Additional Pages

Friday, December 30, 2011

Indentured Servitude

There will be, in the coming months, the opportunity for the Supreme Court to look out upon the landscape of America and decide whether or not the government has obsolute power over the individual. The Court will rule on the individual mandate required of the healthcare law derisively called Obamacare.

What are the chances that the Court will decide in the people's favor? The Court does not see us as individuals capable of exerting any political pressure at all. They are comfortable in their roles as some form of extra-governmental majesties. Theirs is a world where their decisions are final and complete. There is no means of reversal, or appeal. Their word, more than any other governing body, is law.

Ask yourself if they really want to start undoing that fact. What could possibly induce them to recognize the power of the individual over the state? They are as much the federal government as any bureaucrat, and yes, there are a few of the Constitutional persuasion among them, we know their names, but the others are not. The key is Justice Kennedy, a moderate and a big government type who understands his place as the moderator, the decision-maker among decision makers. It is his and really his alone to make this judgment.

And so, after a few hundred years, we are really no further removed from King George III than were our forefathers. We, despite all of our efforts to undo this abomination of congress through political means, are at the mercy of one man's discretion. A single yeah or nay seals the fate of generations to come. It actually serves to make slaves of us all, for if the government can today demand that we all purchase health care insurance, how long before it is in the interest of the United States to purchase Government Motors cars? It would return the money given to GM to the treasury and it wouldn't be such a great imposition to demand that we buy a GM vehicle if a new vehicle is what we want, right? How long before we are forced to purchase electric vehicles because that is just good for the environment, right? How long before we are forced to purchase a Mac computer, or a veggie burger?

There is no end to what the government can force us to purchase, because any purchase is commerce and the commerce clause gives the right to the government, in this instance, to demand that commerce take place. There would never be another recession, because the government could, at will, demand that purchases take place to keep the economy from going into recession. The GDP slips a little, well, the government just has to come up with purchase orders and we will be forced to spend enough money to increase the GDP for that quarter.

In truth there truly is no difference between forced labor and forced purchases. There is no difference between forced labor and indentured servitude.  

Ask yourself: Who is this man? Who is Justice Kennedy?

Sunday, December 25, 2011

Give Me Liberty

I read a lot of different blogs and websites. Most of the time I just read the headlines and maybe a few paragraphs until I get the gist of the liberty-sucking actions being taken by the government this time. It has lately lost its ability to cause outrage. E-mail campaigns, phone calls to legislators, etc are fine, do it, make them feel the heat for their actions, but don't expect a reversal, or an admission of error. They don't do that.

I saw the passage of Obamacare as the ultimate governmental betrayal on so many levels that it sticks out as the single moment when I became radicalized. Until then I was concerned, outraged, disbelieving and even thunderstruck on occasion. The audacity, the arrogance could still raise my pulse and bring the color to my face.

The difference between then and now is simply that I recognize that our Republican friends are as guilty of coercion as any other. I recognize now that it is not only the Democratic members of congress who are daily engaged in betrayal of the American system, but so-called conservatives as well. The long list of Tea Party candidates sent to congress in 2010 have done nothing to stop the abuses. Perhaps they have not taken part (though some have), still they have stood by and watched obviously un-Constitutional actions take place on their watch. But, what could they have done? Really? Aren't they just our representatives in congress with no more power than any of the other 434 members of congress?

Let me quote from someone in their position at a time much like now:

St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia
March 23, 1775.

MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

I think that about says it all.

Friday, December 23, 2011

Propertarial Liberty

There are those who do not understand the purpose of liberty. They see liberty now as it has been described by those who see no value in it for the common man. It is a word to them to motivate the masses to accept what? To accept the yoke. Liberty is the excuse they have for their tyranny. Why liberty would mean chaos, right? People doing whatever they want: disobeying traffic signs; failing to pay taxes; wandering aimless across the plains of America; corporations dumping waste into rivers and streams; etc, because to them, liberty is dangerous and fraught with consequences to others. This is not liberty. Liberty is the freedom of movement without hindering the liberty of others. It is fraught not with consequences, but with responsibility.

The liberty to mine coal does not relieve the corporation involved in operating the mine of responsibilities to the health of the workers, or the vitality of the environment. To ensure this, the federal government has established laws that cannot be manipulated by corporate influence over the state and local governments. It has done this to respond to actual dangers in the past, but it, as always, assumed powers that it didn't have, exercised force where it was prohibited, instituted regulations it had no right to institute. In order to control the mining of coal, it destroyed the Constitution. Which is worse?

The very idea of liberty is to ensure that no one is FORCED into the mine. Now, I recognize socio-economic leverage that might drive a person into a mine against one's better judgment concerning their health, but is it better to allow the government to ultimately, having shed the restrictions of the governing document, assume the role of denying those willing, or even hesitant workers of the right to take that risk, to assume that burden if the result is an inability to feed one's family? Is it the government's role to deny the sacrifice one person might make to send others of his family to college and provide an example of a reason to better one's condition? Understand that allowing the federal government to become the dictator of one's future, either in a mine or out of it is the same thing. Denying one the opportunity to risk is exactly the same as demanding one take that risk.

The federal government has assumed the role of dictating where and when a refinery might be built or expanded. The result is that a new refinery has not been built in decades and the permitting process is so onerous that none are even scheduled. The lives that are damaged, the economic impact of importing refined gasoline, forcing those jobs overseas, does nothing other than increase the cost of living to those who do not have jobs and cannot now afford the gasoline to go to work, driving them into poverty.

It is this very understanding of liberty that goes unnoticed. The government cannot act without consequences any better than liberty can be pursued without consequences, the question is: Who gets to make the life and death decisions in the equation? Where that decision is made by the government there is tyranny and oppression, where that decision is made by an individual there is liberty.

How many families remain in poverty and unemployed due to the decision of the Obama Administration to put a halt to the Keystone pipeline? Consider that many of these pipeline construction workers have been unemployed and destitute because it now takes an act of congress and the consent of the President to put them to work. Were liberty to flourish there would be no recession. Roll back regulations and American workers would be employed, their children fed, their lives enriched. Energy would be abundant and available, taxes would be paid and received.

The forces of the environmental movement have done as much to starve and bankrupt this nation as any bankster or hedge fund operator. One might only listen to the ravings of Nancy Pelosi to see the true mind behind the economic disaster that awaits us all. In the idea that paying unemployment benefits is the same as putting people to work is as insipid as it gets. There is a huge difference between putting money into circulation via debt and putting money into circulation via production. It is the difference between buying something on credit and building a table and spending the profits. One is simply paper accounting and the other is an economic transaction.

When the government pays out a benefit, like unemployment, it has taken funds from the profits of a person who has built a table, who has less funds and must spend less before building another table. Too many benefits need to be paid and the person building tables can no longer afford to build them. The idea that the answer to the economic troubles we are in is to increase benefits to be paid is not only stupid, it is insane.

There is such a thing as propertarial liberty, the liberty afforded to one by virtue of their property, be it money, land or possessions. Governmental regulations drain propertarial liberty, restrict the movement of commerce and the individual. It drains the economy of the flow of blood and diverts it to those who do nothing, who produce nothing but breath. The greater the load on the first, the less there is available to the latter. At a tipping point such as we are, the blood has left the head and soon will leave the heart and the engine will stop.

My calls for liberty are not just to ensure that I am able to swing my fist all day long, but to ensure the propertarial liberty of the individual and therefore continue the economic flow of blood to all extremities.

Thursday, December 22, 2011

The Devolution of Society

What has the Tea Party accomplished? What has any form of political influence accomplished? Washington is a melting pot, it takes the efforts of all and melts them into a soup of policy which satisfies no one and accomplishes nothing.

Washington DC metes out a little to gain control of all and political threats as great as the Tea Party equal nothing other than a small disruption in the flow of power.

Our nation is broken. The arrogance of politicians and judges, who consider themselves greater, smarter and more sophisticated than the founders of this nation have ruined it. They have taken the vision, the beautiful view of liberty the founders glimpsed and have brought it down to the common level of beggars and thieves.

We have supervised it all. We are the power behind them. We can allow this all to continue, or we must put a stop to it. We can't do it alone, those of us involved in the quest for liberty, the readers of this blog. We need the assistance of as many as we can find. We need to bring others to the cause of liberty, to act upon that ancient ache.

