Ruck Sack Battery Charging System


A reader recently requested I elaborate on the comms equipment battery charging system I carry in my Ruck.

First let me say that the setup I use is not what I would prefer but it works. I would prefer an ultra light weight system that I could attach directly to my Elecraft KX3 and charge the batteries using its built-in battery charger. The radios built in charger requires 13.8 volts dc but I haven’t found a pack-able panel that supplies that voltage. Most backpack/camping panels supply 5 vdc. That would require 3 sets of panels connected in series to get the necessary voltage. So, what I’ve had to resort to is removing the batteries from whatever radio I’m using, and charging the batteries in a charger that’s connected to the solar panels.

My current setup consists of the XTAR VC4 Charger and the Renogy Solar 14 watt E-Flex Solar Power…

View original post 352 more words

European ship headed to Asia to help rescue Rohingya (why you should care)

Refugee Resettlement Watch

If you are saying to yourself, ho hum, this doesn’t affect me, think again!

Rohingya Muslims by the tens of thousands are piling up in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia (both safe Muslim countries!) and we end up bringing thousands to America.

Rohingya at sea It isn’t just Syrians we should worry about. Rescued Rohingya are being resettled in the US by the thousands. They can’t possibly be screened any better than Syrians!

You don’t hear much about it because the Rohingya are slipped into your towns and cities right along with the Burmese Christians and other ethnic minorities and all are labelled simply Burmese.  Last fall we learned that 13,000 Burmese Muslims were already in the US.

This is the rescue ship story which is really a ho hum story, but I’m mentioning it since we haven’t talked much about Rohingya lately, although we have an entire category,here (185 previous posts)

View original post 316 more words

Selective ‘History Lesson’ on Militias Ignores Inconvenient Truths


LTC Robert Bateman presumes to lecture us on the militia and the Constitution, choosing Esquire Magazine as his forum so that, near as I can figure, we can also educate ourselves on the latest fashion tips for men, join in “progressive” attacks on conservatives, and catch up on all-important information about pop star Prince and his surprise concert tour. Bateman’s bottom line: The militia is what the government says it is, and if you join with others to defend against criminal acts of usurpation committed against you by those with government titles, you’re committing treason.

Bateman, some may recall, first came to the attention of many gun rights advocates with a 2013 Esquire piece declaring “It’s Time We Talk about Guns.” Understanding that piece helps us see what he’s up to in his latest screed.

He not only took SCOTUS and Justice Antonin Scalia to task for their Heller decision interpretation of the Second Amendment, but went on to propose citizen disarmament edicts that dispense with false assurances given by some in the gun ban camp that nobody wants to take our guns away.

Bateman does, big time, and makes no bones about it. In a way, he’s done us a service by giving a glimpse of the end game less candid incrementalists are sneaking toward.

That he attained his rank brings an assumed gravitas to his writings. When such a man speaks out, there is a natural presumption of authority. The problem is, his arguments don’t live up to that expectation, and rather quickly fall apart with just a superficial analysis, meaning his metrosexual Esquire hoplophobes are apt to swall… uh, there’s got to be a better way for me to phrase that.

Ah well, the people who watched him take his oath to the Constitution believed him, too. So get a load of what he’s selling now.

The Second Amendment only protects a well regulated militia, he argues. “As of 1903,” he maintains, “the ‘militia’ has been known as the National Guard.”

Actually, the resulting United States Code also recognized the “unorganized militia” to include “members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia,” but Bateman dismissed that, claiming, “Weapons are there for the ‘well regulated militia.’ Their use, therefore, must be in defense of the nation.”

There are two problems with Bateman’s assertions in addition to the obvious one that he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about: First, as the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate Ninety-Seventh Congress documented, “Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.”

As for who is protected by the Second Amendment, it’s the people, just like the unmistakably clear wording says. Alexander Hamilton addressed “well regulated” in The Federalist No. 29, conceding “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss … Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped…”

Hamilton recognized that soldiering is a profession, and knew that people had farms to work, shops to tend, trades to ply. But the value of them being “properly armed and equipped” was nonetheless recognized, even if they weren’t “well regulated” as a body — what regulation they would be subjected to would come if and when mustered, but there was no precondition on arms ownership imposed on what they could possess outside of such duty.

As wrong as Bateman is on chastising SCOTUS for “flunk[ing] basic high school history,” that’s not where he has generated the most applause from his “progressive” fellow travelers and the most contempt from gun rights advocates. That comes when he tells us about laws he’d like to see enacted.

