A Well Regulated Militia

Of, By and For the People

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Article ll, Bill of Rights
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." -- John F. Kennedy
Welcome to "A Well Regulated Militia..."
The oldest interactive online resource center on the web that is of, for, and by the Militia.

This site is owned and operated by Freedom-Loving Americans who have provided this space for others of like mind to be a place to gather together and; share our collective knowledge, learn more about our Liberties and Heritage, enjoy the company of fellow American Patriots, pass on our skills and experiences, create new friends, and get reacquainted with old ones. One of our goals is to provide a place for American Patriots to communicate with one another to create a more cohesive network of Liberty minded people who have a vested interest in ensuring the continuance of our Constitutional Republic.

This is indeed a private association, our home, if you will. Every household has rules and we are no different. Our home is always open to guests, and any guest is welcome to make our home his home, so long as due respect and restraint is displayed for the sake of the homeowner.

Our most prominent feature on this site is our message board. We will be adding items and features as we grow.

AWRM’s latest effort to restore the Republic is the United Patriot Network.  We will be posting news and editorials directly related to the loss of American’s Rights and Freedoms, natural or man made disasters,  government inspired terrorism or police state tyranny.

You can also  watch “videos on demand” by accessing our video file library. As time permits we will be adding many new training and preparedness videos to this collection. So stay tuned. We are also hosting full length educational films in the UPN video library.  Click the "video" link at the top of the page to access them.

You can access our new chat room feature by clicking the chat link at the bottom of the UPN screen.

I must give credit to AssaultWeb.net, as the idea for this site, and the Board sprouted from the "Militia Talk" forum on AW.net. Drop in and check it out, and enjoy the fellowship of like minded Patriots and fellow gun owners, you might learn something...

...or find that you have something to teach.

Who Are You?
 
 
I am the foundation of a Free society...

I have been a tradition since ancient times...

My stands at Lexington and Concord gave birth to this nation...

I am recognized by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; and according to the authors of those documents, I am composed of the whole body of the people...

I am the Militia.

I have the Right and the Duty to be armed, ready to defend my home, my community and my country...

I am prepared to take care of myself and my family in the event of a disaster...

I am prepared to help my neighbors in times of hardship or emergency...

I am a good citizen, good neighbor and an asset to my community...

I have undertaken all these things as my lifetime Obligations. My Responsibility is inescapable and my Duty is unquestionable...

I believe that as long as there are Free men and women, there will be a Militia, and as long as there is a Militia, there will be Free men and women...

I am proud to call myself a Militia man.

Source: Ohio Unorganised Militia Advisory Committee
Don't understand what the militia is about?  Watch this educational video.

7RgLEGibyXs

I am a well regulated militia, the original Homeland Defense and the only one authorized by the US Constitution.  I was born in America in 1607.  Since my birth, all men have by law, had a duty and obligation to be a part of me and were required to arm and equip themselves, and to regularly train so that I might become ‘a well regulated’ militia.  The Constitution defines me as “the militia of the several states” and says that I am composed of all citizens, “the people” whose “right to keep and bear arms” (military weapons) in the common defense of my state “shall not be infringed”.  I am the only government entity that the constitution says is “necessary for the security of a free state”.  Furthermore, I am the only entity specifically authorized by the constitution “to keep and bear arms” for the express purpose of: enforcing the laws of the union, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasion.  And last, per the Declaration of Independence which is the foundational document of these United States, it is my right and duty to throw off  any government that has become tyrannical or despotic and the usurper of our unalienable rights.  
Principles of A Well Regulated Militia
Whereas the Constitution declares; “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”; and whereas “all men capable of bearing arms for the common defense” constitute the “militia of the several states”; we the people are the only constitutionally authorized defenders of the Republic and guardians of the rights of the people. Therefore to preserve freedom and liberty, we re-affirm the self-evident truths set forth in the founding document of our Republic, the Declaration of Independence:


1. All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness(Private Property). You are born with natural rights that come from God, not from the government. The very word "unalienable" means that no man or government may infringe, usurp or nullify your rights.