The power of the United States has always been its industry, its innovation, its entrepreneurial spirit that is now being harnessed to accommodate the whims of communist bums occupying our streets and cities with claims on the earned wealth of this nation. The President of the United States has encouraged their efforts, used his influence to bide them time. It is a nation at war with all of its inner goodness and benefit. Without the engines of commerce those 1% represent, we are all paupers.

I see in North Dakota the power of that industry, innovation and entrepreneurial spirit. It is alive and thriving and making millionaires of common shopkeepers and restaurateurs. The power unleashed by a cooperative state with the oil industry is an alliance that lifts all boats. Convenience store clerks are earning $15 per hour. Hundred thousand dollar per year jobs are there for the taking and people have come from all across the nation, from places where the states are more restrictive to the energy industry, to work there. This is the America we deserve. It is ours and lacks only the bravery to take it, to make it so everywhere across the country.

Yes, there are some drawbacks, some downsides to this vision of capitalist utopia, but they can be managed without the restrictive regulations used as weapons against capitalism. Make no mistake, it is the government's intent to blackmail these corporations to help fund their opposition. It is a sick joke of the liberal to take the power and money from the shareholders of these corporations and to use it against them.

The freedom to conduct commerce was one of the liberties the founders sought most. The ability to build and grow and provide a healthy economy for the community was something they understood. We are at a tipping point, we must save it. We must start to do more than just shake our heads as the Republicans sell us out to the liberal cause one more time. It is time to start doing something about it. We cannot let ourselves rule over the devolution of our society. 

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Reveal Your Inner Virtue

In the long march toward liberty it is sometimes difficult to see how we get from where we are today, with everything we know regulated in some fashion by the federal government, to where we want to be. Over at Western Rifle Shooters Association, we find a plea for secessionist sentiment. Read the post and especially the comments. Where are you? These are the sorts of conversations that should be held at the Liberty Summit, it is the purpose for the Liberty Summit.

Either you are serious about this liberty thing, or you are not. You are either struggling with your conscience, or you are blowing smoke. I don't mean that anyone who has not made the decision to stand up for liberty is blowing smoke, I am suggesting that if you are at the point in your life where you realize that you need to make a stand, but are struggling with "how" to do that and what will work and where the line is drawn, then you have a long way to go to get to the "action" part of that equation.

Maybe you don't believe in any of this, that the parasite society has taken such hold that there is no avenue that offers the sort of liberty we once knew. Consider that a good 97% of those engaged in the Revolutionary War felt the same way. Are you then suggesting that those held under the iron hand of the Soviet Union were powerless? Are you suggesting that Mubarak had too tight of a grip on Egypt, or that Quadaffi had too tight of a grip on Libya? What are you saying by abstaining from the engagement of ideas?

Working in the oil field I see all manner of hemming and hawing about the environment, as if there is a way that an oil company is somehow going to "win over" the environmentalists. They would do better by appealing directly to the public and call bs on the caterwalling of the environmentalist group, point out what they are doing to protect their operations from affecting the environment adversely as a matter of duty to their fellow Americans, not as some lame attempt to keep the protesters from their corporate offices.

All around us are examples of inaction. We are the people who make the nation run. We are the workers, the middle-management, the lawyers, the business owners who daily create the weapons with which we are being clubbed about the head. We are, to some degree, either morons or cowards. No, no one wants to make some statement that could get them put into jail as an isolated conservative nut with ties to the Tea Party, or Mike Vanderboegh and his infamous book. That is the club they will use and because we have never done a dang thing about it, they use it often.

I don't know what will happen to me as a result of something said at the summit that will place me in some sort of conspiracy, or terrorist plot. I don't really care. I should, I have a daughter who is looking to go to college next year. I have debts that I still need to pay. I have a promising career that is just now getting going and will supply me with a great deal of money and time as things progress. And yes, I too struggle with how and when I make a move to secure liberty to myself and my posterity. Right now my daughter wants tuition more than liberty. Right now I want to give her tuition more than liberty, but the motion of the world does not turn on my convenience.

There is a time to stand up, to take the chance to come together and openly discuss that which must be discussed, debated and even vehemently argued over. Lately Mike Vanderboegh visited the Liberty Summit website and refused to have anything to do with it due to some attendees with which he takes exception. All right, I respect that, even if I don't agree with it.

It is the time for the true advocates of liberty to take that chance, risk that encounter, accept that some of those who attend will not feel the same way you do, or will go about it in a way that you don't condone. In Mike's case, he would rather keep his distance from people whom he considers to be less than honorable. Again, I do not agree with his assessment, but it is his assessment and I just wish he would put that aside and recognize that if liberty is to be attained, it will have to be fought for, sometimes at the shoulder of someone you don't trust.

Likewise, I will be inviting First Amendment advocates with whom most of us might disagree and the same for the Fourth Amendment advocates. The hope is that somewhere amid the hoped for engagements we recognize that none of us will achieve the liberty we seek without the aid of the others. That either liberty becomes a rallying cry for all of the injustices of the current police-state (and I use that term with caution, but what is your fear if you fail to comply? It is that they will first fine, you. When that fine is not paid, they will send the police around to either accept your fine or imprison you. What happens when you throw cardboard into the "used oil" bin at the local recycling center? It could mean jail as an ultimate outcome of failure to comply).

Let's have the conversations necessary to forge some cross-currents to our separate movements. Let them recoil in horror at your suggestion of action, but let them hear it. Is there a way? Is there some avenue that even if they disagree with one group's methods, would they not support the outcome? That is the tough one to come to grips with.

As for myself and some of you, it is difficult to know when to act and what to do as that action. Is it to decide to peacefully and politically "invade" a state and transform it into something that will accommodate our agenda toward liberty? Is it building on momentum already begun in this area and to throw our weight behind it? I have chosen the Liberty Summit as my first action toward that goal. It is not my first action intended to achieve liberty, but my first action in the determined struggle toward the goal with or without political support.

There was a moment in time when I believed that my goal could be accomplished politically. I no longer feel that is true. If liberty is to be attained it can only be attained through direct action of one sort or another. Steps must be taken, if for no other reason than to be ready for the crash that is inevitable. Or do you really believe that the European debt crisis can be solved by the US backed IMF to loan money borrowed from China to pay the debt of Greece, Italy and Spain? Really?

So what happens when that ecnomic crisis occurs? Will we be like the Arab Spring and rearrange our society to fit our desires, or will we let the collectivists and anti-capitalists step into that void? We know they are ready. They have support in every quarter of American society and bankrolled ironically by those wealthy who are being directly targeted. Oh, the elite have a plan to take that momentum directed at them and U-turn it onto us, I recognize that, but from the objective point of view it makes no sense, which is exactly why they will be able to do it.

All of this unless we act now to take the steps that bring us to that point, where we have consolidated sentiment toward liberty and away from the collectivists and anti-capitalists. What happens when we declare our opposition to the current system? What happens when we blame that on the true culprits, the regulators and adminsitrators of the bureaucracy. Will there be enough who in their gut know we are right and turn their sentiments to us? The history books are full of such opportunities and had the right thing taken place the horrible things would not have taken place.

I know it is an over-used quote, but here it goes: the only thing evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing. It is our virtue, our honor that could win out, but not if we keep it secret and hidden under the covers to protect it.

Friday, December 2, 2011

On Liberty

Much is made of liberty, of the idea of it, the loss of it and the consequences. But, it is also the worst-defined benefit of being human. It is a nebulous, mythical idea that does not seem to inspire the dedication and enthusiasm it deserves. The loss of liberty rarely causes death, or mourning and rarely does it inspire crusades to retain it, or retrieve it from where it goes.

The two extremes of liberty, or the loss of it are romping through the meadow unencumbered by anything other than the air that surrounds one and the utter imprisonment of the mind, body and soul. The average person finds somewhere in between to be comfortable and find enough in that condition to remain docile when chunks are pried away from the fringes. "At least I have my job, my house, my car, my toys, even if I am not allowed to use them as I would like..." A grand statement that is.

I say liberty is something more than a bargain and I take every restriction as a personal insult and damage to my being. That so much of society views liberty from such different perspectives leads us to the point where many are willing to go to the mats over it and others shrug.

So, let me put it this way: Liberty is the measure of humanity. Rather than restrictions of liberty as an indicator of the evolution of the society itself, there can be no society where humanity is not promoted and valued. Societal evolution is in effect a retrograde condition of humanity.

