossible when such a large percentage of GDP must be allocated solely to interest. Most countries in this position either default or [hyper]inflate. Both have catastrophic consequences.

3) Continued political and monetary intervention in the economy is counterproductive. From ‘Cash for Clunkers’ to negative real interest rates, such intervention only serves to make the problems, and their impacts, much worse.

4) The combined ingredients of sovereign insolvency; a global financial system based on worthless paper currency; and consumptive, import-oriented, public entitlement economies have created conditions for an epic, long-term economic depression.

5) Deteriorating economic conditions drive social unrest. [In fact, there’s a great paper by two European economists which defines an explicit correlation between government budget cuts and things like rising crime rates, riots, and even attempted revolution.]

6) Faced with a marauding population that threatens their own survival, governments will stop at nothing to maintain the status quo: their power, our expense. Again, history shows that police states, boogeyman enemies, a total loss of privacy, capital controls, higher taxes, etc. will all become the norm.

7) None of these delay tactics can prevent human and financial capital from eventually migrating to where they are treated best. This will ultimately force a complete system reset by starving the beast.

8) This is not the first time this has happened, and it won’t be the last. This time is NOT different. Our modern society is not a unique and special snowflake that can ward off the consequences that have plagued empires for millennia.

Everything from the way I invest to how I allocate my time and plan for the future is based on this view. It’s why I’m in Chile, why we purchased a 1,000+ acre farm, and why we plan on sharing it with like-minded people.

I may be a bit early, but I’d much rather be early than thinking through these implications while I’m packing my bags. After all, things can ‘feel’ quite normal for a long time. Changes take place gradually, then faster and faster, until the decay looks like an upside-down hockey stick.

The Roman Empire, for example, began its spectacular decline shortly after Augustus became de facto emperor in 27 BC. He was followed by a long series of dismal failures– Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, etc. But Rome muddled along for hundreds of years, wavering between growth and decay.

The changes were gradual. A little currency debasement here, a bit of excess spending there, and throw in plenty of assassinations and foreign wars for good measure.  Along the way, though, thinking people could see the writing on the wall… and many of Rome’s citizens set sail for greener pastures.

The gradual changes became more and more pronounced… and the more pronounced, the more people left. As Gibbon recounts in his seminal work, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the city of Rome lost nearly 75% of its population in the Empire’s final 50-years in the 5th century.

History is full of other examples of once proud nations that, facing problems for decades (or even centuries), completely unwound in a matter of years. The Ottoman Empire. The Ming Dynasty. Feudal France. The Soviet Union.

Bottom line, when the real change comes, it comes very, very quickly.

Think about the pace of change these days. It’s quickening. Europe is a great case study for this– when concerns about Greece first surfaced, European leaders were able to contain the damage. There was disquiet, but it soon dissipated.

Fast forward to today. We can hardly go a single day without a major, market-rocking headline. And European politicians’ attempts to assuage the damage have a useful half life that can be measured in days… sometimes hours now.

Like the Ottomans, the Soviets, the Romans before them, Western civilization is entering the phase where its rate of decline will start looking like that upside-down hockey stick.

There is no crystal ball that can tell us exactly how/when it will all go down. It stands to reason that certain events (perhaps this year’s Presidential elections in the US, Russia, France, etc.) will be pivotal in the decline, but suffice it to say that time is not on our side given the pace of change.

Each of us has a finite amount of resources– time, energy, capital, etc. And I really want to encourage you to think clearly and deliberately about how you allocate those resources… e.g. you’re better off buying an ounce of gold than making a political campaign contribution.

2011 was a challenging year. 2012 will likely prove even more. But this isn’t anything to dread. It’s is an incredibly exciting time to be alive– change should be embraced, not feared.

Empires always run their course. Bubbles burst. But creative, thinking human beings always survive and thrive.

http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/eight-simple-truths-you-need-to-know-about-2012/

January 1, 2012 5:00 AM

“”Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense”……..Winston Churchill, Oct 29, 1941

I do not know the author of the following article but he has a point. Surrender is not an option and this article make a good case for that position.

