Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Three Events That Could Happen That Would Spark Civil War

Could a second American Civil War actually happen? I'm talking an actual civil war, not just civil unrest and sporadic violence. If so, what events could spark the next civil war? Although there are dozens of ways - maybe hundreds if you really delve deep into conspiracy theory territory - a second civil war may start, most of them are highly unlikely to ever happen. However, I think there are three plausible events that could happen that would spark a civil war. 

1) A Reversed Election: A Donald Trump loss on election night would NOT be enough to spark a all-out civil war, even if there are some questions regarding the honesty of the vote count. However, imagine Trump actually wins on November 8, then in the days following the election the political class manages to still deny him the White House by a combination of convincing some electors to switch their votes in the Electoral College, and using the court system to overturn certain state results claiming "voting irregularities and civil rights violations." 

Don't think this could really happen? Just remember that the progressives are currently in control of the Presidency, the Executive Branch, the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Court System, and (since Scalia's death) even the Supreme Court. Consider, too, that the mainstream media, made up of progressives dead-set against Trump, will spin & distort the news to support the theft of the election. Frankly, if the political class really wanted to steal the election, We the People have no way to stop them short of civil war.

I wrote about how this might happen back in August in my What If? article Collapse Scenario: Trump Wins, but the Political Class Refuses to Recognize His Victory.  

2) Gun Confiscation: More gun control isn't enough to spark a new civil war. However, any national attempt at gun confiscation - actually outlawing all or most gun ownership and attempting to take guns from their owners who don't want to give them up, will lead to civil war. Not only would you see We the People rise up to defend ourselves, but there are a few states that may actually secede over gun confiscation. 

Make no mistake about it. The banning and confiscation of ALL guns is the ultimate endgame for anti-gun activists and progressive politicians, including Hillary Clinton. I firmly expect that Hillary Clinton will stake out gun control as her major goal as President, in much the same way Obama made national healthcare his major goal. And with the progressive takeover of the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment will be redefined as no longer being an individual right, thus ending the Second Amendment without ever having to repeal it. If Hillary Clinton wins, at some point in the next few years you will have to either kiss your guns goodbye, or fight a civil war to keep them. 

3) Replacing the Constitution & Bill of Rights: Progressives and the Political Class don't just hate the Constitution & Bill of Rights, they despise it. They think it is flawed, outdated and useless. They think it is racist and sexist. They call it a "charter of negative liberties," because it tells the government what it can NOT do. Our founding documents make We the People the masters over the government (THIS is the what is actually meant by the term "American Exceptionalism"). They cannot abide that, because they think they should be our masters. They would love nothing more than to simply get rid of it, and one day they will try. When that day comes, you will have to decide to accept losing your Rights, or to fight to keep them.

Related Articles You May Want To Read:

Six-point Plan for Taking Back America 

A quick, no frills, down & dirty guide to preparing for the End    

Fight Back! -- Defending the Second Amendment

Freedom of Worship vs. Freedom of Religion   

Getting Out of Babylon!

The Patriot Citizen and Politics

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Typical Prepper versus Gypsy Survivalist...

What the Gypsy Survival Strategy Might Actually Look Like

In my recent article, Gypsy Survival - A Different Prepper Strategy, I introduced an idea I've been thinking about for a number of years. It is a prepper strategy based on disconnecting from the system and extreme mobility, rather than stockpiling or homesteading. In  this article, I want to consider what the Gypsy Survival Strategy might actually look like by comparing it to typical prepper ideas on several points. 

Typical Prepper: Home is your physical address. Perhaps an apartment or house. Maybe a homestead or farm. Probably have a mortgage and property taxes. Costs money, time, and effort to maintain. Still, it is yours (at least until the government or bank decides otherwise). Requires furniture and other stuff, which costs money/time/effort to buy and maintain.

Gypsy Survivalist: Home is wherever you are with family and friends. Not a physical address, which would only be temporary anyway. Most likely sleep in a tent, camper, trailer, RV, or mobile home of some sort. All your stuff fits inside your vehicle and/or mobile home. Little, probably no, furniture or large other items.

Typical Prepper: Bugging-in at your current location, or bugging-out to a prearranged location, such as a retreat that would then likely become your permanent location if you could not return to the original location. 

Gypsy Survivalist: No permanent location or home. Constantly moving away from danger or towards opportunity as conditions warrant. 

Typical Prepper: Probably have "roots" where you live. Friends & family that permanently live nearby. A particular church you attend. A job/career/employer for which you feel some loyalty or responsibility. Organizations that you are a part of... Things that may make you reluctant/slow to leave a location if things suddendly go bad. 

Gypsy Survivalist: No roots in the local community, thus nothing holding you back. Your roots are with the community of like-minded family & friends you travel with... (Interestingly, Roma and other "gypsies" never marry, date, or even have strong friendships with non-Roma; all that is done within the larger Roma/Gypsy community.)

Typical Prepper: Unless they are making money homesteading, farming, or from their own small business, most preppers have regular jobs/careers working for someone else. Could be anything from blue collar workers to professionals. The need for such employment is a limiting factor for many preppers (including me).