2. To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. Government is merely the creation of the people. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect your rights.

3. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Governments have no inherent or intrinsic powers – only those delegated to it by the people. When governments claim powers never granted, such government is illegitimate.

4. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. When the government violates the rights of it’s citizens, it violates its only legitimate purpose and voids the compact by which the people created that government. The people retain the right to decide when that has happened, and retain the right to throw off such oppressive government, just as our forefathers did in the American Revolution.

5. Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. Therefore, as long as possible, the American people will continue to use every peaceful means at our disposal to protect our unalienable rights and obtain a redress of grievances despite a relentless, sustained assault on those rights by the government.

6. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism …. Among the abuses and usurpations were:

[the national government] “declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever,” erecting “a multitude of New Offices,” and sending “swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance”; Denial of jury trial, with trial instead by admiralty courts (military tribunals); warrantless searches (the writs of assistance); confiscation of property; Imposition of martial law – the suspension of legislatures and the appointment of a general to rule the people, rendering “the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.”

The parallels to our time are obvious and ominous.

7. … it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government. We the people will determine when that point has been reached. We do not expect, nor require the national government’s approval of that decision by the people. Every tyrannical government throughout history, has twisted and perverted the law and the courts into a weapon against the people. In our own history, every oppressive act of Parliament and the King in the years leading up to the Revolution were upheld by the English courts. But that was not the end of the argument. Nor will it be today.
Call To Action

'Homeland Security' Means Revitalizing US Militia
by DR. EDWIN VIEIRA, JR., PhD, JD

Throughout the original thirteen Colonies and States, the laws required each Militiaman to buy his own arms and ammunition in the free market -- thus implicitly guaranteeing the existence and operation of such a market.

If he were under 21 years of age, or an apprentice or servant, though, a Militiaman could require his parents or employer to supply him with a suitable firearm and ammunition. If he were one of the working poor, he might receive assistance from his local government in obtaining a job through which to earn the money to buy them.

And local governments, or very often the Militia, provided publicly owned arms to those individuals too poor to purchase them on their own account. That is, We the People always required themselves to provide themselves with firearms, either directly as individuals, or indirectly through the Militia in which they served or the public officials whom they elected.

Moreover, the Militia statutes of that era generally protected every Militiaman's personal firearms from encumbrance or seizure for the payment of his debts--and in many instances of his taxes, too.

If not explicitly exempted by statute because he held some important public office or practiced some essential profession or trade (such as legislators, physicians, millers, ferrymen, or ministers of religion), every Militiaman was required to bear his firearm and ammunition into the field on a regular basis in order to train in organized formations so as to become proficient with that firearm according to the military tactics of the day.

And almost all Militiamen--including even most of those ordinarily exempted, as well as many normally excused because of old age or disability--were subject to duty in cases of "alarm" (such as invasion or insurrection), where the security of the Colony or State was in immediate and grave peril.

In addition, many of those technically exempted nevertheless served the Militia, such as public officials (who were often high-ranking Militia officers), physicians (who staffed medical units), and conscientious objectors (who performed not only non-military duties but also the dangerous functions of scouts and spies).

Typically, too, those not exempted were required by law themselves to serve in, or to provide able-bodied substitutes for, the regular "watch" (by night), "ward" (by day), and "patrols" of plantations (in the South); and to be subject to "drafts" from the Militia for actual service in the field in times of war.

All of these requirements the Militia statutes enforced with monetary fines levied on defaulters' property, and imprisonment imposed on the defaulters themselves. The Militia were anything but voluntary organizations, their membership anything but limited, the duties they imposed anything but avoidable, and the public services they performed anything but dispensable.