It is no coincidence that the early 20th Century in America was perhaps the most free and the most inventive and innovative the world has known. It was a moment in time when anything a person wanted to get a hold of was available to them. Dynamite was a commodity to be picked up at the hardware store and used to do whatever a person imagined might benefit them in some way, i.e. blow a stump out of the ground, or revitalize a water well. If one wanted to build a railroad they got investors and purchased the land, or made deals with the landowners for a share in the stock of the railroad and they built the damn thing. Try it today.

The cumulative lack of liberty has created a nation where very little can be accomplished without the profit being sucked out of it by permits, labor costs and endless hoops of regulations to be complied with. Today we are still coasting on the industrial liberty of those earlier times. Most of our infrastructure was built when building something didn't mean providing the incomes of forty or fifty people before the project even got started.

In the oil field today much of the profit is being denied to the workers and it is being diverted to satisfy the goals of environmentalists and government bureaucrats. Whole pipelines are being delayed and denied due to some environmentalist nonsense, sheer nonsense, but this is how they have invited themselves to the profits of others.

So, when I react the way I do to further regulations restricting the liberty of this industry or that, this section of the population, or that, I take it personally. It is not my personal liberty that might be endangered by the restrictions being placed on this or that, but the cumulative effect of keeping more people unemployed, more profits that could be used for expansion and revitalization going into some hole created by bureaucrats degrade society as a whole. It makes us weaker and our economy perpetually under served, making the inventions and innovations less likely to gain support and attract funds. It weighs on society like a wet blanket, killing it slowly, driving into a dull, lumbering oaf unable to respond to demand.

Europeans already experimented with this concept of robbing liberty to supply society with all sorts of niceties and it is coming to the end of that run. Everything we have been told by our rulers that would benefit us all has slowly damaged us all. The thirst of the federal machine which has appointed itself the master of society, pointing us all in the right direction, has consumed so much of the national product that it has drained the pool from which all of us were nourished.

So my call for a Liberty Summit was in response not only to the Constitutional crisis we suffer from in this nation where the federal government has largely discounted the Constitution in favor of federal, state and local control of the population, but it was in response to the stubborn and impossible grip the bureaucratic monster has on the inventive spirit.

While some might view the Liberty Summit as a time and place for Second Amendment advocates to strut their stuff it was not meant that way. It was a means of getting those who feel disenfranchised by the abuses to the Fourth and First Amendments together with those who feel the same about the Second Amendment and to find common ground in the concept that what hurts one of us hurts us all. My point being that if there are liberties to be valued there should be a liberty summit to make those cross connections to each other, to recognize that all of our supposed rights are being assaulted daily and on every plane and there does need to be a reckoning.

The fact is this: you are not an American if you do not enjoy the rights guaranteed to you under the very founding document of this nation. America is not America without fidelity to the principles of its founding and the most ironic part of it is that those who now enjoy power do so only by the very document they daily undermine. For a politician to even joke that the Constitution is anything they say it is, is confessing that they have no legal authority. While our rights are only secured by the Constitution, their authority is also only secured by the Constitution. Let them destroy it, but I would counsel them to be very careful as the destruction takes place lest they be sawing off the branch on which they sit.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Resolve To Act

I have in the past few days had an opportunity to be contacted by some very interesting individuals. They were interested in the Liberty Summit and had different ideas about what should be done there and what they had attempted over the past several decades. They were kind to point out the pitfalls and difficulties with attempting this endeavor. It has all been done before, you see. Yes, it has.

And yet, we do not live in a state of liberty that any of us would recognize. Is this because there is a fine line between demanding one's rights and engaging in insurrection? One might think so, but actually even the violent overthrow of the United States government is a right that any and all of us retain. It is written eloquently by Paine and Jefferson that our government is a guarantor of our rights. Any other function of this government is by definition treason.

So it cannot be treasonous to oppose treason. It cannot be illegal or immoral to rectify the abuses and illegal actions of a government hell-bent on the destruction of its very justification for existence. This is where the government officials find themselves in one heck of an ironic position. To prosecute their power is, at this point, a violation of the Constitution, a nullification of the very document that gives them the authority to exert their power. They have made themselves illegitimate by denying the validity of the Constitution.

Likewise, every single person in uniform, either military or law enforcement are acting illegally if they suppress justified insurrection or enforce laws that so clearly are in violation of the Bill of Rights.

When congressmen joke that the Constitution is anything they say it is, or they defer to a largely political body of judges, i.e. the Supreme Court, to circumvent rights that protect the citizen from the power of government, they secure themselves as tyrants and become the enemy of the Constitution.

There are those who willingly subject themselves to the rulings of the Supreme Court as if it were a body of the wise dedicated to the preservation of the legitimacy of the national government, which it should be, but has not been for a very, very long time, if ever it was. It has instead become a body seeking to direct society along an evolutionary plane leading ultimately to a society of servants to the federal power. This is where we are today.

The Constitution was written by citizens for citizens. It was not supposed to take a legal mind to understand one's rights, they were clear and obvious for all to understand. Choose any phrase in the Constitution and see if it still holds, after judicial review, the same purpose that seems so obvious to the literal mind. Such declarations as "Congress shall make no law..." seems pretty clear and yet, that has been undermined at every occasion.

The Supreme Court seems now ready to rule that indeed the federal government can require an individual to purchase health insurance. Regardless of the obvious and logical impossibility of this fact, it only takes four justices to agree to that principle and it is done. The Fourth Amendment has been watered down to a point of irrelevance, likewise the Second, the First (with hate-speech) laws and etc.

Admittedly we live in a different time from our forefathers. We are ill-equipped to face the federal government to demand a redress of the many grievances we have suffered. The legal fight has been waged in courtrooms across the land and the people have suffered at the hands of these social engineers in the black robes. They cannot be trusted with our liberty.

So, it is left to us again to demand it. It is left to us again to struggle for it. It is left to us again to secure it to ourselves and more importantly our posterity. But how? With all of the government's resources, how are we to get what we were promised at the founding of this nation? How do we undo centuries of systematic enslavement?

To begin, one needs a beginning. The first objective is first to gather. In the old days this was done in taverns across the colonies. It was done in an atmosphere of oppression where the freedom of thought and word were sacred demonstrations of intent. The yoke of oppression weighed heavily on those men and women who had a foreign enemy to focus their ire upon.

Today it is much more difficult, it is the patriotic, the nation-loving person who now must look out upon the Stars and Stripes as somehow foreign and inflammatory. The most dedicated to the union must be those assigned the task of opposing it.

Like the tax on tea, there must be a final insult that drives the patriot toward action. There have been abuses upon abuses over the centuries, but what is that one step too far? Most of us have reached it already. It has come and gone and we have bit our tongues and wiped our hands and went about life. It sticks like a popcorn shell in our throats, but we try to swallow it anyway, we try to get past it, but it won't go down. So, we wait for others to find their limit. It is dismaying to find that many, most will never arrive at a moment when they watch another freedom disappear, when they accept one more federal dictate that drives them toward us. We, those who will stand up for liberty, realize then that we must pursue liberty for them as well. We must free them from their own prisons in order to free ourselves. One cell cannot be emptied without throwing the door open to all.

Our Liberty Summit must identify that final moment when the last line has been crossed and action must be the next step. Even if we agree that has already come and gone we must recognize it as our mandate to act and act in concert. If we are to act as brothers and sisters, we must meet as family.

I encourage you to attend the Liberty Summit and resolve to act.

Summit Information

The liberty summit so much discussed here can be better discussed at this site:

http://www.meetup.com/Liberty-Summit/

Let's get the ball rolling.

TL

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Summit II

I want to thank everyone who has responded to my call for a summit of...well...those who value liberty and who will stand to secure it.

As you might imagine, there is a lot of work to do that I will get started on tomorrow, this being Sun the 27th.

I have received a great deal of response and good ideas.

Please continue to comment on the first post concerning a call for a summit so I can keep all of the comments to date in one place. I will try to establish a discussion board in the morning and provide the links so that this can take place there rather than through comments.

Anyone have any ideas about a good discussion board platform to use and where I might locate it? If not, I will traverse the inter webs and discover it for myself.

There we can discuss all manner of logistics.

I thank everyone for their cooperation and willingness to engage in this endeavor, especially those who have been through this sort of thing with me before and are willing to lend a hand once again.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

The Call For A Summit

As loudly as I can I am calling for a patriot summit, a convention of sorts of those dedicated to liberty. I don't mean those who won't do a thing about it, but those who, given the right circumstances will give up everything they own to secure liberty to themselves and their posterity.