He wants to end the practice of police being able to auction seized weapons. He wants to do a nationwide “buyback.” He wants to nationalize arms manufacturers. He wants draconian and escalating ammunition taxes.

But wait, as late TV pitchman Billy Mays used to say, there’s more.

He wants to limit private gun ownership to “Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets … Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns [and] Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds.”

“We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers,” Bateman threatens. So much for the illusion of civilian control of the military, although it does drive home the fear the Founders had of a standing army.

“That is because I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes,” he explains.

“Hopefully,” but not necessarily, Colonel? Will you also wait “hopefully” for my heirs?

“When you die your weapons must be turned into the local police department, which will then destroy them,” he dictates. “Weapons of historical significance will be de-milled, but may be preserved.”

While he doesn’t flesh out how all this will be enforced, he does offer some chilling clues.

“My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management of violence,” he explains. “There are no two ways around that fact. My job, at the end of the day, is about killing. I orchestrate violence.

“I am really good at my job,” he self-assesses.

Ah, that monopoly of violence the “progressives” are so intent on crushing the Republic under…

Still, since he started the conversation in this direction, it would be helpful if Oberstleutnant Bateman would provide some specifics.

What happens if some of us say “No”? What happens if some of us resist, and do it creatively? Give us some scenarios here, LTC Bateman. I mean, after all, you guys have jets and tanks and nukes and everything.

Flesh your jackbooted terror campaign of national conquest out for us. Tell us about that “really good” violence you will orchestrate, you ridiculous and contemptible totalitarian.

Jeez, Bob, some of us will not roll over for you and, I don’t know how else to say this, but we are everywhere. So your move.

As to his latest contention that Shays Rebellion “proves” citizen militias were never intended to be “allowed,” Bateman conveniently avoids the inconvenient truth of the militias at Lexington and Concord standing against the “government” of King George. And he says nothing about another Founding document which boldly proclaimed “That 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The Opposite Day “progressive” collectivists don’t get to subvert and sabotage the work of the Founders and then call those attempting to protect and restore that heretofore unparalleled system for protecting unalienable rights through delegated powers “traitors.” Not on our watch.


David Codrea

David Codrea

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (, and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

[Bumped] ThoughtCrimes: “Why Women DESTROY NATIONS * / CIVILIZATIONS – and other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS”

FEBRUARY 27, 2016


“Please watch the entire video, you may miss the gist if you don’t. ***The title is controversial only if you don’t watch the whole of the video. ”

Partial List of resources used in the making of the video : WHY WOMEN DESTROY CIVILIZATIONS….

The Japanese women who married the enemy – BBC News

European female collaborators

Stefanie von Berg

Gender reproduction percentages

Why did men give up polygamy

Roy Baumeister

Sexual arousal in rape

Women voting left

Sex and culture [electronic resource] FULL BOOK

Posted by gerardvanderleun at February 27, 2016 9:54 AM

Bookmark and Share



In my bones I know this to be true.

Come and get me, Ladies!

Posted by: Kinch at February 24, 2016 8:21 PM

You realize, of course, that this is just an illustration of Gramsci’s theories from the ’20s: destroy the pillars of a society, the family, public morality, national identity…..and chaos will be the inevitable result. Remember the America of the ’50s?

Say, I’ve got a great idea! How about we get their kids hooked on the notion that acting like low-class blacks is the way to be hip and get girls. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Let’s see what happens in 50 years or so….

Posted by: Rob De Witt at February 24, 2016 10:08 PM

Seems a bit quiet around here. Crickets….

Posted by: Kinch at February 25, 2016 4:26 AM

Since Eve and the apple women have been the authors of their destruction, taking men along for the ride. The presentation, despite the narrator’s thorny Canadian brougue, presents a scholarly summary of a premise I have sought to complete since the third grade: Be a nice guy and the reward is sharp elbows or, at best cool indifference. You won’t even get a pity BJ. Nice guys do finish last, and the parallels in social interaction and politics are too strong to ignore.

Posted by: Dan Patterson at February 25, 2016 5:18 AM

Put my money where my mouth is and went out today to buy a humidor and two dozen of Fidel’s best.

“A million surplus Maggies are willing to bear the yoke;
And a woman is only a woman, but a good Cigar is a Smoke.”

Posted by: Kinch at February 25, 2016 5:23 AM

Thouhtcrimes can breed crickets.

