Liberty and 2nd Corinthians 3:17

I was recently in a restaurant and saw a woman with a t shirt that inspired this piece. The woman was carrying a toddler girl, presumably her granddaughter, and was wearing a shirt that depicted the American flag and the New Testament verse of 2nd Corinthians 3:17.

I am afraid that many Americans who consider themselves patriotic have misconstrued this verse, including the aforementioned woman wearing it and the flag emblazoned on her shirt. Let us first read the verse. 2nd Corinthians 3:17 is the following:

“Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”.

Where most Christians and patriots go off is by reading this verse (and much of the Bible) totally out of context. It is always best to read a couple of verses before and after a scripture verse to ensure proper context. A reading of such, or better yet the whole chapter, will show that this verse is not referring to political liberty.

The end of chapter 3 and the beginning of chapter 4 deal with spiritual blindness and hardness of heart on the part of Christ rejecting Jews, and the deliverance of the gospel. It speaks that the Old Testament law, which contained both the unchanging moral code of God and many temporary ceremonial statutes, was not as glorious as the new covenant (3:7). The apostle Paul is showing that New Testament believers, be they converted Jews or (Greeks) Corinthians, were liberated from the ceremonial aspects of the Old Testament law.

This verse does not deal with human governments, or political or economic liberty. It certainly does not free/liberate man from the unchanging moral commands of Almighty God –moral standards which existed long before the covenant with physical Israel at Sinai.

Let there be no mistake. I most certainly support the political liberty of Americans and the U.S. Bill of Rights, and I oppose socialism. I am just stating the 2nd Corinthians 3:17 is not talking about this type of liberty.

But let me play the twist a scripture game for my patriot audience for a moment. Let us claim that this verse somehow applies to political liberty, and the current situation in America (as evidenced by the flag coupled with the verse on the woman’s t shirt).

Is America free? I wrote a brief essay on this back subject on July 11th of this year on this blog entitled Looking Up At The Cliff.  ( )For those to apathetic to read it, I have written the following long paragraph.

Look at the damage of the Woodrow Wilson administration: that included the “ratification” of the 16th Amendment, the 17th Amendment, the creation of the IRS and the Federal Reserve System. And Wilson enacted a draft to rip American boys from their homes to go kill –and die- in a pointless war in Europe against their ethnic brothers. Then FDR came along with his openly socialist policies, confiscation of privately owned gold, the NFA 34, his court packing scheme, new unconstitutional bureaucrats, and entry into another unnecessary war in Europe. Soon after FDR’s death we entered the United Nations. Then came the 1960s, more socialism, the GCA 68, and openly anti-white legislation. Finally we got Roe v Wade, even more wicked and tyrannical laws, and Dubya’s “war on (of) terror” and suspension of civil liberties. Then Barry took over and gave us socialized medicine via ObamaCare and openly pro-sodomite legislation (like marriage recognition and men in women’s public bathrooms).

If 2nd Corinthians 3:17 was referring to political liberty, would not our obvious lack of liberty be open evidence that the Spirit of the Lord is no longer among us? Just a thought.

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.


Book Review: David Duke’s “The Secret Behind Communism”


It has been almost two months since I have reviewed a book on this blog. As such, I decided to write this review of Dr. David Duke’s 2013 book The Secret Behind Communism which is subtitled The Ethnic Origins Of The Russian Revolution & The Greatest Holocaust In The History Of Mankind. This 285 page book is divided into 36 chapters.

As many of my readers are no doubt aware, David Duke has spent his life as a civil rights activist for the European people of America and the world –lecturing, authoring several books, running for political office, and hosting a radio program. Duke was a Louisiana state representative from 1989-1992.

Most Americans hate the term communism –whether they identify as conservative, libertarian, or patriot. But few understand where it came from. This book exposes the puppet masters of the international communist movement. As when studying the higher echelons of finance, one will learn that communism is as Kosher as a synagogue.

Let us begin at the beginning. Duke traveled to Russia and Ukraine, and even met Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008). Duke’s research in this book is very thorough, and his conclusions clear and defendable.