So, in "the Militia of the several States" prior to 1787,

*
every man was required by law to acquire and keep his own personal firearm and ammunition (unless he was so poor that the public had to provide them for him);
*
every man was protected by law in his possession of firearms, so that he could always perform his Militia duties;
*
private industry and commerce provided firearms and ammunition for the Militia through the free market; and
*
almost every man so armed and provided was compelled by law to train, and required to perform, personally or by a substitute, a wide range of military and police duties for "homeland security".

Being the whole community in arms, the Militia of every Colony and independent State constituted the best security that could possibly be devised for what the Second Amendment calls "a free State"--not only against invasion, insurrection, rebellion, and widespread violations of the laws, but also against those especially dangerous violations of the laws by erstwhile public officials known as "usurpation" and "tyranny".

All this is no merely quaint story-telling about men attired in knee-britches and three-cornered hats, or the anachronistic and academic stuff of Colonial re-enactors and museums at Lexington and Concord.

This is what "the Militia of the several States" actually were, codified in every relevant statute of every Colony and independent State throughout a period of almost 150 years prior to ratification of the Constitution. And therefore this is what "the Militia of the several States" still are, because that term incorporated in the Constitution must be interpreted in light of its historical antecedents as known to the Founding Fathers, and continue to be given the selfsame construction until the Constitution is amended (which, with the assistance of Providence, in this particular it never will be). See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920). The only possible difference to be countenanced today actually amounts to an expansion: Now, with the legal emancipation of women, "the Militia of the several States" arguably includes all able-bodied females, who might be called to serve in some capacities in the most critical, last-ditch situations of State and National defense, freeing men for more arduous duties.

So, constitutionally YOU very likely--indeed, almost surely--are a member of "the Militia of the several States" in the State in which you live.

And, if so, the Constitution imposes a duty on YOU to keep and bear arms in the Militia for the defense of your State and Nation, because that is the meaning of the Militia: the people in arms, and therefore the people with arms. And, most importantly, their own arms: their own private property in their own personal possession.

Moreover, because the duty to keep and bear arms is of constitutional stature, each individual enjoys an absolute constitutional right as against every level, department, or branch of government--National, State, and local--to fulfill that duty.

Inasmuch as the Constitution requires all of We the People eligible for the Militia to possess their own private arms in their capacity as a governmental institution, then on no account, for no reason, and by the application of no power can any level of government disarm any of them. Indeed, to argue that any other branch of government may disarm the one branch of government that the Constitution specifically requires to be armed is so illogical as to verge on insanity.

Which, of course, is why the Second Amendment speaks specifically of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", not vaguely of "a" right or "some" right. "[T]he right", preexisting the Constitution, with which every American of that era was perfectly familiar, and which most of them personally exercised. So, too, the Second Amendment links "the right * * * to keep and bear arms" with "[a] well regulated Militia", because the right to keep and bear arms is inextricably linked to the duty to keep and bear arms, the former being necessary for fulfillment of the latter.

"A well regulated" Militia is what every Colonial and State statute mandated for almost 150 years prior to ratification of the Constitution: everyone armed with his own personal firearm and ammunition (unless too poor to buy them for himself, in which case the Militia or other public officials were required to provide them at public expense).

"The security of a free State" is an armed people--and therefore "a free State" is one in which everyone possesses his own firearms, knows why he is armed, opposes every attempt to disarm him, and with his arms and training fulfills his duties to provide "security" in just proportion with everyone else.

Now, the Constitution delegates to Congress the power "[t]o provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia". Article I, Section 8, Clause 16. And with such a power comes a duty to exercise it, whenever necessary and proper. Compare United States v. Marigold, 50 U.S. (9 Howard) 560, 567 (1850), with the Preamble ("provide for the common defence"); Article I, Section 8, Clause 18; and Article VI, Clause 3 ("Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution").

True, Congress does make some provision for voluntary training of common Americans in marksmanship. See Title 10, United States Code, Sections 4307 to 4313.


But has Congress required YOU to obtain, or provided YOU with, a firearm and ammunition; or assigned, or even offered, YOU any duties in some program of "homeland security"?

