Connect with us


Is The MRE The Ultimate SHTF Food?


Whether you love it or hate it, most preppers have a pretty strong opinion about the MRE. That’s because many of our brave men and women who served in the military likely had these for their meals. However, others have perhaps eaten them while camping or on hiking trips.

For those who don’t know MRE stands for Meal Ready to Eat. These were often given to soldiers during lunchtime (whereas in many cases breakfast and dinner were hot meals).

The MRE got its name because it’s basically a meal in a bag. Generally, the MRE contains an entrée, a side dish and a dessert – all in the same bag. These might entail some crackers with peanut butter or cheese, a drink mix, and a beef patty (or ravioli).

When the MRE first came out in 1981 things like Skittles and M&M’s weren’t a dessert option. Hot sauce wasn’t an option either – so many soldiers were hard-pressed for ways to flavor this incredibly bland food. And if you were one of the unfortunate soldiers to get the last MRE, you’d be stuck with the meal everyone else had passed over.

It’s true – MREs haven’t always been the most delicious meal option. Fortunately, they’ve undergone significant improvements since they first came out. There are now many more meal options to choose from, and the food options are more palatable than they used to be.

MREs typically come in boxes of 12 for easy storage. The packaging is also waterproof, which is essential for long-term storage. Plus, since the food packs are made of foil you’re able to heat them on practically anything (on the stove, on a heater vent, on the block of your engine, etc).

These are definite benefits. However, it’s very important to check your expectations before tasting an MRE.

Many people have certain expectations of what an MRE will look and taste like. And this can be dangerous considering these food packs are built for long-term storage, and are made to tolerate rainstorms and floods (not to mention mistreatment and abuse) and spending years in a warehouse.

That’s not to say the food is horrible. But it’s important to keep in mind that a chef has not been preparing these meals – nor do they contain fresh fruits and vegetables. These meals are meant to give you enough calories to keep you alive… and that’s pretty much it.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the food in these pouches is intended to get you by – not to thrive. They’re likely not the most nutritious things on the planet – and you’re not going to get all the vitamins, minerals and nutrition you need from these food packs. (Buddies of ours also tell us MREs often cause constipation – which is never welcome in an SHTF situation).

Below is a picture of the contents of a typical three-course MRE.


Picture courtesy of The Prepper Journal

Despite the improvements in flavor and number of options, the MRE contents are still basically the same as they were in the 1980’s. For instance, the food still comes in foil packets. However, they now they come with a Ration Heater. The idea is that,  when you put a little water in the bag, it mixes with the bag’s contents, causing a chemical reaction and producing heat.

In theory, once the bag heats up you wrap the main entrée around the bag and 10 minutes later you have a hot meal. Unfortunately, this doesn’t always go according to plan (and sometimes it flat-out doesn’t work).

One nice thing is the MRE does often come with desserts like vanilla pudding. This is not the type you’d buy in the store (since you want it to last for years). However, it comes in powder form – and all you need to do is mix in a little water and shake for about 60 seconds until it’s ready to eat.

How The MRE Fits In A Prepper’s SHTF Plan

When an emergency hits, preppers are going to have to rely on the foods they’ve been stockpiling in order to stay alive. These options are typically very low maintenance, and require little-to-no cooking. They also tend to last a long time and are pretty lightweight.

Overall, MREs aren’t glamorous – but they do the job. They have a heat pack that (sometimes) works when you need it to, and for the most part the food inside is ready to eat. They aren’t exactly the lightest in weight either, but they’re a lot better than nothing.

Another consideration is the taste. Although they’re a lot better than they used to be, they’re no gourmet meal. And when it comes down to it, their purpose is not to taste good – it’s to give you the calories you need to survive.

Overall, MREs are a valuable option to consider when preparing your stockpile for a crisis.

The Super Survival Food That Kicks The Crap Out Of MREs

When it comes down to it, MREs are just ok – they’re better than nothing. But they’re not nearly as filling or flavorful as what you’ll get when you stock up on the super delicious 4 Patriots Survival Food.

These 72-hour Survival Food Kits have enough calories, vitamins and nutrition for a solid three days’ worth of survival. That’s because they contain 16 whole servings of mouthwatering meals like Chicken a la King, creamy and hearty Classic Potato Soup, and stick-to-your-ribs breakfast favorite Cinnamon Sugar Oatmeal.

Sure, you can settle for an MRE to get your sustenance. But when the world goes to s*** you’ll feel like you’re being pampered with these incredible tasting meals!

4 Patriots Food Kits are made right here in the USA with zero harmful chemicals, GMOs or added MSG. However, that doesn’t sacrifice their shelf life – these survival meals last a whopping 25 years! Sealed inside their specialty “Disaster-Proof” packaging, these survival food kits will be ready and waiting for you when the next crisis comes. (However, you’re going to want to eat them all right away once you try them!).