In the 1st chapter, titled Communism with the Mask Off, Duke tells of his own first exposure to the Jewish aspect to communism in his teens, back in the 1960s. While Karl Marx was a Jew, it goes much deeper than that!

On page 31, Duke quotes U.S. Army Captain Montgomery Schuyler, an American officer in Russia when the Bolshevik Revolution occurred. Schuyler stated that: “It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States, but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type…”

I apologize for the length of this quote from page 32, but I must include it. Duke states: “In another report, written four months later, Captain Schuyler goes on to quote the evidence of Robert Wilton, who was then the chief Russian correspondent of the authoritative London Times…On June 9, 1919, Schuyler cites Wilton as follows: “A table made up in 1918, by Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times in Russia, shows at that time there were 384 commissars including 2 Negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians, and more than 300 Jews. Of the later number 264 had come from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial Government”. The “Russian Revolution” was not Russian.

Your public school history book did not tell you that. Neither did your preacher, Fox News, the John Birch Society, the NRA, the Tea Party, Donald Trump, or the Republican Party.

Moses Hess is often credited with founding both communism and Zionism. Marx learned from Hess. Leon Trotsky –the prominent Bolshevik and leader of the Red Army -was a Jew with the birth name of Bronstein. The first leader of the Cheka secret police, the forerunner of the KGB, was a Jew named Moses Uritzky. When the Cheka had morphed into the NKVD, it was presided over by a brutal Jew named Genrikh Yagoda. On page 131 Duke quotes a Jewish author, Sever Plocker, concerning Yagoda. The Jew Plocker states: “Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system”.

Even the prominent non-Jews -often were not that “non”. For example, Lenin was officially ¼ Jewish, was married to a Jew, and could speak Yiddish. Josef Stalin, a low level henchman who climbed to the top, employed a Jew named Lazar Kaganovich as one of his high level officials.

In addition to this, Duke goes into depth on the fall of the Romanov government, and the subsequent struggles between the Mensheviks and Bolshevik factions –both Jewish dominated of course. There is a reason that prominent Jewish banker Jacob Schiff could give $20 million, a huge sum at the time, to support the Bolshevik Revolution.

Duke also briefly covers the Jewish leaders of the other communist revolutions in Europe, such as Rosa Luxembourg in Germany, Bela Kun (Cohen) in Hungary, and Anna Pauker (Hannah Rabinsohn) of Romania. Further there is the Jew Markus Wolf, who was prominent in the dreaded East German Stasi for over three decades.

Duke also devotes a chapter to the three phases of when Jews came to America –the Sephardic, German, and Russia-Polish periods (in that order). Duke there mentions that Jewish historians try to prove that there were two (yes just 2) Jewish privates in the continental army. Wow, what a contribution to the war effort! On page 155 Duke also states that: “By 1830 -50 years after the Declaration of Independence, and 220 years after the founding of Jamestown –there were an estimated 10,000 Jews in the U.S., comprising perhaps 1/5 of 1 percent of the total population”. In 1830 America was still a rural, white, Christian nation.

Duke also gives coverage to the American Communist Party, and notes the large numbers of Jewish women historically in it. Duke lists around 50 high level Jews from the CPUSA.

Duke also covers how that the Cold war era communist spies in America were almost all Jews! Who do you think Nathan Gregory Silvermaster and the Rosenbergs were? Duke notes that there has been a “tribal shift”, and that now “American” Jews spy for Israel instead of for the Soviet Union (now Russia). Think Jonathan Pollard, for just one instance.

While a tad off subject, Duke also briefly mentions the Lavon Affair, the 1967 Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, the ADL, and the SPLC.

Duke also shows the Jewish influence in Hollywood, which I sometimes refer to as Kosherwood. It predated, and extended after, the 1950’s communist HUAC hearings.

Duke also shows the Jewish origins of the “Neoconservative” movement in present day America. It was “former” Trotskyite type Jews like Irving Kristol and Leo Strauss who helped subvert American conservatism. The neo-cons basically ran the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration.

Dr. Duke also notes how the Jewish communists in South Africa used Nelson Mandela and other negroes to destroy that once great country.