Our inaction is handing the field to our opponents, to the enemies of liberty. Kerodin might suggest direct action, whereas others might suggest indirect action, the fact is: there is very little action of any sort.

Opponents of a patriot summit will argue that getting us all together in one place will give the feds an edge. Let me tell you as someone who organized an event in DC, they already have my number. They know who I am and many of us in the liberty movement. Don't fool yourselves, you are not unknown. When you step out and start a blog, you are known. You may not be tracked and followed as I have been, but you are known, so stop worrying about it. For all of the provocative things I have written, I have only been harassed on a low level, i.e. followed, harassed by the IRS, etc. An old saying I heard from the guys I knew in Vietnam was this: "They can kill you, but they can't eat you." Meaning, there's only so much they can do to you.

If you are not ready to give your life and treasure to the pursuit of liberty, you are not sufficiently dedicated to the principle anyway. I have put both on the line and will do so again and again until we beat back the beast of totalitarianism, or die trying.

Right now, there needs to be a show of strength if to no one but ourselves. If there are others who will stand up for liberty, then lets get together and make a statement. Let us gather. Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment and First Amendment proponents might not agree on everything, but they should at least agree to support the Bill of Rights and the importance of re-stating our demands that these rights be respected.

The difference between us and the Tea Party is that it should be known that defense of these rights includes a degree of insurrection, if necessary. Let us not fool ourselves or our communistic/socialistic enemies. If it is a fight that is coming, all we know right now is that each of us is alone, isolated and effectively neutralized. Our gathering to make the points we need to make could spark a consolidation of sentiment. It could motivate those who now sit idle.

I have no doubt that there are those who are willing to do any number of things to support the liberty movement, but it cannot begin without a beginning. A patriot summit would be that beginning. We can accept Tea Party members, but they must understand that this is not a Tea Party gathering, this is something a bit more determined, a bit more radical, perhaps a lot more radical. We must have a beginning to the action part of the movement.

Date and location. Lets start there. If you are a spook and live only on the invisible web, tucked away in the protection of anonymity, you can still show up. You can read the details as they emerge, but if you think fighting the enemies of liberty can be done without exposing yourself to fire, you are mistaken. All this has done so far is to leave those willing to brave the retribution of the feds to take the heat alone.

We need to emerge as a separate force from the Tea Party, but we must forge an alliance. There is no political clout without the ability to counter violence done to the political arm. We must be that force for good.

That's my pitch. I will repeat it often. It is important. 

Degrees of Self-Delusion

The path to energy independence is to fund, via tax dollars, solar panel producers. This is what passes as an actual policy from the Obama Administration. Meanwhile, the nix is on for an Ohio pipeline reversal to Houston where it can be refined. Also, the nix is on for a Canadian venture to build a pipeline into the United States because the route passes through the a Nebraska grassland area. I've been to Nebraska, there is no shortage of grassland area. The whole damn state is a prairie.

Everyday there are ways to increase production of typical oil fields which have been supplied in the past by drilling vertically down to a certain depth and drawing from that vertical hole as much oil as possible. But, it was still a small opening from which to draw. Vast amounts of oil are now accessible through increases in technology by going down to the depth of the oil and drilling horizontally through the same narrow formation making the producible area up to ten thousand times that of a single hole.

Okay, I know I got a little Geeky there, but for the same buck, you can produce millions, or even billions more barrels of oil. This is turning the concept of self-sufficient energy into a reality and it is being done in more places than just the Bakken field, where I work, there is one down in Texas and another in Southern Wyoming and Northern Colorado. Billions more barrels of oil, the most cost-effective energy source ever discovered.

Some environmentalists would disagree with my next statement, which is: The absolutely most carbon-efficient form of energy is oil and gas. They don't want to believe that because they want something other than what they claim. For the same basic energy consumption, we can now produce billions of barrels of oil. Billions. Their answer is still solar, but they ignore the mining that has to go into the production of aluminum, not to mention the great cost of energy it takes to make it. Huge amounts of electricity are required to make aluminum. They ignore the rare-earth minerals required to make the photovoltaic elements. They ignore the carbon expended in trucking all of these panels across the face of the earth, most of which come from China which owns the greatest share of rare-earth minerals. Wind turbines are just plain ignorant.

But, environmentalists get all charged up about Fracking, where the rocks are fractured via hydraulic pressure. They get charged up by this not because of the truth about fracking, but because the solution, largely water, they use to frack the wells is proprietary and therefore not disclosed. Secrecy, you understand, to the environmentalist is the same as sin.

The truth is there is no man-made global warming taking place, there is no proof that if there were that carbon would have a single thing to do with it. We are making big-time policy decisions about the future of this nation based on flawed principles and hocus-pocus environmentalism and no one seems to notice, or care?

Were a large, influential church to suggest that it were immoral to have pre-marital sex and those who participated in it should be singled out and ridiculed for it, all hell would break loose down at the ACLU. But for the environmentalists, who are a religion unto themselves, to suggest that we should not burn oil for some nebulous reason having to do with trees and such, those who do should be singled out and ridiculed is received with nods of approval by the ACLU.

I find the hypocrisy of the left to be disturbing in its degrees of self-delusion.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Occupy the Supreme Court

Gone are the days of Constitutional protections. No one buys the idea that any of our rights are sacred. They are simply negotiable, barter for political gain within the halls of the Supreme Court. But, they are not supreme, they are merely political operatives of one party or the other. They are meant to balance the court, but in fact are little else than protectors of an ideology. To pretend that the Supreme Court has courtly powers is ridiculous on its face.

They are part and parcel of the Federal government. They are not super-human, sometimes not even partially human. They have lost the necessary connection with the people, whose rights they are employed to protect.

Since supporting the government over the people secures their own power, what value do they have to us? What credibility? The government will continue long after the Constitution has been discarded. I don't mean that in a figurative way, either. At some point it no longer makes no sense to keep up the ruse. They pretend to be following the Constitution when they rule in favor of DUI check points out of some sense of compassion for a loved one killed by a drunk driver, but it is not theirs to be compassionate, but to protect the people from unwarranted searches and seizures.

On and on it goes Roe v Wade is nonsensical in its logic. A woman has a right to do with her body what she wants, including killing an unborn child? Where else is it in law that the right to "freedom and choice" outweighs any life, even the life of a dog, but not a fetus. The old axiom that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose doesn't seem to apply for a fetus, a name they have given it to avoid the fact that left on its own to grow, it would emerge from the womb a person.

Now, before the legal scholars in the readership beat me down for being thick-headed and stubborn enough to make such un-scholarly mincemeat of complicated rulings I ask where else in law can one pull arms and legs off another living being for the mere lifestyle "choice" of another? And, where were the fathers in these legal decisions? Where were their rights considered in the ruling? If she has a right to destroy the fetus should not also a man who wants the child be given the option to maker her carry it to term and turn it over?

And I am not even an anti-abortion zealot, the ruling just makes no legal, Constitutional sense. Which means, to me, that in several ways and cases the Supreme Court has itself violated the Constitution so willingly that we ought to drop the facade and get down to the battle over what rights we will die to protect and start with calling out the Supreme Court as traitors and tyrants. The battle should begin there, if anywhere. Occupy the Supreme Court. Lay in against them first, not last, not after all the patriots are lined up against the wall for going against law enforcement or the military. Start with those nine who will soon find nothing the government cannot legally do to us.

For anyone who has been subjected to the draconian methods of the IRS already know they are slaves. Whenever the IRS has a question about how much you owe them, they confiscate everything in your account without warning, obviously to get as much as they can. Then, your checks bounce and shop owners call up irate because you have no funds in your account. This is not an abuse any free person should be subject to. So, your reputation is ruined, people consider you a bum and when the IRS discovers they acted in error, what do they do to repair it? Nothing.

The Supreme Court could put a stop to this sort of thing, to all the different and obvious violations of our rights, but they don't. They are willing to allow the American people to become as their European counterparts, i.e. subjects of the federal crown. They are the first and most diabolical of traitors and they are few.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

The Feminist Awakening

From the Lexington Herald-Leader we find the ultimate in sudden feminist awareness that the new Islamist movement heralded by the Obama Administration as the Arab Spring might not be so wonderful for the women who will soon be considered chattel and little more than the common dog in the Arab world.