Gypsy Survivalist: Typically self-employed or take temporary/part-time work for which they feel no loyalty towards employer. Easy to just leave whenever. Traditionally, gypsies tend to be entertainers of some sort (singers, musicians, actors, storytellers, fortune tellers, etc.). Think vaudeville. This seems to hold true today, although to a somewhat lesser extent. Other common gypsy employment is as animal trainers, artisans, craftsmen, tinkers, handymen, and similar professions. Gypsies can be professionals, and some are, but their lifestyle often makes for a difficult career path in terms of advancement, though their is always some need for temporary nurses, accountants, etc.

Typical Prepper: Stockpiling food, water,  and supplies in quantity. Lots of redundancy. This requires space to store, money to buy, time to organize/maintain. Decreases mobility.

Gypsy Survivalist: Goods and other stuff kept on-hand would have to be minimal. A few days to a couple of weeks worth of food & supplies at most. Emphasis would have to be on collecting & providing as needed, rather than storing. Example: Instead of storing lots of water in jugs or tanks, the Gypsy Survivalist would depend on their ability to collect/treat water using tools like the Lifestraw Family Water Filter or Lifestraw Go Bottles. Food is obtained by buying or trading with locals, by hunting, fishing, & collecting wild edibles, and possibly by having small gardens when camped at a suitable location for a period of time. I've also heard tale of some gypsies traveling with a few goats or chickens.

Typical Prepper: Lots of tools and other gear. Lots of redundancy. Requires money to buy, room to store, time/effort to maintain. Probably lots of big tools, especially if homesteading is part of the plan. Again, cost & need for room to store are factors.

Gypsy Survivalist: Minimal tools and gear with little redundancy. Would have to emphasize quality, usefulness, and practicality, over quantity. Would require a certain amount of ingenuity and creative thinking. Get the most "bang for your buck," so to speak. No need to have yard or garden tools (other than maybe a shovel). No need for power tools (maybe a gas-powered chain saw?). Would have at least a good set of basic tools and skill to use them, and a few tools of the trade for tinkers/metalworkers, handymen types.

Typical Prepper: Large library of books on prepping, homesteading, gardening, country skills, survival medicine, and a variety of other potentially useful topics. I've seen preppers/survivalists brag about their libraries of thousands of books. My own is in the hundreds. Again, cost and room to store are issues. Besides, in reality most of those books will go unread.

Gypsy Survivalist: No room for a large library. Maybe one or two 3-foot shelves worth of books. Will force you to be choosy about what books you keep on-hand. Only the most important, useful, and often-used will make the cut. Again, quality over quantity. 

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Patriots' Prayers for 10-23-2016

 "If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land." --2 Chronicles 7:14 (NKJV)

Prayer for America (short version)
God, we have sinned and deserve the just punishment for our sins, as a nation who has rejected You in every possible way. And, yet, Lord, I cry out for mercy for myself, my family, and this nation. In the Name of Jesus, Amen. 

Confession of the Lordship of Jesus Christ

We confess the Lordship of Jesus Christ over every aspect of our lives and our nation. Help us, as individuals and as a nation, to accept and live according to your will in all things. Amen. 

Prayer for Peace and Honesty in the Upcoming Election 

Heavenly Father, as we prepare to vote for President and other elective offices on November 8, please grant us wisdom and courage in deciding how to cast our votes. Let the election process be peaceful and honest. Above all, Let Your Will be done. Block all plots and schemes that run counter to Your good and perfect Will, or that threaten the inalienable rights You have given to us. In Jesus' Name, Amen.

Daily Bible Readings:

Sunday = Matthew 24:3-44
Monday = Luke 22:33 - 23:24-49
Tuesday = Matthew 24:3-44
Wednesday = Luke 13:24-30
Thursday = John 3:1-8
Friday = 1 John 5:11-15
Saturday = 1 John 1:5 - 2:1

Quick Q and A Session

Over the last several weeks, I've received a number of questions from articles I've written. I thought I could answer several of them in a quick Q and A session.

Q:  Do you really think a War with Russia is coming?

A:  I don't know. I sure hope not. However, I do believe it is possible. Certainly more possible than at any time since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and perhaps more possible than anytime since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Russia is definitely taking steps to prepare for possible war. Whether they are doing so with the intention of starting one, or just preparing in case world events spiral out-of-control, I don't know.

Q:  Do you really think nuclear weapons will be used if war breaks out?

A:  Again, I don't know. I hope and pray not. But it is a possibility.

Q:  Nuclear war is not survivable. We will all die if that happens.

A:  That's not really a question, but since I've gotten that comment several times, so I'll give an answer. For reasons I pointed out in my article Likely Targets for a Limited Nuclear Strike by Russia, an all-out nuclear war is highly unlikely, but the tactical use of a limited number of nuclear weapons is a possibility. And that is certainly survivable, unless you are unfortunate enough to be in or near the blast zone. Remember, the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, and most of the Japanese population survived.