One last noteworthy feature of this book is that Duke writes about the Soviet mass murder of the Ukrainian people, termed the Holodomor. Far more Europeans died in the Holodomor than the Most Holy Number 6 Million. Hollywood has made sure that Holocaust movies are commonplace, but (((they))) do not commemorate the Holodomor in films. The reason is apparent.

This lengthy review of mine could perhaps be summed up by a statement Duke made on page 214. Duke declared: “Communism is not an economic movement, but a racial movement. Communism cannot be understood, or dealt with, on any other basis”.  This excellent statement sums up the theme of the book.

The Secret Behind Communism is a very nice, hardback, 285 page book with many black and white photos and documents reproduced. At around $35, it is a bit pricey. As evidenced by this review, I loved Dr. David Duke’s The Secret Behind Communism, and I recommend it to my blog readers.

Who Owned the Tea?

The British Parliament had levied a tax on tea imported into its American colonies. Many of the American colonists objected to this exercise of power; they viewed it as illegitimate because the colonies taxed had no representative in the British Parliament.

The Boston Tea Party occurred in 1773. The “party” was when a group of white Bostonian men sort-of dressed up as Indians and went aboard a ship to throw the tea into the harbor. Thus, the tea could not be off loaded and subject to the tax.

But the British government did not own the tea. The tea was owned by the British East India Company, a corporation created by and under the authority –and protection- of the British government. The tea tax, and the resulting actions of the British Army, were in protection of their laws AND their corporation.

What is a corporation? The beginning of the definition of corporation in Noah Webster’s classic 1828 American Dictionary Of The English Language is as follows: “A body politic or corporate, formed and authorized by law to act as a single person; a society having the capacity of transacting business as an individual…”

Basically, a corporation is a legal entity chartered /created by the state. It came be a political entity (town), a non-profit public good entity (like a charity or incorporated church), or a business corporation. Most Americans associate the term with the latter of these three types.

Because of taxes and legal liability, many small businesses in the present day U.S.A. have incorporated themselves –as opposed to operating as an unincorporated entity. These small businesses are legally corporations, but are a far cry from the massive publicly traded conglomerates that do business today.

When we speak of corporations, most people, myself included, think of large corporations that are usually publicly traded/sell stock -and often multinational in ownership or operations. This (obviously) includes medical, automotive, technological, food, and petroleum concerns.

The state chartered these corporations, and receives tax revenue from them. Large corporations often receive subsidies from the tax payers, or a protected monopoly –like the “right” of a power company to be the sole electricity provider to an area, or of a TV station to use a certain area/channel of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Government and corporations often work hand in hand, as they did back in the days of the Boston Tea Party.

Think of automobiles for a second. The state charters a corporation to build factories. The factories get electricity from the power gird, ran by the state or its corporations. They manufacture a car or truck. The car or truck is made to (unconstitutional) Federal specifications, including in the area of how much emissions can come from its tailpipe. To use this car requires nice roads built and maintained by the state at taxpayer expense. The car will not move without gasoline, which is crude oil often refined and transported by multinational corporations. To drive said car on public roads requires a government issued photo ID driver’s license and a license plate for the car. The license costs a fee to the driver, and is made on technological equipment manufactured by a corporation –perhaps overseas. Further, the government will not allow you to drive the car on its roads unless you have purchased liability insurance –from a government chartered insurance corporation. I could go on and on.

It is sometimes difficult to see where the state ends and the corporation begins. Corporations can be an enemy of the people, the same as the out-of-control state that chartered them.

So my readers, who owned the tea?

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

The Inadvertent Blogger


I am somewhat of an inadvertent blogger. I am posting this brief essay to explain why I am blogging. I never intended to start a blog. When I self-published my second book in March of 2016, I decided to promote it more than the first one.

In addition to taking out a paid ad on the website of the American Free Press, I started this blog to establish an internet presence for myself and my book Putnam Liberty Notes. I named the blog Putnam Liberty Notes, just like the book, as it was set up to promote the book. Then in May 2016 I decided to launch a series of commentary essays on the blog. In retrospect, I probably should have used a different name for the blog, to distinguish it from the book.