Posted by: vanderleun at February 25, 2016 7:38 AM

So vote for Hillary. I can smell the burning flesh already.

Posted by: Denny at February 25, 2016 8:17 AM

Hey don’t look at me. I’m one of em and I don’t think they should have given women the vote. Well, almost.

Posted by: pbird at February 25, 2016 8:25 AM

I am a stay at home mom, who has homeschooled my children. I cook and clean and garden. I raise my girls to be strong and pretty and smart. One will be married next month and I expect the babies will follow. Tell me I am doing it wrong..

Posted by: Leslie at February 25, 2016 9:31 AM

You are doing it right.

Posted by: Dan Patterson at February 25, 2016 10:01 AM

As a distaff individual, I confess I despise third wave feminism but guys must bear some responsibility as well for the current sorry state of affairs. I would suggest it was not suffrage but a break down of societal strictures that brought about the sexual revolution. How many men are indifferent to or contemptuous of socon politics? How many cheered no fault divorce? How many freely enjoy or enjoyed in their salad days the fruits of no-strings-attached slutdom? How many approve, encourage or even pressure their wives to work outside the home for that sweet, sweet second income? As for the appeal of bad boys, yeah, there’s that, in fantasy or for fun, but in a serious relationship not so much. Plenty of betas manage to marry and form families when they are willing to pursue less than 10’s. It’s all women’s fault? Nah, not buying it.

Posted by: Priscilla at February 25, 2016 10:06 AM

Still working my way through the video. But, there’s a lot of stuff in the Bible about controlling women’s sexuality and how it causes problems when out of control. So this doesn’t really surprise me.

While I like to be able to vote and am a property holder, I’m coming down against women’s suffrage. Women tend to vote from emotion (all those votes for Rubio because he’s “cute”). And so many of these young women are clueless. They are poorly educated, undisciplined and immoral, incapable of taking care of a family or house. (And saying that there are also some truly admirable women that I follow online. They just seem outnumbered.)

Posted by: teripittman at February 25, 2016 10:12 AM

I am with Priscilla, you men cannot have it both ways. It is a hard road that leads to a good life. Women really only want one thing- to be loved. It is as easy and as hard as that. No matter what it is, it is work. May God help us.

Posted by: Leslie at February 25, 2016 10:32 AM

Dante’s “comedy” does not even touch the abortionist’s knife. Our gracious god loves life, and we don’t anymore.

“O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths.” Isaiah 3:12

Posted by: Denny at February 25, 2016 10:43 AM

Reason and accountability is not something women understand.

Nor apparently simple, forthright 18 minute videos.

Posted by: tim at February 25, 2016 11:57 AM

I guess men have no agency, all the way back to Adam and Eve.

Posted by: Priscilla at February 25, 2016 12:21 PM

@Leslie, as Tina Turner said some 30 years ago, “What’s love got to do with it?”

Absolutely nothing.

You have to like a person before you love them and there is no other way.

If you skip step 1, step 2 will fail, every time.

Charlie Anderson said:
“No, no. You just said you loved her. There’s some difference between lovin’ and likin’. When I married Jennie’s mother, I-I didn’t love her – I liked her… I liked her a lot. I liked Martha for at least three years after we were married and then one day it just dawned on me I loved her. I still do… still do. You see, Sam, when you love a woman without likin’ her, the night can be long and cold, and contempt comes up with the sun.”

Posted by: ghostsniper at February 25, 2016 1:45 PM

One way or another, we appear to be headed for The Great Pus Eruption. There’s a whole passel of Unmentionables building up pressure in the system.

What the progressives don’t get is that the longer it’s all repressed the nastier the reckoning is going to be.

Posted by: Kinch at February 25, 2016 3:31 PM

All that stodgy, boring, repressive Western ‘Tradition’ which has been thrown out with the bath water was in fact the result of thousands of years of social experimentation and evolution. One can’t speak of an end result for this because it wasn’t totally static. But one can say that the tendency was towards long-term social stability and utility.

What have we got now? A brief ~100 year flowering where any man with the cognitive ability to make more than subsistence money in the modern economy (that would be say 5% of us) can enjoy the company of educated and witty strumpets. Nice while it lasts, but was it worth what comes after?

One might ask the same question of Maupassant. Was that amazing creative spurt worth the Tertiary Syphilis when the devil came for his due?

I bear women no ill will. A lot of this is men’s fault for allowing it to happen. No idea how we get from here to where we need to be.