The clueless feminist editorialist Trudy Rubin writes: "The growing strength of Islamist political parties in the Mideast's new 'democracies' (a challengeable term if ever there was one) makes one wonder what will happen to Arab women's rights." She continues: "I'm not talking of women in Saudi Arabia where they are still fighting for the right to drive and are relegated to segregated workplaces, (of which seems to have little concern) but of the countries where working women have long been the norm."

I highlight this insipid opinion article only to show the level of utter stupidity the typical liberal has embraced to avoid the reality of a disastrous Obama foreign policy. They have so devotedly turned a blind-eye to the incompetency of Obama's foreign policy that they have only now been able to sort out the casualties of their support. Feminists of the world should recoil from his policies, they should be outside the White House with the determination of Cindy Sheehan to demand that he protect the women he has consequently thrown to the Islamist dogs.

But, they have not. They have supported him with the vigor of SS troops. They have deluded themselves with the idea that Obama is a Democrat and therefore superior in every way to George W. Bush. Never mind that the policies of the Obama Administration have led more women into the dark world of male domination on a scale that is breathtaking to behold. Likewise, homosexuals have supported this administration with the same vehemence, the same dedication and all the while he has helped aid the regimes that will openly and willingly have them shot on the spot.

The enemy of your enemy is not your friend, ladies. Despite assurances of including women in the government of Tunisia, it is only a matter of time before the stronger Islamists take control. Let the women vote, it doesn't matter any Islamist government can edit out those votes at will. It can make it illegal without consent of congress, or a referendum, it needs only a strong leader to say so. Democracies in these nations is a misnomer. It is a democracy in so far as it validates the Islamist agenda, the moment that it does not, the moment that it leads to a contradiction to the Quran, it is a useless tool of those seeking power.

Pat yourselves on the back, ladies, you have helped to lead these women into the worst future imaginable, because it was the largely secular governments of Hosni Mubarak that allowed such things. It was even the largely secular government of Muammar Ghadaffi that allowed such things. Now that the Iran-backed movements of the Muslim Brotherhood have flexed their muscles I would look toward Iran and Yemen to see the rights women will have in the future.

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Criminals By Comfort and the Dogs of Communism

I used to wonder why people would not get off their butts and do something about the condition of the nation. I mean, if ever there was a time and a place to make some inroads into the police state the U.S. has become (if you choose to refute that characterization I will tell you that it is against the law to flush with too much water, to use an incandescent bulb ((or soon will be)) or throw unauthorized trash in your can) it would have been the past year and a half. There was a time long past to stand up to dismantle all of this envro-nazi pap coming out of the government. There was a time when pointing to the Constitution as a guide to what was legal and not legal. Those times have past. In the blink of an eye we have come to accept all manner of invasion of privacy and rights.

Here's what changed for me. I went to work for someone else after closing my business down. I had to concentrate on survival of my family. I no longer had time to continually beat the drum for people who would not follow, or lead. My gig was never to be the leader of anything. I never wanted to put myself out in front of a movement or even a tactical achievement. Anyone involved with Guardians of Liberty will tell you that I continually tried to take a backseat position. I am not a leader, but we had better choose one and quick, someone to rally behind. I will carry the flag, I will throw myself to the dogs if it helps the movement move forward and claim those rights that are so readily disparaged and violated by even our most conservative politicians.

There are those who know they can count on me in a pinch. That was really all I wanted to establish. I wanted whoever was going to make a move know that I would be there beside them when they called.

Now, when I look at all of the things I wanted to forestall, all of the conditions I wanted to spare this nation from enduring, I see that it would never have been otherwise. It will take all of the degradation, all of the social insults, all of the violations of everything once held sacred to finally stir the souls the idle. When every house is ransacked for its valuables so that the spoiled generation might feel better about themselves for having prosecuted social justice, it will occur to the masses that "the rich" mean anyone who has more than them. When their stuff is proof of their guilt they will understand.

The communists have been unleashed on this poor old republic. It is no match for ACORN because it has not been supported with the rigid girth of law. It has been hollowed out by legalistic convenience, communistic education and the betrayal of our politicians. So, it is time for change. This is what happens to nations that find nothing in their heritage to value. This is what happens to countries that begin to feed on its own flesh. Would you save that? Is such a nation worthy of the heroism that it would take to save it? Or, should we aid the destruction and hope to seize the jewel of its origination?

Liberty was once the purpose of this nation, to preserve it, to extend it to others, to protect it from the greed of government. Liberty was not the by-product of America, it was not the result of forming a government such as we had, it was the very purpose and we, as citizens, its defenders. But, we all grew more interested in our lives and the preservation of our pleasures to bother with adherence to the principle of liberty. In the night, as we slept in our comfortable beds without a fear of waking up to cold reality, we let liberty slip away like a dream. But, we are warm nonetheless. We have our television and our iPods to keep us company and not miss that ole liberty thing too much. Besides, it would be such a long, hard and cold road back to it. It would cost too much and make us uncomfortable to try. It would make us look like bad people, selfish people, perhaps even a bit like racists. It might make us unpopular when others just want to be warm and comfortable and not have to face long, tedious lines at the airport.

Is liberty really worth it? Ask almost anyone you know and they will give you all the facts you need to know that it has been a dream for so long they can't even comprehend liberty. It is a slogan, a line in a song, a myth much the same as the round table and King Arthur. 

But, here's the thing: it is not a choice of liberty or comfort, because they will choose comfort every time over the struggle for liberty no matter what their mouths say. While they slept the equation changed, the options narrowed. The fact is, they really don't have much of a choice at all. They chose so long ago, as they slept in that warm, comfortable bed. Cold reality stares at them every day from the television and they refuse to recognize it, they simply turn the channel and see more pleasing images, more secure outcomes. The communist march has begun and it will not be swayed until it has consumed all the comforts of capitalism and spit out the dissidents, those criminals by comfort.

As you mope around in your pajamas waiting for the Sunday game to start, you might just turn to that news program you detest and look at all of those faces willing to marshal forces to ransack your man-cave. Yes, we are watching the criminalization of wealth and while you might not feel wealthy in your three bedroom home with two baths and a garage, you look pretty tasty to the dogs of communism.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

The Gospel of Liberty

Mountain Top Patriot left a comment on "We Can Afford To Be Normal No More" that was particularly informative, as most comments on this blog, but it expressed an idea I just had to write about the Gospel of Liberty. Think about that for a second. Who are the apostles of liberty? Are you one? Why not?

If you think about it, it inspires a devotion not unlike religion where you know a thing to be true that cannot be proved one way or the other. Liberty is good, it feels good to do as one pleases without hindering the liberty of another. It is an expression of the liberty God intended for us that we have hardly ever been able to maintain, because we get greedy and want more and more until we inevitably encroach on other's liberty. Once we have learned to take liberty from others to extend our own, we lose it completely because there are always those who are better at taking it than those who simply want to maintain it.

This is why conservatives lose a lot of battles with the liberals, the collectivists, who see liberty as a means of avoiding social responsibility. I disagree with that in every way, but it is the way they see it. Their concept of social responsibility equates to making their fetishes acceptable so they don't have to suffer the scorn of society, this they equate to religion whether that equation is valid or not. So, in their minds they have to destroy the church and the social responsibility guided through it by means of voluntary tithing to re-route that money through their government budgets.

The concept of a Gospel of Liberty is a direct refutation of their assumption that social good can only come from government power. Whenever a conservative thinks of social responsibility they think of the charities they support through so many religious or secular causes to which they are devoted. When a liberal thinks of charity they think of welfare and food stamps, but also support for gay-day parades, bike paths and other public works that support their vision of Gaia. They have, whether they like to think of it, or not, rewritten the Gospel to exclude God. Theirs is a gospel of dependence and extracted tithing rather than liberty.

So, what is the Gospel of Liberty?

The Gospel of Liberty, to me, is the promotion, the devotion to the values of liberty that have been lost these last centuries since the American Revolution. The American Government has been so devoted to governing, controlling, regulating action that it has forgotten that its purpose was to protect individual liberty. Liberty is no more in America. It will remain so until we become adamant about it, until we become apostles of liberty and spread the gospel of liberty with the zeal of the religion.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

We Can Afford To Be Average No More

There are a few bigger things afoot than most are thinking about right now. Occupy Wall Street is nothing other than a show of force. I know I have mentioned this in a previous post, but it is becoming clear enough that some of the bigger bloggers are starting to realize it. I think a lot more people than that are coming to the realization that this is just the sort of thing a Community Organizer does so well.