I wrote and posted 22 essays between May 18 and July 11 on this blog. I then added six other essays and an epilogue and published them in book form as As America Fades in early August 2016. I did not intend to continue blogging after the print publication of AAF, but I posted two commentary essays in August and restarted full bore in September.

I never intended to be a blogger. I wanted to be an author of books. I have never viewed internet posting as on the same, for lack of better terms, respectable and authoritative status as publishing print books. The internet is a great way to get news real time, but often a poor way to educate oneself on issues of philosophical and historical importance –especially when dealing with anonymous posters.

WordPress gives my stats for my blog. It tells me how many unique visitors and page views I get -broken down by day, week, month, and year. It also tells me if a visitor clicks on a link I put in my articles.

Further, it gives me the country of origin of each page view. I ran the numbers last weekend, and about 95.4% of my page views were from the U.S.A. The other 5.6% were spread out over 25 different counties –with the U.K., Australia, Canada, and northern Europe leading the pack.

Based upon talking to my acquaintances, I think that I only personally/face to face know about 1% of the people who have visited my blog. I do not know any of the foreign visitors. I have MANY more blog visitors than book sales!

I also have a comment feature at the end of each essay, but it is rarely used. It appears that only about 2% of the people who have visited my blog have left a comment. That being said, I had a nice discussion about juries with a new commentator on the “about” section of my blog recently. I also electronically “met” a fellow Sovereign Grace and agrarian minded kinist blogger last week on another website’s comment section.

Despite the fact that I read and have commented on news articles and a variety of blogs, sometimes mentioning my own blog, my daily visitors have dropped a bit recently. I think that this might be because I have made references to the Bible and Christianity in my essays and comments – something of little interest to many patriots, libertarians, and alt-righters.

This morning I was re-reviewing the stats for the AFP web ad that I ran for my book back in May of this year. The ad image was designed for me by Paul Angel, who does double duty for AFP and Barnes Review, and it was quite nicely done in my opinion. The AFP webmaster emailed me the number of page views they had during that time period, and the number of clicks on my ad. About one out of a thousand clicks were on my ad. Seriously.

Maybe most Americans no longer read books. Maybe YouTube and the various social media sites have made most of us so lazy that most people no longer even read blogs or news articles? But a few still care and still read!

In the last nine months, between my two little books and my blog, I have published around 80 essays totaling almost 300 pages. I suppose that I could post indefinitely, if I had the reader interest.

I enjoy blogging, even though it generates me no income. I am glad to help my countrymen learn about our heritage, and hopefully see and prepare for the danger approaching.

Furthermore, in this technological day and age, it would be difficult to be an author –especially an indie author-without having a blog or social media presence for readers to check out before they buy. It might be possible, but would be outside the norm.

People need to be reading truth. To highlight this, I had a discussion yesterday with a relative, a Cruz supporter who now supports Trump. She informed me that (1) the presidential election is rigged (likely true), (2) that Hillary was going to win the election, (3) that Hillary has health problems and could not be president for four years (likely true), and (4) that that an unspecified “they” would not let her VP Tim Kaine step in and be the president –“they” were going to bring Obama back as “acting President”. Seriously.

Obviously, they cannot bring back Obama for a third term, if they even wish to pretend that we are still the country that operates under the Constitution. Further, people like her do not comprehend that Obama is just the latest puppet for the (((powers that be))), and that they do not need Obama to continue the destruction of America. The destruction has proceeded right along for my lifetime, regardless of who was in the White House.

And her solution to the rigged election: go out and vote anyway. Why? Maybe because her 501 (c)(3) Christian Zionist radio false teachers tell her to? And no she has not read my last two books.

Another person present for this brief conversation complained against the Electoral College, apparently thinking that Americans are better informed now and the popular vote should determine the president. They do not know that the Constitution does not even make provision for a popular vote for president to be taken, and citizens were more principled and educated then.

People really need to go back and read my October 12 blog post Elections Reality –and the Way Out. Ignoring reality does not make it go away.

