Additional Pages

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

III Congress

Recently proposed was a III Congress, a national organization for the Threeper Community, bringing together all those disparate points of view and ideas in the Liberty/Patriot Community. The crucial concept of this was to bring a number of liberty groups together to establish a national identity with local chapters, or regions that would choose a delegate to send to the congress. There would have been membership to provide for some of the expenses incurred by delegates and to secure and provide rooms and meeting places.

For a moment it looked like something that could have an impact on American politics prior to the collapse, a thing I think most vital to post-collapse revitalization of the Constitution.

To me, it doesn't matter if one survives the collapse, if the powers that rush into the vacuum are Communists. We have seen the effects of totalitarianism already. We know where that train goes.

Prior to that collapse there has to be a functioning organization with strength furthering the rights endowed by our Creator and guaranteed (to whatever degree a document can promise anything without the support of the people and the government to secure it) by the Constitution.

Our Constitution has been violated and discarded by government officials of every stripe, because it limits their totalitarian ambitions. Go try and throw some oil away and discover the power and zeal with which the local landfill employees exert their bureaucratic weight. They tell themselves they are guarding the people's interest, but what they are really doing is practicing small-scale dictatorial power. They have a lust for it.

At every turn the government of the United States has sided with regulation rather than cooperation. I hold that there are millions of ways to achieve all that has been done via regulation through a liberty-grounded alternative. I could give example after example. Instead, first they license, then they censor, then they waiver their political contributors and the people lose.

I am suggesting that this congress go ahead. I had not wanted to do this without the support of Kerodin and CA of WRSA. Negotiations broke down between the three of us. I wanted to ditch it all, but Kerodin suggested that the effort go forward. That is all I will say about the negotiation as it was private. This is not to suggest his support and further details will have to made by him and perhaps he has already done so.

Regardless, I am greatly saddened by the outcome of the negotiations, but feel that there are people out there who see this the way I do, which is too great of an opportunity to secure liberty to the people for me to pack it in. I gave a great deal of thought to simply ending this blog and disappearing into the Ethernet, an action I have often considered. It would actually be a relief if I were to do so.

My support for a Congress remains solid. I am not volunteering to run this thing, or to set up any guidelines that will dictate what it is and what it will accomplish. I am expressing my support for it and would work to help make it a success. If there are others who feel the same as I do, I would be happy to engage in preliminary discussions to see if we find common ground.


  1. Here's the deal Congress is going to do a better job than the various Congresses of the Colonists, and you're not going to come up with anything better than the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

    There are various conclusions that flow from that. If men can accept a bloody war for their freedom, then I don't know why they can't accept a few simple conclusions.

  2. Jim:

    Respectfully, if you are correct, then we are indeed screwed.

    The central-government-restraining/individual-freedom-protecting purpose of the USC/BoR has failed.


    And that fact has been clear since 1861, at least.

    I do not understand why thinking people are so rote-bound to a document that has failed so miserably in its stated purposes for so long.

    Principles, Mr. Klein, principles -- not failed documents.

    You could scratch out 20 off the top of your head and have a better starting point for the post-FUSA survivors than the USC/BoR and its SupCt interpretations since Marbury.

    That is not to say that the USC/BoR should not be used as a jump-off point -- to wit:

    No income tax.

    No "general welfare" clause.

    No "necessary and proper" clause.

    No permissible deviation whatsoever from the 2A's "shall not be infringed".

    No "takings" clause.

    Inviolable terms limits.

    Express prohibition on the abomination of "martial law" under penalty of summary execution for all officials involved in any attempt to implement same.

    Et cetera.

    The intellectual work and historical experience has been obtained.

    All (hah!) that remains is for North Americans to learn from both.

    God help us all.


    1. CA: Every single one of those ideals above you'd like to see in a new document, except for term limits, already exists in the Constitution. Right now. Today.

      General Welfare and Interstate Commerce are perverted today, just as language will be perverted in your new document by Bad People, no matter who writes it or how they write it.

      Any document you write to replace the Constitution, no matter who writes it or how they write it, will not self-enforce. Your new document will not stop Bad People from being born. Your new document will never stop one single politician from pushing the bounds. Your document will never stop the "Government Agency" that is tasked with "Summary Execution" of the malpractors from being capitulated to the politicians control or the people with the most money.

      If most people will not stand up and enforce those ideals today, ideals that exist RIGHT NOW in the Constitution, what makes you think some group of people in the future will find the spine to enforce the very same ideals in your new document?