The Phases of Surrender
The first phase of surrender is failing to be armed, trained and committed to fight. We are prepared to surrender when we are unprepared to resist.

The second phase of surrender is failing to be alert. You must see trouble coming in order to have time to respond. The warning may be less than one second but it will be there and it must be recognized and acted upon immediately.

The Third phase of surrender is giving up your weapons.

The last phase of surrender is up to the monsters who have taken control of your life and perhaps the lives of your loved ones. The last phase of surrender is out of your hands.

Surrender during war
During the American Revolution 12,000 Colonists captured by the British died in captivity on prison ships, while only 8,000 died in battle. Had the 12,000 who surrendered continued to fight many would have survived and they could have done great damage to the British and likely shortened the war.

Civil War prisoners were treated so badly that some 50,000 died in captivity. More Americans have been killed by Americans than by any foreign army in any war. Six hundred eighteen thousand (618,000) Americans died in the Civil War.

As many as 18,000 captured American and Filipino prisoners died or were murdered at the hands of the Japanese during the six days of the “Bataan Death March.” Had most of these soldiers slipped into the jungle and fought as guerrillas they could have tied up elements of the Japanese Army for months or years and perhaps more of them would have survived the war.

Of the Americans who actually reached Japanese prison camps during the war, nearly 50,000 died in captivity. That is more than 10 percent of all the American military deaths in the entire war in both the Pacific and European theaters combined.

In addition to the 50,000 captured Americans who died in Japanese prison camps an additional 20,000 were murdered before reaching a prison camp. If those 70,000 Americans had continued to fight, they could have provided time for the United States to build and maneuver its forces, perhaps shortening the war and saving even more lives. Some of them would have likely survived the war. If they had all died in battle their fate would have been no worse.

During the early stages of the Battle of the Bulge American soldiers were massacred by the German troops who captured them.

During the Vietnam conflict many American Prisoners Of War were tortured daily for years by the Communist North Vietnamese. Many Americans died during the process. Only Officers (Aviators) held in North Vietnam were ever repatriated. Enlisted Americans captured in South Viet Nam were routinely tortured, mutilated and murdered by the Communists. As a combat soldier and knowing my fate should I be captured, I was committed to fighting to the death. I made specific plans to force the enemy to kill me rather than allow myself to be captured.

In recent years, American troops captured by Islamic terrorists groups have virtually all been tortured and murdered in gruesome fashion. If I were fighting in the Middle East, I would make a similar vow and plan to fight to the death. Under no circumstances would I allow myself to be captured by our Islamic enemies.

Death by Government
R.J. Rummel, who wrote the book, “Death by Government” states that prior to the 20th Century; 170 million civilians were murdered by their own governments. Historians tell us that during the 20th Century perhaps as many as 200 million civilians were murdered by their own governments.

Some of the Nations where the mass murder of civilians occurred during the 20th Century include Russia, Ukraine, Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, The Congo, Uganda, Armenia, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Nigeria, Laos, China, Cuba, Manchuria, Iraq, Iran, Biafra, Rwanda and many others. The slaughter of civilians by governments appears to be as common as not.

Most of these slaughters were only made possible by disarming the victims before killing them. Had these people resisted, their fate would have been no worse and perhaps better. Resistance is much more difficult after the government has already taken the means of resistance away from the people. Planned genocide has been the primary reason for weapon confiscation throughout history.

Jews and others who surrendered to the Nazis were murdered in slave labor camps by the millions. Had all the Jews in Europe resisted when the Nazis started rounding them up they could have made the Nazis pay an enormous price for the holocaust. The fact that Hitler confiscated guns in 1936 made resistance far less feasible.

Had the Jews in Germany resisted, the outcome may have been the same but the world would have learned about the holocaust years earlier and may have intervened. Most people would prefer to die fighting and trying to kill their oppressor, than be taken off to a death camp and starved to death or murdered in a gas chamber.