      As I am attempting to develop a homestead, study theology, and do research for a potential patriot book project –I only have so much time. If my rather small audience stagnates, I may trim this back to a once a week blog.

The frequency of my posts is largely dependent on my readers. If you like this blog, please tell two friends about it this week. That could triple my audience overnight!

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

















Multipurpose: Thoughts on the 12 Gauge


This post will be different from my normal ones, as it concerns practical advice instead of ideology. As a patriot, homesteader, and plain old country boy, I long ago made my acquaintance with the ubiquitous weapon of rural folk in America –the 12 gauge shotgun. I think I shot my first one when I was around 10 years old.

The shotgun has its limitations, but within those limits it is highly useful. The shotgun moves a huge amount of lead downrange at velocities higher than those of a pistol, but much lower than modern (post 1890) rifle calibers.

The 12 gauge is the most common caliber, though there are also 20, 16, 28 and 410 gauge shotguns out there. Most military and police shotguns are 12 gauges, and so are most of the ones that guys I know own. A 12 gauge has an approximately .70 caliber bore diameter.

Shotgun shells, and shotgun chambers, come in different lengths. The 2 ¾ inch is the standard length of 12 gauge shells, though many modern guns have a 3 inch chamber. Birdshot normally comes in the standard 2 ¾ length; buckshot and slugs are sometimes also available in 3 and 3 ½ inch lengths.

The shotgun can be loaded with three basic types of ammunition: birdshot, buckshot, and slugs. Let us examine them. Birdshot comes in a variety of sizes. Birdshot is simply a very fine (smaller than a bb from a bb gun) shot that is useful for three things: (1) birds and light skinned small animals, (2) shooting clay pigeons/disks, and (3) playing around on the range. As the shot column spreads out it forms the pattern. The tiny pellets lose velocity rapidly, and do not penetrate deeply. Birdshot is not appropriate for large game! Likewise, birdshot is of little use on a human opponent past 5 yards; it will create a nasty but not necessarily incapacitating wound.

Buckshot is the primary antipersonnel load of shotguns. Buckshot comes in a variety of (large) sizes. The most common buck size employed is 00. In a standard 2 ¾ inch length 12 gauge shell, 00 Buck consists of nine .33 caliber pellets –often collectively weighing an ounce and moving at 1,300fps! That my friends, is as effective as a three round burst from a 9mm submachinegun.

Slugs come in two varieties: rifled and sabot. A rifled slug, such as the classic Brenekke pattern, is just a huge (roughly 70 caliber) chunk of lead weighing an ounce or so cruising downrange much faster than a 45ACP round. Sabot slugs are below bore diameter, are enclosed in a two piece plastic jacket (sabot), and are driven to higher velocities than rifled slugs on account of their lighter weight.

There is a fourth load occasionally encountered: buck and ball. I have read that buck and ball, which is a single relatively large lead ball on top of several small buckshot pellets was commonly used in smoothbore muzzleloaders and muskets in early America. I have fired some modern 12 guage loads made in Italy for the Centurion brand and consisting of one 65 caliber ball and six #1 Buck pellets. Not bad.

There are three basic types of barrels for shotguns: choked, rifled, and cylinder bore. A choke barrel has a constriction, often screw in interchangeable, in the end of the barrel to squeeze down the shot column for a tighter pattern. A rifle barrel is rifled, just like a rifle or pistol barrel, and is designed to fire a sabot slug –and nothing else. If a few bore diameter lead “rifled” slugs or loads of shot are put through a rifled barrel, it will leave a noticeable lead deposit –that is a pain to clean out. A cylinder bore is a straight pipe, and can fire any type of load –slug, buck, or birdshot. Cylinder bore is the preferred choice for a combat shotgun.

Modern pump guns, like the Remington 870 and Mossberg 500, often come with interchangeable barrels that an average operator can switch without special tools or gauges or worrying about headspace -unlike with rifles (where headspace is a BIG deal).

My personal shotgun is a Remington 870 in 12 gauge, with a 3 inch chamber. I normally fire only 2 ¾ inch ammo in it. I have three factory barrels for it: a bead sight vent rib choke barrel, a rifled barrel with open sights, and a bead sight cylinder bore. The cylinder bore sets on it as I write this. It is within arm’s reach, and is loaded with 00 Buck.