Why the rich? What did they ever do to any of the punks down on Wall Street, or any of the other locales around the nation, other than give them their jobs, or pay for their college, or welfare? What the rich did was become the latest boogieman for the Obama Administration. They are the targets and the fools (the rich) have so far refused to support the only means of keeping them from being dragged from their mansions and brutalized by a mob of frantic Obamatrons and the useful idiots of George Soros.

In Denver a man was heard to say “F---- Rush Limbaugh” so that the audience of the local station carrying his program could hear it. He got close to the microphone to make that declaration. Why not “F--- George Soros? Soros has more money than Limbaugh, he has more clout and has been even convicted in France of insider trading. What has Limbaugh done? He has been a target of people like Soros, who use these dinks like un-thinking drones sent out to do as much damage to American society as they can.

I know as sure as I am writing this that one of the Soros drones who troll the internet for mention of his name to then propose writing a guest post on blogs such as this one ostensibly to merely comment on the post under false pretenses. The idea, for them, is to turn it all around and back on the accuser. I say this because it has happened to ME with remarkable certainty in the past. They don’t ever read the piece, they just want fair time on my blog, but it is mine. Troll on little drone.

A recent post, We Are Way Behind, tried to make my main point, but I am being a lot more direct about it. Anarchy, civil unrest and/or chaos is, under the Patriot Act, a reason to take all sorts of emergency actions, one of which, I am willing to bet at this time, is a suspension of elections until the order can be restored. Another blog pointed this out at about the same time I came up with We Are Way Behind. No, I am not linking it, I am not interested in that sort of self-promotion, or I-told-you-so’s.

The things that are out of control of the Obama Administration are the Gunwalker and Solyndra scandals that threaten to rock Obama’s presidency at about the same time he wants to unleash this “October Surprise”. Read anything you want, Cloward and Piven, history of the Russian Revolution, or the manner and means that Adolph Hitler came to power in Germany. It wasn’t all Jew bashing, it was a manner of creating a small group of dedicated men willing to do violence to the opposition. The means of taking control of a nation and people are known, not just intimated. They are scientifically calculated to do exactly what is necessary to step into the void at just the right time to seize control.

How long did it take to have union muscle bolster the ranks of the protesters? How long did it take for anarchists to appear on the scene as an ironically organized force to push the cops to arrest them? Is there anything other than fawning support of these rascals from the Democratic Party?

Look, I’m no conspiracy theorist, but I am a student of history. One might ask how a cultured, sophisticated society as that of Germany accepted Adoph Hitler. How was that possible? Many times it is the mere fact of sophistication that gets these willing dolts (the average Democratic voter,) to support whatever criminal and unconstitutional acts their leader might devise simply out of some devotion to their principles. It is not just enough for these morons to do wrong, they have to get the entire population to pay for their excessive good-intentions. To answer the question, the German people simply accepted the person who appeared to be in control. Control is not necessary, in Hitler’s case it was only the appearance of control, enough to brutalize his opponents and have a few organized brown shirts ready to step in with the correct message.

Am I comparing Obama to Hitler? If you must, but you would be missing the point. The point is: ANYONE with the organization or the ability to co-opt an organization with the muscle to put down the initial revulsion and resistance, can, at the right time, especially in economic desperation, seize control of ANY nation and the more sophisticated, the easier it is. While the Democrats with all their media might and their pop culture support might puff and blow about the absurdity of the comparison they are abetting the possibility by denying the possibility.

This is a dangerous time. Who will go into the streets to confront that organization? Who will be the resistance strong enough and willing enough to overwhelm them? Would you? Would you know the right time? When is that time for you? Is it the suspension of elections? You had better know, because if you expect me to sit around worrying about when the elections will be held, you will be looking at my back. I have confronted these morons at numerous town-hall meetings and Tea Party rallies. In Denver, I got one of them to jump at me, but his comrades seized him and pulled him away.

Since 2009 I have seen this plan slowly develop and have marveled at the way the Tea Party refused to see themselves as the resistance, afraid of being labeled “violent”. I have been way ahead of them on that point. I recognized that the unions, for Obama, were nothing other than brown shirts used effectively to blunt the message of millions of average Americans. We can afford to be “average” no more.

I broke from the Tea Party for this very reason. There is a time when force must be met with force. There is a time when muscle must be used against muscle. Yes, this means bloody noses and severe beatings, if you can’t take it; you can’t afford to be an American in the times going forward.

Now, if this eventuality never occurs, fine. I’m just trying to point out that if you will allow Barack Obama to suspend elections for any reason whatsoever without violent response you might as well put on the striped pajamas and wait for the train. I never will.       


Monday, October 10, 2011

No Glory In "Old Glory" Any More

Take down your American flag and fly instead the Gadsden Flag. The once glorious American flag flew for the representation of the Constitution and the union that resulted from its adoption. It stood as a victory of the people over government, as a statement of the changing of the old order. It was a victory against the oppression and clever device of the State. It spit in the eye of the old dictatorial monarchy it replaced. It was a symbol of pride to those who flew its colors and proudly asserted themselves as Americans. But, Americans we are not, not in the sense that caused us national pride, not in the sense that it was intended. We have become servants to a bureaucracy that has supplanted our nation with rules, regulations and Supreme Court decisions. If a nation is made up of laws, it is destroyed by the laws that violate its charter.

To be an American now, one must look beyond the flag to the very substance of what Americans became when they drafted the Constitution and recognized those rights gained as the very soul of citizenship. We are not citizens to a bureaucracy; we are not citizens to a system of plunder; we are not citizens to a printed list of demands and consequences. Laws are not made up by us, for us, they are the products of lobbying efforts, exclusions offered in return for campaign contributions. Our republic is lost.

If we take down our American flags we would vacate the space between capitals and the seats of government and then the flag would fly only over those buildings and committees who have so stridently sought our subjugation. We would know them all by their adherence to the methods of confiscated liberty. The American flag would then come to stand for what it should symbolize, the success of the state over the individual. The power and the might of the state against the people.

I look at the American flag now with the sentiment with which it originally flew, when it inspired the words of Francis Scott Key. I place my hand over my heart, or salute it for what it once meant, for what it was intended to stand for: a beacon of freedom in a world of oppression, but I know this sentiment as an illusion I afford myself on patriotic days. I can no longer regard the flag of today as that of the original.

I ask you: Are we the same; is the nation the same; do our hearts still beat with the ardent patriotism that rises tears to our eyes when we see it? Or, has it become a symbol of too many abuses, too many affronts to veterans and citizens alike? When the power of the state can and will take everything one has to satisfy its demands for tribute, are we free?

If the flag stands for freedom, are you free? They will take your money from your account on a whim and return it only when you have paid all you own to prove your innocence. They will take your life if you challenge their power and might. They will imprison you for failure to pay the taxes levied on you in your absence, without an opportunity for rebuttal. There are stories upon stories of people who have been dealt with summarily by the government. They do it with the power of YOUR consent. Yours, the veterans, the citizens, the voters, the taxpayers. Is it your will that this would be done to your neighbor? Is it your will that this would be done to you?

I ask: what can the state not do to you, if it takes an interest in doing so? Do you know? The answer is: Nothing. It has police to enforce its insider laws, judges and juries to read only the most damaging evidence, disregarding any mitigating circumstances. You are a revenue stream, nothing more. If you refuse that role on whatever legitimate grounds you can find it is irrelevant to the fact that you are not paying them their tribute. No other fact holds sway.

Nothing has given me more pride over the years than to see that flag wave against a clear blue sky. It stood as a symbol of what was and could be again, but farther and farther we go down the road toward the most oppressive and belligerent society. We find that our laws are not designed to protect the individual from the state, but the other way around. I have lost none of my regard for those founders and patriots who suffered through the winters of our birth as a nation. It is, in fact, in tribute to them and their struggles that I suggest we not endorse the perversion of their dreams, but break out ourselves and with their spirit and their bravery chart a new course away from the machinations of the all-powerful state.

Then, once we have secured glory for the United States and again set it right on the path to liberty and freedom in adherence to the power of the Constitution, we dedicate the American flag to our struggle, to our victory and hoist those colors once more. In pride. 

If you think it is just me, Brock Townsend offered this link below, but I thought it appropriate to read.