      Are anti-Constitutionalists really swearing to defend to the death "...shall not be infringed..." and "No income tax" and such - in the future, but not now?

      The people braying for a new document will defend that document with exactly the same vigor as they defend the current document. And your new document will have exactly the same ability to defend itself as does the Constitution today - no matter how many "teeth" you write into it - because the will of "The People" to use the teeth does not exist now, and it will not exist with some new magical document, even in some magical new Georgiastan. Unless you are willing to nuke Atlanta and half the white Georgia population who are also FSA, Georgia faces the same problem as the rest of the republic. A new governing document will not change that reality one single whit.

      Can ANYONE demonstrate a single shred of evidence that ANYONE will defend the ideals embodied in the Constitution just because those same ideals are written in a different color ink?

      The ideals you covet already exist and already have legitimacy. People won't defend them now. They won't defend them when written on a new piece of paper, either.


    2. Masterful K; one of your best ever IMO. ALL true. Here's what I'm saying: keep going.

      "If men can accept a bloody war for their freedom, then I don't know why they can't accept a few simple conclusions."

      Logic NEVER lies; only men can do that.

    3. Sam,

      Way too much logic, perhaps the issue at hand has nothing to do with the existing document. "Rote-bound" indeed. As I stated earlier... the war amongst ourselves will need to take place first.

      Bill Nye

    4. As I read this, I thought that CA had made a very valid point. I also must concede that Sam's counterpoint totally crushed it. Sometimes we have to look at something from a slightly different angle to see things that we already know, and I think Sam's post was masterful for that.

      And absolutely drove the nail in with an air-hammer.

      If Constitutional values sans document aren't supported NOW, they won't be supported in the future no matter how colorfully or masterfully re-written they are.

    5. I dont disagree with Sam or Pete here I think they really are both saying the same thing. I will say this however, just because many will argue over what is and what is not pass interferance does not mean we dont write the rules for football down somewhere. There has to be a starting point. Moses brought down ten simple rules writen in stone and man has been bending those for 5000 years. We are not going to get any better than those and we are not going to stop people from bending them but if we dont write them down they are all the more flexible. Having no set and agreed guidelines means we are all just playing Calvin ball and can make it up as we go along.


    6. "If Constitutional values sans document aren't supported NOW, they won't be supported in the future no matte how colorfully or masterfully re-written they are."

      I think you meant "with document" but that doesn't matter because yours IS the point. Specifically, that it's NOT the document on which ANY of this rests.

      It sounds so trite, but values are a COGNITIVE matter. Everyone always says, "Right; so now let's move along." Uh, no...people have to understand what this MEANS and why it's extremely relevant to this particular issue.

      The assholes who don't abide "Constitutional values" don't, and that's that. No document can EVER change that. And likewise for those of us who do...we don't abide the NAP or freedom of speech and religion or any of that BECAUSE of the document. We do it because we CHOOSE to, and we choose that because we recognize the nature of a human as an individual, free-willed being.

      In the words of the Document, we recognize "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

      That's all. This ain't rocket science. We are as we are, and we are volitional. Nothing can EVER change that, nor can anything EVER change the fact that a person chooses what he chooses. All a document can do is offer guidelines and procedures about what to do in this instance or that.

      But as Sam would be only too quick to point out, that's not really the nature of the problem right now. The problem isn't knowing what ought to be done; the problem is doing it. The principles are age-old already, and we either instantiate them or don't. That's a decision, that's all, and no document can ever make a decision like that, for anyone.

      As we see. Even an oath can't make people abide the thing.

    7. Jim,

      I meant it as I wrote it. Sans of course being 'without'. The way I meant it is that if people don't support the Constitutional VALUES, regardless of what's written, it won't make a bit of difference.

      Whether there was a Constitution or not, most people would still not follow the ideas that it espouses within it's pages. The Constitution wasn't written for US. US being 'modern Americans'. As a whole, we're far too ignorant and lazy en masse. It was written for a much more enlightened, educated, and reverent people than we. Or at the very least, a much LESS brainwashed people.

      People don't follow the Constitution, because they've been indoctrinated to be indifferent to it, and many, even when they do read it, do not understand the plain English in which it is written.

      We are told that we need 'experts' to 'interpret' it, like it is not somehow written in language so simple that a layman should be able to understand it with ease. In fact, that was the intent by the Founders.