On final note about barrels is, do not saw your own barrel off! Federal law mandates a minimum barrel length of 18 inches. A short barrel is nice for defense; buy a factory one. You can buy factory barrels in the 18 to 20 inch range; do so. If you cut off your barrel, a crooked cop can cut it off even shorter and claim that you did it -a felony. All my barrels are factory spec and of legal length. You also would lose your end bead/sight if you cut your barrel off –not a good thing.

Also, if someone tries to get you to cut your shotgun off below the legal limit, or help them to do so with theirs, assume that they are either an idiot of a fed. Remember Randy Weaver’s entrapment.

Now that we have covered the basics, on to usage. You will want to do most of your target practice with birdshot. Birdshot is the least expensive load, and recoils much less than buck or slugs. Buck and slugs recoil/kick significantly –much more than a 308 battle rifle.

Knox Industries makes two types of recoil reducing stocks for pump shotguns, one sporter styled and one tactical styled. (My 870 has the sporter style on it). They allow the front of the buttstock to compress into the rear/buttpad area of the stock, absorbing significant recoil.

I have read, from multiple good sources, that a combat shotgun is benefited by having a “ghost ring” aperture rear sight. I do not doubt this, but have not personally tested it.

What barrel or barrels you own, and what ammo you use, will depend on your personal situation. Someone who is nothing but a bird hunter needs nothing but a barrel with screw in chokes. Someone who is nothing but a deer hunter in an eastern state must have either a cylinder bore or rifled barrel to fire slugs.

Someone who is primarily interested in defense will do just fine with nothing but a cylinder bore. I have all three, but rarely use anything but the cylinder bore. The cylinder bore is the most versatile, but gives no pattern tightening constriction and also decreases the range at which a slug will be effectively accurate (compared to a rifled bore).

A shotgun slug has major stopping power –at close range. Think of it as giant pistol. The shotgun is somewhat akin to the smoothbore muskets of American Revolution vintage. But it has high recoil, comparatively short range, and low magazine capacity (normally 5 or less rounds, unless one buys a tube extension). An open sight shotgun firing a lead rifled slug is best used at ranges under 100 yards. While an optically sighted, rifled barrel, sabot slug firing shotgun might double that range –it is a far cry from what a 30-06 will do.

If you are defensive minded, and perhaps even preparing for the looters that will swarm the earth after a major economic or social collapse, then you had better stockpile a bit of 00 Buck.

Because of its limited range and lack of penetration of body armor and masonry barriers, the shotgun has basically zero military utility. This is why the shotgun is the last weapon regulated by oppressive governments.

Also to be considered is that a shoulder fired weapon is easier to fire accurately than a pistol, because of the three points of contact with the firer’s body. This can be very important if you want someone who is basically a non-shooter, such as your wife, to be able to accurately engage a threat. But, there is still the recoil or a non-shooter to deal with.

Years ago I read an experienced combat shotgunner, the late Louis Awerbuck, state that the same load will pattern different between different shotguns –even those of the same barrel length and choke configuration! Also note that different loads will often pattern different from the same barrel. I recall that several years ago I found Czech Sellier&Bellot 00 buck patterned MUCH wider from my Rem. 870 than American made Winchester 00 buck.

For my own education, and that of my readers, I decided to do a formal test. I acquired four different loads of standard 2 ¾ inch length 00 Buck from four different makers. These loads were Remington (1325fps), Federal “Power Shok” (1325fps), Winchester Ranger “Low Recoil” (1145fps), and Rio’s Royal Buck (1345fps). The Rio was made in Spain; the other three are American.

I got out eight cheap nine inch paper plates and went to my range on the homestead. I had the cylinder bore barrel on my 870. I fired two rounds of each of my loads, one round per plate, from 10 yards distance. I examined the plates and chose the best group of the two for each of the four loads. On a scale of 9/9, the best Winchester group went 6/9, the best Federal 8/9, the best Remington 5/9 (with a 6th nick), and the best Rio 7/9. In addition to number of pellets on the plate, group size varied.