William Ayers, former leader of the Terrorist organization The Weather Underground, and close friend of Barack Obama, told his followers in the Weather Underground, “When we (Communist Revolutionaries) take over the United States, we will have to kill 25 million Americans.” He was referring to those who would never submit to a Communist takeover. Those who would refuse to deny and reject the Constitution would have to be murdered. If this sounds impossible, remember that Genocide by Government was the leading cause of death in the last Century.

Surrendering to Criminals
The Onion Field Murder in California was a wake up call to Law Enforcement Officers everywhere. On March 9, 1963, two Los Angeles Police Department officers were taken prisoner by two criminals. The Officers submitted to capture and gave up their weapons.
They were driven to an onion field outside of Bakersfield.

One Officer was murdered while the other Officer managed to escape in a hail of gunfire. The surviving Officer suffered serious psychological case, having been unable to save his partner. As a result of this incident, the LAPD policy became, “You will fight no matter how bad things are.” “You will never ever surrender your weapons or yourself to a criminal.”

Consider the Ogden, Utah record store murders. Read the book if you do not know the story. The manner in which the criminals murdered their young victims cannot be described here. Resistance might have been futile. Compliance was definitely and absolutely futile.

The courts in this country have ruled that the police have no legal obligation to protect anyone. Why do Law Enforcement Officials always tell civilians not to resist a criminal, while they tell their Officers to always resist and never surrender? Police administrators fear being sued by a civilian victim who gets hurt resisting. Furthermore, the police, like all government agencies derive their power by fostering dependence.

According to Professor John Lott’s study on the relationship between guns and crime, a victim who resists with a firearm is less likely to be hurt or killed than a victim who cooperates with his attacker. His book is titled “More Guns, Less Crime.”

The Doctor and his family in Connecticut complied and cooperated, meeting every demand of the home invasion robbers to whom they had surrendered. The Doctors wife and daughters were tortured, raped, doused with gasoline and burned alive. How did surrender and cooperation work out for them?

In another home invasion robbery, a kindly couple with 9 “adopted, special needs children,” surrendered to the robbers. The victims opened their safe and did not resist in any way. When the robbers where finished ransacking the home and terrifying the children, they shot both parents in the head several times before leaving. How did surrender and complete cooperation work out for them?

Handing over your life by surrendering to someone who is in the process of committing a violent crime against you is a form of suicide. Some survive but many do not. The monster gets to decide for you.

We have heard brutalized victims say, “The robber said that he would not hurt us if we cooperated.” Why would you believe anything that someone who is committing a crime against you says? He will be lying if he speaks. As we say in law enforcement, “If a criminal’s lips are moving while he is speaking, he is lying.” Criminals by definition are dishonest and should never be trusted or believed.

You have no doubt heard friends say, I would not resist a criminal, after all why would he kill me? This is stupid and naive. In law enforcement, we call these people “Victims by Choice” (VBC). There could be a long list of reasons why a criminal would kill you despite your cooperation.

You may be of a different race, thus a different tribe. Only members of his tribe are actually human in his mind. He may feel hatred toward you because you have more than he does. Gratification from being in a position of total power is reason enough for some.

Criminals are sometimes members of a Satanic Cult who worship death such as the “Night Stalker” in California. Eliminating a potential witness is often cited as a reason to kill a victim. Sometimes criminals simply enjoy causing suffering and death. There are people who are in fact, pure evil. I have heard criminals say, “I killed her just to watch her die.”

A victim who begs for mercy can give his attacker a tremendous feeling of power which many criminals seem to enjoy. You cannot expect mercy from someone who does not know what mercy is.

Resist!
We each have a duty to ourselves, our loved ones, our neighbors, our community, our city, our state and our country to resist criminals. Reasoning with a thug who believes that his failures are because of people just like you is not likely to be helpful. Pleading with a terrorist who has been taught from birth that his salvation depends on murdering people like you is a doomed plan. Resist!