Q:  What can I do to survive a nuclear war?

A:  Ummm... Check out the articles War with Russia??? Some Recommendations... and Minimum Pre-Crisis Preparations for a Nuclear Event. Seriously, questions like that make me wonder if the questioner actually read what I wrote, or if they are just responding to the headlines.

Q:  Do you really think that they will deny Trump the White House if he is elected?

A:  By "they," I assume you mean the so-called "Establishment" or "Political Class." Yes. I think they will try, especially if it is close. I wrote a speculative piece a couple of months ago imagining just how they might go about stopping Trump even after he wins in November. Some of it seems to already be coming true. Read my article from August Collapse Scenario: Trump Wins, but the Political Class Refuses to Recognize His Victory. Possible, but hopefully not likely.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Likely Targets for a Limited Nuclear Strike by Russia

An all-out nuclear war with Russia is highly unlikely. However, the possibility of a limited nuclear strike by Russia is a possibility.

I know that nuclear war is a extremely scary prospect. And I've seen those maps of all the possible targets in the United States painted red, with targets so numerous that little non-red area is left. But even the makers of those maps are NOT saying ALL those targets WILL be hit (a detail many folks seem to have missed). Rather, they are just showing all possible targets (literally thousands of possibilities), NOT likely targets. In reality, there are a number of reasons why a surprise nuclear attack on the US by Russia (or even China) will likely only feature a handful of targets.

Why All-Out Nuclear War Is Highly Unlikely

1) The aggressor nation will want to keep a significant portion of their nuclear arsenal in reserve to deter retaliation. For example, Russia would not want to exhaust its nuclear capability out of fear that China might try to take advantage of such a situation and attack Russia. Or to prevent a possible retaliation by NATO. 

2) The Russians would want to exploit the resources (land people, agriculture, energy, minerals, etc.) of the US after the war, therefore don't want to reduce all of America to a radioactive no-go zone. Conquering and demilitarizing the United States makes much more strategic long-term sense than utterly destroying the US. 

3) The Russians know, like it or not, that the United States is still the world's largest economy, accounting for nearly 25% of the world's economy. To utterly destroy the US would create massive economic problems globally, including for Russia. Again, strategically, Russia would prefer the US remain mostly intact, although thoroughly declawed, after the war.  

4) The personal weakness of Obama may have convinced Putin and Russia that the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine is no longer in effect. They may be making the calculated risk that Obama will NOT order the US to retaliate with our nuclear weapons. Instead, Obama may sue for peace (surrender), thus turning the US over to Russia (basically as a vassal state), or even to the UN to administer. 

Targets Russia Would Likely Avoid

Put emotions aside for a moment, and try to think from Russia's point-of-view. You want to take out the US as a world military power and turn it into a vassal state. You want the US to remain mostly intact so that you can exploit its resources and finances. You think its current leadership is extremely weak. You would want to AVOID hitting any major financial centers (examples: New York, Charlotte, Chicago), major industrial cities (examples: Houston, St. Louis, Dallas), major seaports (large coastal cities), and any regions where there are resources you want to exploit (major agricultural or energy regions).

Likely Targets For a Limited Nuclear Strike

So, where would Russia consider hitting with tactical nukes? Major political and military command & control centers, as well as major communications infrastructure. Obviously, I have no inside information on what Russia plans to attack, but here is a list of places I think most likely to be targets, and why? 

1) Washington, DC: Highly symbolic, as well as strategic, target. The political and governmental center of the United States. Would decimate most political and government leadership (President and some other high ranking officials would likely survive). Key military center (the Pentagon).

2) Peterson Air Force Base/Cheyenne Mountain/Colorado Springs, CO:  The headquarters of NORAD will be a certain target.

3) Various Other Military Bases. There are hundreds of military bases throughout the US of varying degrees of significance. Russia will not attack ALL of them, for the reasons given above, but may hit several of special significance,in addition to Peterson AFB listed above. I won't hazard a guess as to which ones Russia will choose to hit, and would recommend not living very near any military base.

4) Denver, CO: Big population (2.9 million in metro area), with few reasons for Russia to not target it (surprisingly, Denver is not really a major financial or industrial center). Also, Denver likely plays a major role in the US Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) and/or "Shadow Government," depending on how accurate certain conspiracy theories are. 

If Obama crumbles, as Putin may suspect, and does not order a retaliation strike, it is likely that these initial targets will be the only ones hit. At this point, I would expect a fairly quick surrender of the US. However, if Obama does try to "slug it out" with Russia with conventional warfare, Russia would likely expand targets to hit one or two large population centers f lesser financial or industrial importance (example: Atlanta) relative to other large population centers. Unfortunately, should Obama order a nuclear counter-strike, the situation would quickly escalate to and all-out nuclear war.

This article is, of course, speculation. But I believe it to be well-reasoned speculation, and have given my reasoning. You are free to do your own speculating. The main point of this article is to think about these possibilities in a rationale, rather than emotional, way.