Not unless you have happened voluntarily to join the National Guard or the Naval Militia, which Congress wrongly classifies as "the organized militia". Title 10, United States Code, Section 311(b)(1). (I say "wrongly", because the National Guard and Naval Militia were not in existence during the pre-constitutional period; and much of their structures, duties, and operations bears no connection to, or may even contradict, the characteristics of the constitutional "Militia of the several States".)

Even then, as a National Guardsman you would not keep your assigned firearm in your personal possession at home--as necessarily would a member of "the Militia of the several States" (and as do the Swiss, a people with a militia history longer than that of Americans).

Worse yet, what if you have been relegated to "the unorganized militia", which Congress defines as every able-bodied male "at least 17 * * * and under 45 years of age" who is not a member of the National Guard or the Naval Militia--and which by default includes as well every male from 16 to 17 and over 45 years of age who is constitutionally a member of "the Militia of the several States", but is ignored entirely by the modern statute? See Title 10, United States Code, Section 311(a) and 311(b)(2).

If you are lumped into this "unorganized militia" you are just that: unorganized, unarmed, undisciplined, untrained, unsupplied, undeployed, and unwanted as a matter of statute--thoroughly disregarded by Congress, wholly disconnected from your necessary constitutional rights and duties, dispensed with, and withal dispersed within an impotent, disoriented rabble.

What about your State? If Congress fails or refuses to perform its constitutional duty to "arm[ ]" "the Militia of the several States", as it surely has with respect to what it calls the "unorganized militia", then each State, to fulfill her own constitutional responsibility, must exercise her reserved power to arm and train her own citizens for "homeland security". See Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheaton) 1 (1820).

But, other than maintaining their State Guards (which as sub-units of the National Guard are not true State "Militia"), most States have done next to nothing on this score, either. Here (as in so many other instances), States' rights and States' duties have decayed through States' ignorance and States' apathy into States' wrongs.

To be sure, one might say that Congress and the States have by default left the vast majority of Americans in the "unorganized militia" to arm and accoutre themselves by the method used most frequently in the pre-constitutional Colonial and State Militia statutes: self-help through resort to the free market.

After all, "[t]o provide for * * * arming" does not necessarily require actual arming by the government itself from public arsenals. (Indeed, this is probably the least desirable way for Congress and the States to fulfill their responsibilities on that score.) Rather, Congress and the States can "provide for * * * arming" by relying on individuals to arm themselves through private commerce.

But, if the free market is the means on which Congress and the States have settled for these "unorganized" Americans to fulfill their constitutional duties to be armed in "the Militia of the several States", why do Congress and the States not require common Americans to purchase, possess, and train with their personal firearms, as did every pre-constitutional Militia statute?

And why do Congress and the States not require properly armed and instructed Americans to participate in some even minimal program of "homeland security", as every pre-constitutional Militia statute teaches that every true constitutional Militiaman should? Indeed, how could atomized Americans effectively arm and train themselves for any State or National program--which, for effectiveness, would necessarily require a high degree of cooperation among participants?

And why, instead of organizing, disciplining, and especially arming and training We the People, do politicians, legislators, judges, trial lawyers, the intelligentsia, and "the beautiful people" of New York, Hollywood, and every intellectual fever-swamp and moral cesspool in between try their damnedest to disarm common Americans at every turn? To outlaw every type of firearm and ammunition they can, but especially those that are particularly well suited for Militia purposes, such as so-called "assault weapons" not too long ago, or .50 BMG caliber rifles today?

To impose every possible legal restriction on the possession and use of such firearms and ammunition as the Establishment still suffers common Americans to retain?

To hamstring the private firearms industry with bureaucratic regulations and frivolous (but horrendously expensive) lawsuits? And to treat "homeland security" and "the Militia of the several States" as totally disconnected? For two fundamental reasons:

First, if "homeland security" were based to any significant degree on "the Militia of the several States", We the People would influence the course of "homeland security" to a very significant degree.