Resist! His gun may not be real. After you are tied up it will not matter. His gun may not be loaded. After you are tied up it will not matter. He may not know how to operate his gun. After you are tied up it will not matter. Resist!

Statistically if you run and your assailant shoots at you he will miss. Statistically if you run and he shoots and hits you, you will not die. Bad guys shooting at the police miss 90 percent of the time. The odds are on your side. Better to die fighting in place than to be tied up, doused with gasoline and burned alive. There are things worse than death. Surrender to a criminal or a terrorist and you will learn what they are. Resist!

If you resist with a commitment to win you may well prevail, especially if you are armed and trained. If you lose it is still better to die fighting in place than to be taken prisoner and have your head cut off with a dull knife while your screams gurgle through your own blood as we have witnessed on numerous videos from the Middle East, brought to us by the “Islamic practitioners of peace.”
Some who have refused to surrender.

History is filled with brave people who refused to surrender. Some of these men and woman have won their battles despite what seemed to be insurmountable odds. Others have gone down fighting and avoided being tortured to death. Some fought to the death to help or save others. Many have fought to the death for an idea or a belief.

When General Santa Ana (also the President of Mexico at the time) ordered 180 “Texacans” to surrender the Alamo, Col. Travis answered with “a cannon shot and a rebel yell.” Eventually General Santa Ana was able to build his troop strength to ten thousand. The Mexicans then swarmed the defenders and killed them all.

The battle of the Alamo delayed the Mexican Army long enough for Sam Houston to build his Texacan Army, which met and defeated the Mexican Army and captured General Santa Ana. General Santa Ana traded Texas for his life and the sacrifices of the Alamo defenders changed history.

Frank Luke was a heroic aviator in WWI. Shot down and wounded he refused to surrender when confronted by a German patrol. He killed 4 German soldiers with his 1911 Pistol before being killed. Luke was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.

When his unit was pinned down by German Machine Guns and all of the Officers and non commissioned officers in his company were killed or wounded, Alvin York never considered surrendering. Instead, he attacked hundreds of German soldiers killing about 25 with his rifle and pistol and then captured 132 others by himself!

Most of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto (Poland) surrendered to the German Army. They were taken off to death camps and murdered. Between 400 and 1,000 Jews refused to surrender and armed with only a few pistols, revolvers and rifles, they held off the German Army for three months before dying in battle.

During the “Battle of the Bulge,” the 101st Airborne was surrounded by the German Army and ordered to surrender. Faced with overwhelming odds, the Commanding Officer of the 101st sent this reply to the Germans. “Nuts.” The Americans refused to surrender and they stopped the German advance. Most of the Americans troops survived.

On Sept 2, 2010, 40 armed criminals took over and robbed a train in India. Some of the robbers had guns, others used knives and clubs. When they began to disrobe an 18 year old girl for the purpose of gang raping her, one of the passengers decided to fight. He was a 35 year old retired Gurkha soldier. He drew his Khukasri knife and attacked the 40 robbers. He killed three of the robbers and wounded 8 more despite his being wounded in this 20 minute fight. The remaining criminals fled for their lives leaving their stolen loot and eleven comrades dead or wounded on the floor of the train. The eight wounded robbers were arrested.

How does one man defeat 40? How does he summon the courage to fight such odds? He utilized all of the Principles of Personal Defense: Alertness, Decisiveness, Aggressiveness, Speed, Coolness, Ruthlessness, and Surprise. He was skilled in the use of his weapon. Most importantly, He refused to be a victim and allow evil to triumph!

If this one inspirational soldier can defeat 40 opponents using his knife, it would seem that we should all be able to defeat a group of armed criminals by using our firearms if we are professionally trained as was this heroic Gurkha soldier.

Final thoughts
How will you respond if you are confronted by evil as some of us have been in the past and some of us will be in the future? If you have not decided ahead of time what you will do, you will likely do nothing. Those who fight back often win and survive. Those who surrender never win and often die a horrible death. Have you made your decision? Remember, no decision is a decision to do nothing.