4 Patriots 72-Hour Survival Food Kits typically retail for about $27. However, we’re so passionate about them that we struck a deal with the manufacturer – and for a limited time you can get these survival food kits FREE. Just pay Shipping and Handling!

You deserve to have delicious, nutritious and hearty meals at your disposal when you need them most. Click here to take advantage of this insane survival food deal before SHTF!


Former Democrat Tops NH Trump VP Poll


In an electrifying and unexpected development, a new poll from the University of New Hampshire Survey Center reveals that former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii tops the list of preferred running mates for former President Donald Trump. This strategic choice underscores Trump’s commitment to broadening his appeal and strengthening his base with an unconventional but highly effective candidate.

Tulsi Gabbard, who initially ran for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, courageously left her party two years later to become an independent. Now, she emerges as the favorite among nearly a quarter (24%) of New Hampshire voters who are not supporting President Biden. Gabbard’s ability to connect with a diverse electorate and her staunch opposition to the far-left agenda make her a powerful ally for Trump.

Gabbard’s support stands seven points ahead of biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, indicating a strong preference for Gabbard’s unique blend of political independence and principled leadership. This shows that voters are looking for leaders who are willing to stand up against the establishment and fight for American values.

Ramaswamy, along with other notable figures like Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, have endorsed Trump, yet Gabbard’s lead suggests a deeper resonance with voters seeking a fresh and unifying voice. Her conservative principles, military background, and dedication to freedom and the Constitution make her an ideal running mate for Trump.

Trump’s consideration of Gabbard is a testament to his strategic thinking and commitment to broadening his appeal. Gabbard, a veteran of the Iraq War and an officer in the Hawaii National Guard, brings a wealth of experience and a compelling personal story as the first Samoan-American elected to Congress. Her transition from a progressive Democrat to an independent has been marked by her steadfast dedication to fundamental freedoms, resonating with many conservatives who feel disenfranchised by the current political climate.

In a Fox News town hall in February, Trump hinted that Gabbard was on his short list for running mates. Her praise for Trump, acknowledging his resilience and willingness to fight against the Washington establishment, underscores a shared commitment to challenging the status quo and defending American values against the encroachment of socialism and government overreach.

Gabbard’s familiarity with New Hampshire, a crucial swing state, adds another layer of strategic advantage. Her presence in the state during her 2020 presidential run and her support for Republican candidates in 2022 have cemented her popularity among voters who are tired of the same old politics and crave genuine change.

By considering Gabbard as a running mate, Trump demonstrates his ability to think outside traditional party lines and appeal to a broader coalition. This bold move could be the key to uniting the nation behind his campaign, bringing together a diverse group of voters eager for a leader who prioritizes American values and freedoms.

As the 2024 election approaches, the prospect of a Trump-Gabbard ticket promises an exciting and dynamic campaign. This powerful combination of leadership, experience, and dedication to conservative principles is poised to capture the imagination and support of Americans from all walks of life, ensuring a strong and united front against the progressive agenda threatening our nation’s future.


POLL: Would you support Tulsi Gabbard for VP?


Continue Reading


SCOTUS Sides With “Three Strikes” Laws in Support of Second Amendment


In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 on May 23 in favor of the federal government in a case pivotal to the enforcement of a federal three-strikes gun law aimed at ensuring repeat offenders are appropriately penalized. This ruling reinforces the principle that those who repeatedly break the law, particularly with violent felonies or major drug offenses, should face stringent consequences, thereby protecting law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Justice Samuel Alito, a stalwart defender of constitutional principles, authored the majority opinion in Brown v. United States, consolidated with Jackson v. United States. In a remarkable alignment, the decision saw a blending of ideologies, with one liberal justice joining the majority and a conservative justice siding with the dissenters. This highlights the importance and clarity of the case beyond traditional ideological divides.

Federal law rightly prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms, and the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) of 1984 was a significant step to address the disproportionate number of crimes committed by repeat offenders. The ACCA mandates a 15-year minimum sentence for individuals found guilty of illegally possessing a firearm if they have three or more prior convictions for serious drug offenses or violent felonies committed on separate occasions.

The recent Supreme Court ruling ensures that the severity of the law remains intact. It emphasizes that sentences under the ACCA should be based on the laws in effect at the time of the original convictions, maintaining the law’s integrity and original intent to deter habitual criminals. This is a win for those who believe in the Second Amendment and the rule of law, ensuring that dangerous individuals are kept from undermining our right to bear arms.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett stood firm in the majority, reflecting their commitment to upholding strict penalties for career criminals. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joined parts of the dissent, showcasing the robust debate within the court. Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, known for their liberal leanings, also contributed to the discourse.