Revitalized Militia would mobilize millions upon millions of individuals for hundreds of different programs, and bring with them the innovation and experimentation that emanate from minds not mired in the ruts of rigid bureaucratic centralism, and not incapacited by some statist ideology from imagining solutions to the conundrums of "homeland security" that are fully compatible with human liberty.

No longer would "homeland security" depend for direction on exclusive cliques of professional "security" and "intelligence" operatives, including former high-ranking KGB and Stasi agents. (In fairness to such people, though, they surely do know a great deal about terrorism. Yet their expertise lies more in imposing terrorism than in exposing and opposing it--which perhaps suggests why they are on the Department of Homeland Security's payroll.)

Rather than suffering from a national police state composed of elitists and careerists, with its tentacles slithering into every State and local police department, America would enjoy security through thoroughly local responsibility and control--because nothing could be done from above that would not have to be approved from below, what with tens of millions of organized Militiamen arrayed against orders of magnitude fewer operatives in the professional security agencies and police forces.

With "homeland security" properly focused in the States and localities, rather than centralized in Washington, D.C., America would return to the Founding Fathers' federalism, rather than continue to expand Franklin Roosevelt's federalization.

In the most practical possible way, We the People would finally realize their own personal responsibility to maintain "a Republican Form of Government"--that, in the final analysis, "homeland security" means and demands political control by We the People, which We the People must provide directly.

Knowing their true constitutional status, We the People would recognize the source of their authority; from their authority, the source of their power; and from their power, the source of their security. That, in the final analysis, all political power--for both good and evil--comes out of the barrel of a gun was not the discovery of a Chinese Communist. See Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung (1966), page 61.

As the Second Amendment observed much earlier, in aid of a far worthier cause, "[a] well regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State".

The same insight from two such radically opposed sources emphasizes that guns do not oppress people; some people oppress other people--and generally accomplish that end by depriving the oppressed of the means of opposing their oppressors. Thus, in the hands of the oppressed, firearms are the indispensable instruments of freedom.

So, once "the Militia of the several States" were revitalized for the purpose of providing true "homeland security", the genie of true Republicanism would be out of the bottle.

And could the Establishment ever force it back in, after screaming so loudly and for so long about how absolutely vital "homeland security" is?

At that point, the Establishment would be exposed as the paper tiger it is.

Second, "homeland security" localized in "the Militia of the several States" is the most effective way to protect Americans against the real threat to their liberties.

America will never lose her freedoms because of attacks from some hodge-podge of foreign "terrorists".

The actual, acute danger lies in the organized efforts of home-grown subversives, boring from within the political process, the bureaucracies, the courts, the media, academia, the cultural sewers that spew out "entertainment", and all the other critical points of entry into the machinery of mass psychological manipulation, then political power, then usurpation, then tyranny.

And which subversives are now using a false concern for "homeland security" as their excuse to amass for themselves ever-increasing, ever-more-abusive powers in its name.

For the most pertinent example, no foreign "terrorists" enjoy either the power or the opportunity to disarm and render helpless common Americans by imposing Stalinist "gun control" on this country. But such Senators as Edward ("Chappaquiddick Ted") Kennedy, Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of their Bolshevik mob are both positioned and prepared to propose (and, with the assistance of Congressional co-thinkers, fellow travellers, and useful idiots, perhaps even to pass) legislation as draconian as any the Georgian Bandit ever imagined. And they are not alone. No, indeed.

State and local politicians, the media, the organized legal and medical professions, the intelligentsia, the modernist churches and synagogues, and all the Establishment's other mouthpieces, front groups, camp followers, and hangers-on are constantly inveighing about how "guns cause crime", and are therefore bad--except, of course, when wielded by the Armed Forces, the Gestapo-like agencies of the General Government, and the increasingly para-militarized State and local police, in the hands of which firearms of the most savagely lethal varieties are doubleplus good, and would never, ever, be used to further usurpation or tyranny.