      If people followed the values, what was written would be irrelevant. We wouldn't NEED a Constitution. But those values are no longer adhered to and are only given lip service to. Long gone are the days when the public had an understanding of, and and adherence to, Constitutional principles. There were those amongst the Founders that believed that to even write our rights down and enumerate them, was in and of itself, a limiting factor, as they knew that future tyrants would use that list in a Napoleonic Law kind of fashion, where that which is not strictly permitted is forbidden. In other words, that those listed were our ONLY rights, and we didn't have any others, and that we were limited to the Constitution.

      Even amongst many people who's hearts are in the right place, I cringe whenever anyone says 'My Constitutionally 'granted' rights.' Guaranteed folks. Not granted.

      As you noted, an oath does not make them abide by the Constitution. Bust most of this is out of ignorance. They don't really understand that oath. It's not taught or reinforced. If we had a culture that did so, the problem would self-correct on that front.

    8. "The way I meant it is that if people don't support the Constitutional VALUES, regardless of what's written, it won't make a bit of difference."

      Check. So we were saying the exact same thing. This was excellent too...

      "If people followed the values, what was written would be irrelevant. We wouldn't NEED a Constitution."

      Right again. It's the same point, really. The thing is, you appear to be trying to show why we DO need the Constitution, basically because people are choosing not to have those values. That's right, isn't it?

      If that's it, then that's a mistake. Besides the common sense of it, we KNOW that having the Constitution doesn't cause people to have those values. You've pointed it out twice now, in this very comment.

      All I'm saying is that you ought to believe it! Basically, I'm reading your argument as, "Since people choose not to have the values, we need the constitution in order that they will." I know you're not saying exactly that, so maybe you could fill in what's missing, like what about having a constitution will cause people to have those values. Or maybe something else it will cause.

    9. No, you are correct that a Constitution won't magically cause people to have those values.

      However, here needs to be a guide. The Constitution serves that guide. We already have it. It exists and most households already have a copy in some form, whether it's in an encyclopedia or what have you. Many good people already support it. So... why not use what we already have in place? It's easier to restore an old car that just needs a bit of lovin' than it is to build one from the ground up. And I'm all about getting max results from a minimum of resources.

    10. I'm not saying you shouldn't use it. Use whatever you wish, and I'll even agree it's a great thing to use. Maybe not as good as the DofI like CA noted, but great nonetheless.

      I'm saying that in situations like this, there is a VERY strong tendency to confuse the means for the ends. You correctly noted the ends, and I'm not opining about YOUR means.

      Take it wider. Rule of Law is a wonderful notion with respect to what it's intended to accomplish. But somewhere along the way, the means overtook the ends. And so here we are. Get it?

  3. I forgot to thank you for your blog, ca, and you too TL, so thanks to you both. You third, Sam, if you're reading this. Who would guess that a few blogs might move the world? Besides me, I mean.

    Anyway, we're already screwed so there's not much to do but move forward and unscrew ourselves. It can be done, cuz in the human realm, anything can be done.

    I'm not in the habit of recommending outside sources, not at all. But considering the nature of the problem and especially considering the possible nature of the solution--or at least the one we're all worried about--I think Buppert's your man.

  4. It is inherently important that gifted minds of sane reason continue what you are called to do. The people have no teeth because they for so long had no leader to at least give them aspiration of hope. Waving the banner of liberty in the midst of tyranny as TL so eloquently wrote is fearful of Red Coat evil. The totalitarians slowly removing our rights has neutered the emotion as well.

    The colonists would be proud today to see disagreement. Out of their misunderstandings and anger came 200 years of less than perfect freedom, but it was the best the world has ever witnessed.

    Continue my brothers your endeavor to re-Constitute what has been so willfully refused. May God continue to inspire your words.

  5. Sam:

    The deletion of the "general welfare" and "necessary/proper" clauses makes it a different document than the one that exists, as would the addition of absolute term limits and the prohibition on martial law. Ditto for all of the other changes that would need to be made to reflect the hard-won experience of the past 221 years.

    That is simply a fact.

    I applaud your passion, your commitment, and the progress you and the Citadel team have made on your project. May God bless and keep you all.

    I despair at your "my way or the highway" vehemence as counterproductive, however.

    I remain ready, willing, and able to help anyone of good will to restore individual freedom and limited government to North America.

    But, just as the Federalists and anti-Federalists of 1787-1791 had to do, there is, from a practical standpoint, that little problem of military victory that needs to be achieved as a condition precedent.

    And a subsequent internecine struggle to be prevented, as well.

    The true "anti-Constitutionalists" are not the readers of Spooner.

