Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Prepping: But Why Do We Prepare?

The government recommends being prepared for natural disaster.

Prepping: But Why Do We Prepare?

Prepping: But Why Do We Prepare?

By Anna May Rainier

Most of us these days have heard of prepping or have heard of preppers. It’s a common perception in society that people who prep are a bit lunatic or perhaps just a little off their rocker. Everyone knows that the government recommends being prepared for natural disaster. Their recommendation is to have 3 days’ worth of food and water for “just in case”. So why, if the government is saying we should take precaution, do people have this perception of preppers?

We have seen the news stories about the man who buried 42 buses, the people who have built underground mansions, and the Y2K preppers. These stories have taken the extreme side of prepping and turned it into a circus. Preppers are generally people who keep quiet about this business anyways, but with the mainstream (and not so mainstream) media making the general population believe that preppers are loons, it has become almost an underground society of people.

The headline of this article is Why Prep, and now that we have gotten through the who and what, lets dig into the why. Prepping just makes sense. I prep for a vast array of reasons. The most basic of reasons to prep is natural disaster. Just about every state has them.

Large scale disasters such as earthquakes, volcanos, tornados, hurricanes, tsunami, and many more can devastate large areas and threaten our livelihood. Small scale disasters such as flooding, mud slides, storms that lead to power outages, massive snow storms and the likes, are things that most of us in the great ‘ol Pacific Northwest have encountered numerous times.

If you really think about it, you probably already are a prepper on a smaller scale. When you know a snow storm is about to roll in what do you do? Move firewood closer to the house? Make sure you have enough food on hand in case you get snowed in? See, that is prepping. Prepping is being prepared for whatever comes your way.

Then we have prepping on a larger scale. This is the fictitious line in the sand that most people draw. But let me ask you this. With the current government shutdown, do you worry how people are going to act when they don’t get their food stamps? Do you worry that the Boarder Patrol are not getting paid and people are calling in sick?

Both could lead to many serious conditions but the one I want to focus on is riots and looting. We have all heard of hangry, so hungry you are angry. Food is a necessity. When people don’t have it, they feel stressed, anxious, angry. People are going to be very mad at the government for cutting off their benefits. They will probably start riots near government buildings and start stealing from stores, or plain out robbing stores to meet their basic needs.

Now let’s say that you have cash or debit/credit, so you aren’t food insecure and you need to pick up some food at the store because you didn’t plan for the week. Do you feel safe driving or walking to the store with riots and robberies occurring around you? Probably not. When you always have food and supplies on hand, there is no need to run to the store when it is unsafe to do so.

There are many other reasons to be prepared, economic crisis, civil war, civil unrest, zombies (yes, I said it), flu or other disease epidemics, bioterrorism, EMP, just to name a few. But being prepared for even the basic reasons should put your mind at ease that you will be able to weather a storm or stay in when necessary.

Anna May Rainer is a patriot, conservative journalist, prepper and registered nurse. She writes for Patriot Angel News and Redoubt News.

 

The views, opinions, or positions expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions of Redoubt News. Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our stories to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: Paypal.me/RedoubtNews

4 Comments on Prepping: But Why Do We Prepare?

  1. Back in 1980 I was the ripe old age of 17 when Mount Saint Helen’s blew. Thank God I was still living at home with my parents. The ash fallout was so bad that vehicle engines quit running and were destroyed because of it. It took days before it settled down enough to drive. I can’t imagine not being prepared for an event like this and living where we do now. God forbid something even worse.

  2. Joe that sounds like something I need a completely different type ammunition for? unless your definition of deception is that Bernie Sanders is really a closet conservative? Jay Inslee is really pro coal? Or Rachel Maddow is straight? If any of this is correct I’ll quit stocking up on 7.62×39 and dinty Moore beef stew. Now I will require proof with no deception.

    • I am speaking about the tried and true method by which people defend themselves from all deceivers foreign and domestic.

      Examples:
      “The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile.” Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Feb. 27, 1787

      “For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions – the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state – but for their own vindication. The very term “prosecutor” meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation’s founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name – even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
      Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant’s fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and “not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they…repair the injury.”
      The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America’s Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
      Page 40
      Private Prosecutors

      “It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man’s life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.”
      U.S. Supreme Court
      RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236
      Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
      February Sessions, 1788
      M’Kean, Chief Justice.

      “It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.
      If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.
      If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:
      1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,
      2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.
      The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.
      All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.
      The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.
      Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free.”
      Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury

      As in the phrase Ballot Box, Cartridge Box, and Jury Box, the natural, organic, lawful, order includes the fact-checking process: trial by the country.

      When criminals take-over governments they – as a rule – remove the fact-checking process – trial by the country – from the country.

      “Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?”
      George Mason, June 6, 1788

      “While the Supreme Court requires prosecutors to disclose certain evidence to the defense, consequences for withholding such evidence do not exist in the criminal justice system.”
      87. See Weeks, supra note 78, at 878 (“[T]he prospect of a civil suit under federal law for a Brady violation simply does not exist. We will have to look elsewhere to discover the incentive for prosecutors to comply with their constitutional obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence.”).
      “In fact, the Supreme Court has granted prosecutors absolute immunity from civil liability for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.88”
      88. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also Bruce A. Green, Policing Federal Prosecutors: Do Too Many Regulators Produce Too Little Enforcement?, 8 St. Thomas L. Rev. 69, 79 n.54 (1995) [hereinafter Green, Enforcement] (stating that “prosecutors have absolute immunity for misconduct related to their prosecutorial function”).
      https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3689&context=flr

      When the criminals take-over governments – as a rule – they must maintain a facade, a false front, complete with a false flag, and a false storyline, so as to counterfeit (meaning opposite) the law, to thereby maintain immunity from accurate accountability.

      That was proven and is being proven, in the recent cases involving Rancher families: Hammond, Bundy, and Finicum. That rule by which the criminals deceive with fake law was also proven in the Kennedy assassinations, the Martin Luther King Jr. assassination, Ruby Ridge, Waco, U.S.S. Liberty, 911, and many other notorious cases of subsidized deception.

      You can take the following case to the bank.

      “Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.”
      STATE OF MINNESOTA
      COUNTY OF SCOTT
      First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
      vs
      Jerome Daly, Defendant.
      December 9, 1968

Comments are closed.