Justice Alito’s opinion clarified that the ACCA’s requirement for a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence remains for those convicted of illegal firearm possession if they have a history of serious drug offenses or violent felonies. The definition of a “serious drug offense” includes state crimes that carry a maximum sentence of at least 10 years and involve a controlled substance as defined by the Controlled Substances Act.

Alito highlighted that state crimes qualify as serious drug offenses if they involved a drug listed on federal schedules at the time of the original conviction, not based on any subsequent changes to those schedules. This prevents loopholes that could otherwise allow habitual offenders to evade justice based on technicalities, thus preserving the stringent measures intended by the ACCA.

The government’s interpretation aligns with the ACCA’s objectives, focusing on the inherent risk and seriousness of certain offenses likely committed by career criminals. This approach ensures that those with a history of significant drug or violent offenses face enhanced penalties, protecting society and upholding the sanctity of the Second Amendment by ensuring firearms do not end up in the hands of dangerous individuals.

Justice Jackson’s dissent argued for applying the drug schedules in effect at the time of the federal firearms offense, a perspective that the majority rightly found unconvincing given the ACCA’s clear intent and context.

This ruling follows the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in March 2022’s Wooden v. United States, affirming that multiple convictions from a single criminal episode do not count as multiple under the ACCA. The current deliberations on Erlinger v. United States, which question whether a judge or jury should decide on the application of enhanced sentencing, continue to underscore the Court’s dedication to ensuring fair yet firm justice.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision is a significant victory for the pro-Second Amendment community, reinforcing the importance of strict penalties for repeat offenders. This decision ensures that the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms are protected by keeping firearms out of the hands of those who pose a danger to society.


Supreme Court: Illegal Immgrants Can Be Detained Without Bond

POLL: Do you support this ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States?


Continue Reading


HILARIOUS: Biden Not On the Ballot in Ohio… Yet


In a delicious twist of irony, President Biden—who has tried to block former President Trump from appearing on ballots in several states—might himself be excluded from the Ohio ballot come Election Day. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose issued this hilarious warning on Tuesday, showcasing yet another instance of Democratic incompetence and hypocrisy.

Despite receiving weeks of warnings from LaRose’s office and the state legislature, the Ohio Democratic Party has hilariously bungled their way into potentially disqualifying Biden from the ballot. LaRose, a Republican, pointed out that the Democratic Party has yet to offer any solution that complies with existing law.

Ohio’s election law requires parties to certify their presidential candidates at least 90 days before Election Day. But in a move that screams “amateur hour,” the Democratic Party plans to certify Biden at its national convention in Wisconsin on August 19, just 75 days before the election—blatantly flouting the law.

“I’ve said from here to Colorado that it’s in the best interest of voters to have a choice in the race for president. I’m also duty-bound to follow the law as Ohio’s chief elections officer,” LaRose stated, barely containing his exasperation.

“As it stands today, the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee will not be on the Ohio ballot. That is not my choice. It’s due to a conflict in the law created by the party, and the party has so far offered no legally acceptable remedy,” he continued, likely shaking his head in disbelief.

“The Ohio House speaker said today there won’t be a legislative solution, so I’ve sent a letter to Ohio Democrats’ chair seeking (again) a solution that upholds the law and respects the voters. I trust they’ll act quickly,” he finished, probably chuckling at the absurdity of it all.

Ohio Democrats previously floated the idea that Ohio could accept a “provisional certification” for Biden’s candidacy, but LaRose quickly shut down this laughable suggestion, pointing out that state law makes no such allowances.

LaRose emphasized that either the state legislature must change the law to allow Biden’s certification, or the Democratic Party must get its act together. Ohio House Speaker Jason Stephens, another Republican, bluntly stated that lawmakers won’t bail Biden out. “There’s just not the will to do that from the legislature,” Stephens told reporters, likely with a smirk.

Even Democratic Ohio House Minority Leader Allison Russo couldn’t hide her frustration with her own party’s ineptitude, stating, “We’ve seen the dysfunction here in this place. And I think we’ve seen that folks have not been able to put aside partisanship and hyper-partisanship and infighting.… I think at this point, you’re probably going to see either, you know, some sort of inner party effects or perhaps court action.”

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine assured voters that Biden would be on the ballot come November, arguing that if the legislature doesn’t act, then it’s “going to be done by the court.”

Ohio Democrats have yet to respond to LaRose’s Tuesday letter. The irony of Biden’s predicament—potentially being excluded from the ballot while having sought to exclude Trump—is nothing short of poetic justice. This fiasco is a fitting testament to the chaos and mismanagement that has become the hallmark of the Democratic Party.



POLL: Will Biden be the Democrat nominee in November?


Continue Reading