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Mindless Self-Destruction


According to the Kirsch Foundation there was no charitable giving prior to 1900. Instead, alms were given directly to the people in need from other individuals. It wasn't until the rise of the industrial revolution that the idea of charitable foundations began to give funds for hospitals, libraries and museums. Why is that? It is because capitalism had allowed the concentration of wealth and with it the ability to do big things from a single source.

I don't know which is better, or worse. Is it better for each individual to seek out those in need and give of themselves to someone directly, or for the formation of concentrated wealth to seek out opportunities to do bigger things? I suspect that each might operate at the same time. So, the concentration of wealth and therefore the ability to do bigger things while individuals continue to devote resources to individual cases seems one of the best systems. It is a system that rose out of the combination of Christian values and capitalist methods.

Lately, however, it has become the fashion for those who have concentrated wealth unto themselves to use the power of giving to do social engineering. It is called "Venture Philanthropy" and it is designed to create organizations that are self-sustaining to largely support local non-profits. They seek to do community-minded outreach. Decode that and what you get is that they are largely supplying the funding for social engineering. A large part of this process is to attract and utilize government grants and lobby governments to provide or initiate things like "enterprise zones".

I believe everyone ought to give to whatever charity they desire. I endorse any one's right to do whatever they choose with their money, where I have a problem is where these "Venture Philanthropists" use their clout, their economic might, to absorb all of the public funds and direct them toward their particular point of view, or ideology. Public funds are tax dollars, our money, being directed toward organizations and goals that we do not support. Build a hospital, or a library and everyone might be served by that, but if one devises an organization to lobby for, or out-compete, for public funds to support Planned Parenthood, which is really sort a planned abortion clinic, I don't think that is a legitimate use of those tax dollars.

If those funds are designed to limit the marketplace by organizations determined to keep Wal-Mart out of a given area, that also is a poor use of those funds and what is more important is what other good causes are not being served in the process? Small groups do not have the talent available to write a winning grant proposal when the competition is assembled by Bill Gates or Steve Jobs (RIP). Often, a faith-based non-profit cannot get funding from government or any left-wing organization. They are being starved out of effectiveness. It was told to me openly that an organization I supported, were it not faith-based, would have secured funding from a large tech company. I knew the person awarding the funds and knew this to be a fact.

I bring this up only to point out that the war has been being waged on every front imaginable for a long time. There is an assault on religion by the government and now industry. A distancing from Christian religions has been taking place for a long time. It is not politically correct to have a business make considerable donations to any faith-based organization for fear that the radical left will seize upon it as some unholy alliance that needs to be exposed and demonized. (odd that those words so accurately depict the situation)

In Africa, the war is being waged between Christians and Muslims over water. In a given village a Christian organization might drill a well and open it to the public. In another village a Muslim organization might drill a well and the only price to be paid to partake of the water is a conversion to Islam.

In all sectors Christianity is under attack and that might not bother the atheists in my readership, but this new philanthropy is not only directed at Christians, it is directed at the Western culture that made all of this charitable giving possible to begin with. When I see the dolts down at OWS, I see a group of useful idiots. The problem is they are idiots, but useful to those intent on bringing down the Western culture in order to supplant it with whatever form of fascism one chooses to fear.

To me, it is all one in the same. Christianity and the principles behind it drove the expansion of Western culture and while there are some moral bumps along the road, overall, when one looks back along the path of social advancement, it has done a lot more good than bad. Yes, there have been zealots who took the word of God and used it as bludgeon on other societies, but what is largely ignored is the society it encountered. Now, without going into a dissertation on Western culture and the benefits of it to the people and societies it tamed, let me just say that a little research would do one good before pointing to the Inquisition, the conquering of the West and the Salem Witch Trials as the only talking points one has.

The point I am struggling to make here is that as a Constitutionalist I see the enemy to my rights standing proudly to deny them through some concept of Utopian "fairness"; as a Christian I see my religion under attack for no other reason than the beliefs guaranteed to be sacrosanct by that same Constitution; and as a capitalist I see my values under attack by open, ardent socialists communists. The fact is, all of these things are under attack by the same groups and people and for often mis-guided, muddled reasons they can't even articulate because they are the useful idiots of a much more sophisticated force: the State.

When I see Barack Obama giving an encouraging wink to those willing to destroy the advancements of the Western culture for their own sheer, mindless satisfaction I see how well prepared the opposition is and can only pray that when push comes to shove there are more people willing to support it than is obvious to me now.   

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

What Banner Do We Fly?

Let us, as an exercise, examine our inaction. We will not harass or bother the justices of the Supreme Court, who routinely betray the intent of  the Constitution because we will be thrown in jail. We will not stand up for liberty at the airport because we will be detained, miss our flight and perhaps be thrown in jail. We will not cause a ruckus in the House of Representatives because we will be thrown in jail. We will not attempt to interfere with the FED because we will be thrown in jail. We will not fight back against the unions because we will be thrown in jail. We will not fight back against the banks because we will be thrown in jail. We will not refuse to be pulled over at a DUI checkpoint because we will be thrown in jail. We will not refuse to pay taxes as a protest because we will be thrown in jail.

The problem with being thrown in jail is the sudden lack of income attendant to that action. The need for a lawyer, with the sudden demand on the income attendant to that action. We don't want to wind up in some inner-city jail where life would not be so pleasant. Jail presents a risk to our employment and consequently a sudden drop in income.

So, the truth of the matter is that we do not resist because we cannot find a way to do so that will not adversely affect our other lives, the ones where we are fathers and mothers or otherwise responsible adults. We don't want to be homeless. We don't want to suffer or make our children suffer.

Now, I could make all of the reasons that suffering is becoming a fact with or without resistance, but I'll let that go for now and just focus on our inaction.

I believe that most of us would risk one or more of the above actions if there were to be some outcome to that sacrifice, but we all know that it would be a (forgive the vulgarity) fart in the wind. It would have no effect and we would be no closer to our goals of liberty.

We are not the children of the revolution for so many reasons. First, the world is not the same as it was back then. It is nearly impossible to make a living off of the land. It is impossible to escape punishment by driving into the frontier where one might get lost. We are known the world over simply by having utilities in our names. Second, our lives are tied to our children. Our mistakes weigh heavy on them. Third and finally, there is no chance of winning.

As has been often lamented, there is no champion to embrace our cause and benefit from it. There is no one to take the political advantage we might secure and use it as leverage for our cause. The cause of liberty is a lonely pursuit. Everyone in the government is hurt by the advancement of the people's liberty and so none will come forward to accept our gifts and perhaps pardon us at some time in the future. There is no workable solution to the .gov control over our lives.

The Oathkeepers were supposed to be that link, that liaison that would mitigate our excesses for the cause of liberty, but they have abdicated their role. Also, we have no voice. The Tea Party will not support any act of aggression when that is the only option left to those who truly value liberty and would be willing to sacrifice for it. Those who know me know that I would gladly sacrifice and have and have been left standing in the cold for my efforts. It was a learning experience.

Where is the military? Where are the politicians needed to support our efforts? At least the Palestinians have support for their resistance, as misguided and irrational as it might be. What banner do we fly? What ground do we seek? What means will we use?

We are a movement without a leader. We have a goal without a means. We have a method without a plan. We are waiting for our sacrifices to have a meaning, otherwise any action we might take would be an isolated incident of a weak-minded individual (or so portrayed by those who write the news). We are smart enough to know this and we remain inactive.

Every mission is a suicide mission. A movement cannot function under that fact. We are not terrorists, we do not think in those terms. We are not driven on by encouragement from a religious perspective. We are just men and women seeking to retain what was given to us at birth, that was robbed from us before being born. We have inherited a betrayal and we are pissed about it. We want to do something to secure our rights for ourselves and our posterity, but we see no cooperation, no possibility of success.

So, who are we, then? Are we an army without a general? Are we saboteurs? Are we Palestine? In the Palestinian struggle we find our most likely peer. We seek something that was never ours, that has been a myth almost since the signing of the document. We struggle with no possible chance of success, but we lack the courage to even throw rocks.

So what would it take to move us in the direction we need to go? What would be the catalyst that would unleash our intent? Before we can envision success we must first know how to begin, where to begin. That should be the question on every conservative blog, on every patriot's lips. Where is our beginning? Who will give their lives first? Who will be second? Who will be...on and on. We should know this first. We should work toward it, refine it, we should be able to say who will be first in action and when that action is taken, who will follow it up.