Then I took the same gun/barrel and four rounds, and did this test on fresh plates with one round each at 15 yards. Results degraded. The Winchester went 4/9, the Federal 6/9, the Remington 1/9, and the Rio 6/9. Yes, the Remington only put one of the nine pellets on the plate.

On this 15 yard test, I shot the Winchester load first, before the IDPA target my paper plates was stapled to was shot to pieces with little holes, and noted that the Winchester put 3 in the plate (roughly over the 8 inch A zone), 3 in the C zone, and 3 in the D zone.


A few days later, I put my 25 inch ventilated rib barrel with screw in choke on my 870, and reshot the 10 yard portion of this test on eight fresh plates. As I was using a barrel with a choke, I expected better patterns. The best Winchester went 9/9, the best Federal 6/9, the best Remington 9/9, and the best Rio 9/9.


I then patched up my IDPA silhouette target, taped a fresh paper plate over the A zone, and shot it with one round of Federal 00 from approximately 25 yards using the choke barrel. It put 6 of the pellets on the silhouette, but only 1 on the paper plate.

Two things surprised me from these recent tests. First was that the quality of group of the same load occasionally varied widely from the same barrel and range. An example of this was the Rio from the choke barrel at 10 yards. In contrast the Winchester did very well with two tight 9/9 patterns from the choke barrel at 10 yards. The second surprise was how poorly the Remington performed from my gun.

For several reasons, the Winchester Ranger “Low Recoil” is my preferred 00 buck load. And of course, these are not the only buck loads from these manufactures, and there are other manufacturers. Test your own gun with several loads and learn before you make your load selection.

The shotgun is not some kind of sci-fi death ray. You can completely miss with a shotgun and buckshot if you flinch; I personally saw another guy do this once. A shotgun must be aimed, not pointed! Shotguns patterns are not as wide as you might believe from viewing movies. At ranges past 15 yards, a perfect center shot might not place every pellet on the threat, a shotgun must be employed carefully if there are bystanders. In summary, if you are fighting outside of a building, you will almost always be better off with a rifle.

The shotgun is a great tool for the homesteader, survivalist, and home defender. It is a rather poor paramilitary weapon.

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

Losing the Supreme Court?

There has been some angst on the internet recently concerning what might happen to the U.S. Supreme Court if Hillary Clinton were elected president and given the opportunity to appoint more liberal justices (aka judges). Let us take a look at his theory.

First of all, the supreme Court was established by the U.S. Constitution. The “s” of supreme was not capitalized in the document, but the “C” in Court was. It was the highest federal court, but it was not a god. There also was provision made for the creation of inferior Federal courts. The Constitution does not grant the supreme Court jurisdiction over all areas, or say that it has the last word on Constitutional interpretation. Furthermore, the Congress can remove supreme Court jurisdiction in certain areas. Go read Article 3.

The justices of the supreme Court were to be appointed for life, to guard against them being influenced in their opinions by running for election periodically. In theory, they were supposed to be above petty politics. While the number of justices was not specified by the Constitution, it became customary to have nine. This gave a tie breaking vote. There are 8 justices, and 1 chief justice.

The supreme Court was under executive siege under the socialist traitor Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The supreme Court was not fully cooperating with all cases regarding F.D.R.’s openly socialist New Deal programs. They were roughly divided as: 4 conservatives, 3 liberals (including Louis P. Brandeis), and 2 swing votes.  (Note: Brandeis was the first Jew appointed to the supreme Court, a and was an ardent Zionist. See the cover photo of him and Rabbi Wise on Alison Weir’s book Against Our Better Judgement).

In 1937 F.D.R. introduced a legislative scheme to appoint six new justices to the supreme Court, in addition to the nine current ones. This would have given him a pro-socialist majority that would rubber stamp him if anyone dared challenge his unconstitutional laws.

One justice, John Owen Roberts, perhaps to “save” the integrity of the Court, switched his vote to support the F.D.R. position. The court was intact numerically, but ceased to defend the Constitution.

