Berkeley California: Fueled by the media and Leftist Progressive professors, Berkeley students cost the taxpayers over 2.5 million dollars in damages protesting the first amendment rights of conservative speaker Ann Coulter. The freedom of speech has long been an embraced liberal and progressive right allowing progressive liberals to burn the American flag, spread hate against the church and distort American history, ideals and traditions. Empirical evidence has shown us that the use of this right appears to be reserved only for social progressives as a propaganda weapon and any use by those with a different view comes with violent protests, threats against life and has cost great property loss as well as life threatening injuries to those that wish to use this right to expose the dangers of the Social Progressive movement.                                    New York Times, Washington Post,Los Angeles Times, Media Research Analysis.

~The Legal Challenge~

Is It Legal ?

The first thing Progressive Liberals, Social Leftist and the Progressive Media will do, is to fall on their history and do everything possible to discredit the USPCA using distortions, lies and false innuendoes. We are fully confident they will label us as some dangerous gun totting right wing Fascist Militia. While we can say that history will define this prediction, we can’t say we have a defense to counter that which is not true. The Social Progressive movement has strong allies in the media, Hollywood and of course Progressive academia. Perhaps the only element we are in fact prepared for, is the fact that this will happen. With this we need only to remain loyal to our Country and it’s Constitution because nothing else can compare in importance.

The policy of the USPCA is to avoid the media and politely refuse to answer and question regardless of how hard they try to intimidate and discredit the USPCA and/or any of it’s sworn members.

History has shown that the Progressive and Social infiltration to the U.S. Government strongly relies on twisted words and distorted narratives delivered by unified allies such as those named above. The USPCA will not pursue nor engage in any words with any entity or individual within the Progressive Social movement, it serves no purpose.

With the above to the side, the question of legality comes with only questions and the obvious intent of the founders to protect individual freedoms and how they perceived protecting those freedoms.

The United States Constitution and the men that gathered for the people to assemble their Nations foundation and laws are so far above and beyond even the most brilliant of modern legal scholars of today, we have to look at the way the Constitution was written, read the minutes and understand the arguments going back to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia prior to ratification to get if just an idea of how much current events, perception and historical thought and forethought was involved with the contents of our Nations Constitution. When it became the responsibility of our Government to interpret those laws, those laws were solid and the thought of trying to re-interpret what was and is so very plain to understand was unheard of and likely considered a joke.

Protecting our Constitution from domestic political enemies and the citizens that empower those political enemies will be without a doubt looked at from hundreds of different legal view points. Of course those supporting the Social Progressive movement will simply write off the USPCA as an Idaho out-back right-wing militia and will without a doubt create a narrative making such thought common hoping the FBI/DHS and other law enforcement entity's get involved in an attempt to dissolve the USPCA. We know that could happen as a process mentioned above, but does a clear legal challenge impeded on what is expectant by intuition? So to test this question we look at what the founding fathers wrote, what they quoted in speeches and the tools they provided the people in the event the Government becomes too powerful and governs beyond it’s intended scope etc., With the gathered knowledge we maintain would it be reasonable to believe that our founding fathers expected otherwise from the people and simply yield to its government as subjects of the government?

The USPCA acting under the protection and sovereignty of the United States Constitution have determined that: A people’s act in any scope or capacity to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution is a duty of all United States Citizens who Swear the same. And this expectation becomes more vigilant when those who have been elected by the people to provide such protections under oath, fail to do so.

With such knowledge, the USPCA finds any attempt by any entity and/or individual to impede any Sworn Citizen of the regulated militia known as The United States People’s Constitutional Army as a threat to the United States Of America and the Constitution it so represents and any such threat will be confronted based on it’s threat value.

Our end question is simple, can you show the USPCA any evidence that

1. The Constitution is NOT in any danger from a domestic source working to alter, change or marginalize its purpose.


2. That there is no expectation nor duty of the citizenry to protect the United States Constitution under any threat, domestic and/or foreign.

Please mail your opinion to:

“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors? It cannot.”

― Tiffany Madison

Return to home