Posted by: Kinch at February 25, 2016 3:42 PM


Posted by: NotquiteunBuckley at February 25, 2016 6:53 PM

He’s telling men to “man up”

Since women are interchangeable and have a limited shelf life, why support your civilization ?

Since the role of being a wife, mother, and homemaker isn’t valued, but her ability to make money is why should she take the harder traditional path ?

I think a lot of men have taken the easier beta path too.

Posted by: Grace at February 26, 2016 12:45 AM

What the video left out was that the availability of the birth control pill was a triggering event that help spark the womens lib movement. Without that, things would have evolved much more slowly in this direction.

Posted by: sammy small at February 26, 2016 7:26 AM

I live in a military town; and yeah, the desire of women for a “strong” man is so much on display here. Very ugly women and very fat women are married (or cohabitating) with military guys. The “pretty” ones are bar maids or pole dancers and can’t figure out why they can’t get a man to like them.
Oh and in answer to the goofs that think the video is “only” bashing women….watch the video again; the fella specifically states that western men are also to blame.

Posted by: Steve at February 26, 2016 7:53 AM

Indeed, men are mentioned as complicit, but the title “How WOMEN Destroy Civilization” and the bulk of the argument puts the Kali-esque onus pretty squarely on women. Sorry, but I find the more extreme elements of the alt right manosphere as excruciatingly annoying and idiotic as third wave feminism and similarly reeking of bitterness. Case in point: the sidebar, Mannerbund 101, women as property. Seriously? I detect a theme. We must be controlled! How about some self control for both parties and we all simply return to the Christian ethos of sexuality, marriage and sacrificial love? Oh, that would be too difficult.

Posted by: Priscilla at February 26, 2016 8:23 AM

My wife and I had 5 beautiful blue eyed girls together. When I watch videos of how the west doesn’t have a replacement birth rate, I laugh. I did my job so it’s you all’s fault. Get to work!

Posted by: James at February 26, 2016 9:03 AM

More over:

Posted by: Wontsubmit at February 26, 2016 11:11 AM

“Kinch, you jejune Jesuit!”

Posted by: StephenB at February 26, 2016 1:20 PM


Nes. Yo.

Posted by: Kinch at February 26, 2016 5:42 PM

Can anybody give me a link for the live leak video about the invasion of Europe? (In this video, portion of it appears at 13:30)

Posted by: Roscoe at February 27, 2016 6:24 AM

This one?

Posted by: Priscilla at February 27, 2016 7:30 AM

I’ve said it elsewhere. Everyone of us who participated in the sexual revolution is to blame. Straight, gay, man, woman, rich fraternity kid, or bed-hopping denizen of a trailer park… it doesn’t matter. This is our mess.

Posted by: el baboso at February 27, 2016 10:28 AM

The rise of Islam is caused more by the trillions of dollars of oil money they’ve been getting than by feminism in the West.

Modern feminism is a result largely of modern technology that made the bearing of 10 children obsolete, and made the hours and hours of hand labor of women obsolete. Women have more free time.

The “Feminization” of society might well be due to the reaction against the horror of WWII and the atom bombs used. Large-scale violence is no longer supportable, so all violence goes out of style.

Women’s Liberation has its downsides and society is still adjusting to the change, but the film overstates the point, probably by a lot.

Posted by: AreaMan at February 27, 2016 10:34 AM

“Women really only want one thing- to be loved.” Sad that you believe that. Chris Rock had a great clip about how men and women differ. Women never go down the status ladder, always up. Women who go after men with big, loud, fast cars do so, not because they like big, loud, fast cars, but because that is a marker, signaling that man can provide, and has been successful.

“… or even pressure their wives to work outside the home for that sweet, sweet second income?”
Rich. If you would go back to comments from the time, stay-at-home moms had more scorn from working moms than they had from their husbands. Once the gates were open women rushed headlong into the workforce. This mainly benefited upper-class white women than any other group.

Posted by: Milwaukee at February 27, 2016 12:23 PM

Men cannot have it both ways.

Absolutely– but the creature formerly known as Bruce Jenner and her/his/xyr fellow MTF transitionals sure seem to think they can. Can’t help wondering whether the filmmaker considers Caitlyn J. “woman” enough to destroy civilization.

Posted by: PA Cat at February 27, 2016 12:25 PM

“And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.”

Posted by: Isaiah at February 27, 2016 12:48 PM