Why do we still have Roe v. Wade, ObamaCare, any gun control laws, or the Patriot Act? Because the black robed supreme Court justices, who have been derisively termed “clown in gowns”, will either not hear/grant cert to cases, or will ignore the strict construction of the Founders.

The case regarding ObamaCare would have been a 4-4 tie, except that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sided with the pro-ObamaCare justices. Yes, Chief Justice Roberts that was appointed by the last Republican president, George W. Bush, voted to uphold ObamaCare. I find it particularly interesting that his name is John Roberts, just as was the man who flipped in F.D.R.’s time was. Bizarre.

With the death and vacancy of “conservative” Roman Catholic justice Antonin Scalia, the court is temporarily down to eight members. The religious breakdown is five Roman Catholics and three Jews. The ethnic breakdown of the five Catholics is: 1 Negro, 1 Latina, and three white guys. Obama’s nomination to replace the deceased Scalia, which Congress did not act on, was Merrick Garland –a Jew. Does it not seem a tad strange that in a country settled and legally founded almost exclusively by western European Protestants, that there is not a single ethnically European Protestant male on the Court?

To lose control of the supreme Court implies that we currently control it. We cannot lose the supreme Court, because we have already lost it.

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

Thoughts on Separation


As I reflected on yesterday’s post, I decided to clarify my position further. I have written about this in depth in the 10 page essay titled Multiculturalism: Death of the American People in my August 2016 print book As America Fades. I stand behind that essay today.

In my multiculturalism essay in my book, I argued that there were Biblical, historical, and biological reasons why the races should not mix/intermarry. I also made the argument that people groups are the foundation and true definition of nations, and should have their own territory. I also pointed out that America’s Founding Fathers wanted America to be a free white republic. I stand by those assertions. I am a White Nationalist. I hold that racial separation is compatible with both the Bible and the U.S. Constitution.

In yesterday’s blog post on the 14 Words, I stated that I am not a Nazi. Let me clarify. Nazi is short for National Socialist, and was the philosophy of the German NSDAP and the Third Reich. I am not any variant of socialist; however I am a nationalist and a racial nationalist. The term Nazi entails far more than just racial separation. I wish to live in a country where citizens enjoy greater liberty than in NS Germany. That being said, unlike mainstream Americans, I do not view NS Germany as the absolute embodiment of evil or tyranny, and I do not believe the official story/fantasy about what I sarcastically refer to as The Most Holy Number 6 Million.

The concept of the separation and integrity of the various races of man long predated Hitler and the NSDAP. Racial separation was once widely understood by Christians –from early America to the antebellum South to the Boers of South Africa. Advocating separation does not mean one hates all others; it means love for one’s own.

Ethno nationalism allows all nations to govern their affairs and live out their culture as they see fit. It does not mean that one race, nation, or state rules another. It does not connote slavery or repression. It just means that we would be better off if we live and married among our own, in our own separate countries.     

     In truth, I believe physical separation is necessary. When the races dwell together, a certain portion of the population will forget their ancestral heritage and debase themselves. Barring strict legal prohibition with stiff penalties, which I would rather not see, coworkers and neighbors will become friends –and friends will become lovers. We need separate countries. I do not support the proposition nation fantasy/ modern tower of Babel being built in America today.

Except for the negro slaves, which should not have ever been brought here, America was basically a white country before 1865. America is destroying herself, just as every multiracial society inevitably does. Diversity is not strength. Ever increasing diversity is an ever widening crack that will eventually cause the structure to fail.

A multicultural society will inevitably end in race mixing into one brown race, or in extreme violence –with one race victorious and the other enslaved or annihilated. Thomas Jefferson warned us of this in his 1782 book Notes on the State of Virginia. Peaceful separation is far preferable to mongrelization or race war.

Many Christians will point to the scripture that all men are of one blood. In Acts 17:26 we read Paul speak to the Athenians the following words: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”. Read that verse carefully. While this verse acknowledges a common origin of man, it clearly states that there are different nations (peoples) who have “bounds” of habitations. Acts 17:26 actually defends the concepts of (1) different races, (2) racial separation, and (3) ethno nationalism.

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.