I suggest a summit of all interested parties to do just that. Sit down and devise a justification, produce a document, a letter of intent, a warning and ensure that those actions are followed up with a plan for resistance. Think it over.

Monday, October 3, 2011

We Are Way Behind

The way conservatives always get their butts kicked is that they rely on the persuasiveness of their arguments. They appeal to truth and fact and the irresistible force of logic. Liberals have no such illusions to hold them back. They know that everything they desire needs to be accomplished by deception, so they don't waste time on rational arguments but appeal directly to emotion to get the support they need. They do not even need to have everyone working toward the same goal as the intent is discontent. The snake, once moving, can be guided by the head.

I am not trying to make a case that conservatives are smarter than liberals, or more dedicated to the truth, we each have our own truths and liberals, I think, in terms of raw intelligence, are smarter than conservatives. One does not have to be very smart to put two and two together and arrive at four, but one must be brilliant to put two and two together and arrive at five. That sounds funny, but think about it for a moment. Their intelligence and the arrogance that comes from it allows them to completely re-work society in their heads and figure out a way to get what they want. All they have to do is be bold enough to lead the moochers and looters, to figure out a way to get them to align with their goals.

There is a dynamic at work in America right now that is frightening. Liberals have already worked out how to appeal to the moochers and looters. The leadership is in the White House with the power of the federal government behind it to supply the ground troops with the necessary funds to mobilize these mobs of angry, discontent moochers. We saw this at the Wall Street protest and others around the nation. They are flexing their muscles. Get the students and other moochers to create the diversion then sprinkle in some union muscle to do the hard work, to shut down opposition and you have a force close to the III% needed to make radical change.

We think of ourselves as that III%, but what if THEY are the III% needed to do the job? Have you considered that? Once they have mobilized, what will be our response? Really? All right, you have seen the exercises taking place, the marching in formation, the target practice taking place on our streets. You have seen the command and control. Their defensive positions are arrayed before you in police cruisers and TSA uniforms. The political groundwork has been established. The Tea Party has been complicit in its own ineffectiveness by a single word RACIST.

The strictly non-violent nature of the Tea Party has already removed them from the field of battle. What good is it to have 50 million cheerleaders afraid to support your cause?

Boys (and girls) we are in serious trouble. Van Jones and Barack Obama have scripted the eruption prior to the election. The resulting civil unrest (assuming we don't just roll over and allow it) will give them all the power they need to root us (the opposition forces) out and postpone elections until the civil peace can be restored, a thing never designed to happen. Graphic examples of handling these "domestic terrorists" will be televised so that all can see what happens to resisters.

The real trouble is all of us are sitting around thinking that when the time comes we will act, but we won't. I am convinced of that. I pray it were not true, but I have seen no willingness for the necessary forces to come into alliance that would prevent it. Without the threat of violence the Tea Party is a paper tiger. The III% community (and forgive me for saying this, it gives me no pleasure) cannot overcome its desire for propriety to take the necessary actions to present a real threat, to force its supporters behind it and shove the pretenders out of the way.

While the liberals are consolidating power behind the unions and student activists, the two major forces on the conservative side, the Tea Party and the III% community, are increasingly distancing themselves from each other. A political force (the Tea Party) is useless without an enforcement arm (the III% community). The Oathkeepers won't even be a factor.

Ultimately, we don't have the stomach for liberty. If we did, we would be holding our exercises in public, marching our troops HAND IN HAND and preparing for the conflict. We already know the battle plans of the opposition who seem intent on action around October, 2012 the traditional Soviet month of revolt. Poetic, ain't it? 

Saturday, October 1, 2011

It Is Liberalism That Has Failed the Blacks

I long for the days when men were men. I long for the days when this nation meant more to people than just a residence, just a job, just a position within their community. I long for a day when the promises of liberty were more than just words on marble monuments.

I don't think I am alone in this, but it vexes me that when I stand I stand largely alone. That when I lay down my life and treasure that only a few are willing to stand next to me and do the same with theirs. I can recount several over the Guardians of Liberty time, but where have they gone, what have they done since I have been surveilled, harassed by the IRS and lost my business? Have they moved the ball? I question not their willingness, nor their devotion to liberty, only their effectiveness. There are those, Kerodin and Pete and if you know those individuals you know that I hold them in great regard, that they are brothers in liberty. I have seen Mike pursue and take Gunwalker, along with the other Mike, to the very brink of catastrophic scandal that the Obama Administration so greatly deserves. I have seen others like Brock continue to beat the drum. There are many in the Second Amendment movement who do as much as they can to raise awareness and demand liberty, RTC (either one), Dudley from Rocky Mountain, Arctic Patriot, Alvie, Green Mountains Homesteading, etc, etc.

Do I have to name them all? We know who the action folks are, but where are the others? For so long we have hammered away at the wall of government, we have paid the dues of those who risk everything for liberty and yet there is little being accomplished. I am no better. After beating the drum with Guardians and the lack of accomplishment that organization produced I burrowed in and worked to make my world safe for my family. I ventured out and was distracted by my own pursuits. I will come back when needed, I tell myself.

I hear of Van Jones raising the stakes. The minorities will rattle the cages this election, which is code for intimidate white voters so Obama can be re-elected. Is this ultimately America? Is fear the true enemy of liberty? Do we sacrifice everything to save our skins, or do we pony up? Do we know what that means? Is it time for the racial minorities to overcome the largely white-dominated culture and if so, is that only possible through threats of violence? Look, if minorities seek to band together to accomplish something politically, what could be more American? But, if the implied threat is to another race, is that somehow noble? Minorities are often trampled in a popular election, that is just how it works, it is not racially motivated, it is a numbers game, it is a motivation game, but like so many Cinco de Mayo parades, it is a "sticking it to the man" mentality that pervades.

Were America the racially antagonistic place some minorities would like to project, there never could have been a President Obama. I like the fact that a black man has been president. I like the fact that as a nation we are capable of choosing our president based on eloquence, even, rather than race, that the Obama Administration has largely been a failure, even to his most ardent supporters tells one more about the man and his ideology than the color of his skin. The fact that he enjoys making his race a bigger factor than it has ever been shows the shallowness of his soul, not the legitimacy of his claim.

We are Americans and part of us are from a different race, that is a fact. But, we are all Americans. We select from Americans to lead us, regardless of race, or of ethnicity. I like Herman Cain, but blacks will call him every name they can to suggest that he is not "right," that somehow his views make him less black. I don't like Herman Cain because he is black, I like him because he is conservative and that most of his views are my views. Liberal blacks hate him because he intimates the unspoken truth that his color has nothing to do with his popularity among whites. It destroys the narrative that they have so carefully nurtured. He is proof that the racial factor is truly no factor in our decisions or our support.

I would like to see every race embrace the values and principles of the Constitution and I think blacks are being poorly served when they are asked to support Democrats on the idea that somehow they will deliver the spoils to them based on race. That is a cynical view of America that only liberals would advance, only those among us who do not see value in all that we have been through as a nation struggling with the evil of slavery over these many decades and now closing in on centuries. We cannot change the past, we can only seek to overcome the mistakes of our forebears and forgive me for believing we have come a long damn way from those policies and practices that ever allowed it. The truth of history is that America never wanted slavery, that is was imposed upon us by the British, who reaped great financial rewards in its employ by shipping and delivering those souls into bondage. I have read enough wills in my time to recognize that most slaves were given freedom. I know that at the time of the Civil War there were more free blacks in the South than in the North. But these are lost facts to those determined to keep the myth of racism alive.

There are racists. I do not mean to imply that there are not, but the ratio is minuscule. Obama is proof that we have put that issue aside and were he conservative, his policies would have worked and he would have already been hailed as one of our greatest presidents, not the successor to the Carter legacy. It is liberalism that has failed the blacks, not America.

Were this not true liberty would be on the minds of all races. Were this not true we would be brothers in arms to demand our rights and to stand aside one another as brothers against tyranny and oppression. The spoils of a great nation cannot be delivered unto one race or another, it must be earned by diligence in the pursuit of happiness, i.e. liberty. The label of racism is granted to anyone struggling against the power of the federal government as a reflex. But, even to proffer that insinuation is to admit that minorities are dependent upon the government and unable to stand apart from it, a racist declaration if ever I heard one.

Let not Van Jones be right, let us all seek liberty and aid those who are engaged in the fight this very day. Together we can reap the rewards of ambition, divided we are but a weak and unworthy people.