Americans are being indoctrinated that their country should be covered from sea to shining sea with "gun-free zones" in which all "civilians" are stripped of the tools most effective for defending themselves -- while every miniscule hamlet is to be infested with para-military squads in battle dress, staring down the public with menacing glances and body language, backed up by automatic weapons and armored vehicles (thereby demonstrating the type of "homeland security" the Establishment really believes these places are going to get).

Most ominously, by being relegated to the "unorganized militia" and thus prevented from performing their constitutional duties, average Americans are being demeaned as too unimportant, unqualified, ignorant, irresponsible, and especially politically unreliable to be "call[ed] forth" for the purposes as to which the Constitution explicitly and unqualifiedly requires their services.

By being excluded from providing and participating in "homeland security", common Americans are reduced to the subjects, passive recipients, or targets of "homeland security".

Each repetition of the term, however, must receive a different emphasis. For it is hardly mere paranoia to suspect that the "homeland security" of which Americans are to be the subjects, passive recipients, or targets will be drastically different from the "homeland security" they would provide for themselves if they had the opportunity -- and, indeed, were actually required by law -- to do so. Indeed, is not the proof of the pudding being cooked the ingredients the Establishment has carefully excluded from its recipe for "homeland security"?

As merely passive recipients, every American will be exposed to whatever variety of "homeland security" the Establishment -- working through Congress, the President, the top brass in the Armed Forces, the intelligence bureaucracies, and sundry State and local police departments following orders from Washington, D.C. -- decides to impose.

And common Americans had better be prepared to swallow whatever is dished out, even if it stinks of "maximum security".

Because the kangaroo courts will surely hold resistance (perhaps even loud remonstrance) not to be "lawful", and therefore will subject obstreperous dissenters to civil or criminal penalties.

If all this is enough to convince you that America desperately needs to revitalize "the Militia of the several States", as the Constitution intends them to function, then steel yourself for a great deal of work, from the ground up, individual by individual, community by community, State by State.

Fortunately, the first step is the easiest. Only a single question needs to be answered:

Are YOU doing as much as you can to fulfill your own, personal constitutional duty in or for "the Militia of the several States"?

Right now?

That is, do YOU possess a firearm and ammunition suitable for the Militia; and, if so, are YOU becoming proficient with them?

Have YOU taken a firearms training course from some accredited source?

Or are YOU sufficiently self-directed to be preparing yourself?

And are YOU studying the problems of "homeland security", and thinking about how common Americans can--and must--solve them?

If not, YOU need to begin by obtaining a firearm and learning how to use it (LAWFULLY, of course), as well as by learning as much as you can about "homeland security" -- not only what some public officials say that it is, but more importantly what the Constitution teaches that it ought to be, and how to get that job done through public education and legislation in your State.

Then convince at least two other people to do the same, and ask each of them to convince two more, and so on. Most importantly, make sure that everyone knows why.

To my readers:

I am now working on a constitutional program of "homeland security" based on "the Militia of the several States". This is probably the most important project on which I have ever embarked.

It will also be the most difficult to fund, because next to no one among the powers that be, "conservative" or "liberal", wants to see the Militia revitalized.

Therefore, I appeal to common Americans for whatever financial support they can offer to advance this work. Contributions should be marked "Militia Project", and mailed to me at 13877 Napa Drive, Manassas, Virginia 20112. All contributions will be hypothecated to this work only.

Even if you cannot contribute, please drop me a line to let me know that you believe this effort is important.

Thank you in advance.
Edwin Vieira, Jr.

© 2005 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved

*** Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us

He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com

His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary"

He can be reached at:
P.O. Box 3634,
Manassas, Virginia 20108.

Members Area

Be a man among men.

Dedication

This site is dedicated to all of those Americans who have made the "Ultimate Sacrifice" in the defense of their Constitution. From the Patriots of Lexington Green to the present day anonymous militiaman who readies himself each day.


Recent Videos

671 views - 0 comments

 


Newest Members