    They are the tyrants and their minions who stand astride the continent today.

    The former Republic was founded by the Declaration.

    Its principles are universal.

    The USC/BoR is a compromise document drafted for an entirely different populace than America circa 2012, and as such, can still be harvested for its contents that remain worth saving. Where it is broken or where it has failed in its purposes, those defects should be acknowledged and remedied.

    After victory.

    Where we are today, people need to know for what they are being asked to fight. Trying to get sane, intelligent people to wager all on the restoration of a nationwide governance plan that has failed again and again and again to restrain the central governmental Leviathan is very much less than persuasive, IMHO.

    For the life of me, I cannot see why a principles-based reiteration of the Declaration's premises cannot form the basis for a restoration of those values somewhere in North America.

    I wish you and your project all the best.


  6. Unless I misunderstood TL, He supports the III Congress. Not for Patriots to get together and come up with some masterful new document that will enforce itself, BUT to have the men (delegates) in place who support the constitution. So when the inevitable collapse happens we have the infastructure to try to restore constitutional liberty against what the Marxist, communist, liberals and FSA want.

    I cannot read TL's mind, but by following his blog over the years one can tell he supports the constitution. And he is looking for ways and men to help stop the long train of abuses against this republic. While men in the Patriot community may have lots in common with one another, you always have those who seem to fight tooth and nail to prevent our side from ever taking the field and performing any type of action to stop, slow, or restore liberty. Listing all sorts of reasons why it will not work. Do us all a favor if you find yourself to be one of these men, STFU and let those willing to do work do so without misdirecting the conversations and turning it into another debate on why you are right and they are wrong. Check your EGO's at the door gentlemen.

    Count me in, I will help in any way I can. You Know how to reach me.
    Mike M.

    1. "So when the inevitable collapse happens we have the infastructure to try to restore constitutional liberty against what the Marxist, communist, liberals and FSA want."

      Just so you know, Mike, I'm not a Constitutionalist nor an anti-Constitutionalist; I'm just me. Further, I'm not anti-anyone except those who seek to rule over others.

      So lemme ask you a question, since it goes precisely to the current topic of this thread. What happens--for you, I mean--if you repeat the exact same sentence but remove the word "constitutional" from it?

      "So when the inevitable collapse happens we have the infastructure to try to restore liberty against what the Marxist, communist, liberals and FSA want."

      Do you now disagree with it, or is it still your belief?

  7. Anti-Constitutionalists tend to blame the document as a failed and perverse document. If the document had only been written better, Liberty would cover the Earth.

    By that logic, the bible is a failed and perverted document, and peace would prevail across the world if only the right men would sit down and re-write it.

    I can only imagine how life would be improved if you, AP, Baugh and others who share your disdain for failed documents were to re-write the Constitution and bible for us all. We'd be saved.


    1. "Anti-Constitutionalists tend to blame the document as a failed and perverse document. If the document had only been written better, Liberty would cover the Earth."

      Just as a point of fact, that's a gross misrepresentation. No "anti-constitutionalist" blames the document itself. Those that offer any sort of "blame" are referencing the men and ideas that snookered it in following the AofC, purely as an historical note. Like it or not, their point is accurate.

      And I've never heard anyone, let alone any American, call it a "perverse" document. Those that point to any "perversion" at all, point to the above historical fact and to the point that it has engendered exactly what we have now. This too is perfectly accurate, and why the famous Spooner quote will inevitably be entered for support.

      You make it sound like those anti-Constitutionalists are against the very principles you're trying to support. As I say, that's a gross misrepresentation and implicitly amounts to an ad hominem, and a false one at that---"Those guys don't believe in the freedoms the Constitution was designed to protect, so obviously they're assholes and what they say must be wrong."

      Besides being a fallacious approach, it's also just downright false. Anti-constitutionalists are seeking the same freedoms you are, arguably a fair amount more. Considering the recent focus on "unification," it might serve well to remember that virtually every decent, honest, hard-working person on Earth, seeks the very same freedoms.

    2. No Jim, it isn't a gross misrepresentation when applied to this conversation or to recent conversations I have had with Baugh, AP and CA both publicly and privately.


    3. I can't speak to your private conversations, but where in this conversation was it even remotely implied that the Constitution is a "perverse" document?

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Also posted at K's place.

      Let me put it as simply as possible.
      Anarchy is for Mogadishu and hippy communes.

      EVERY SINGLE patriot that I trust with the well being of my family, and my life have taken that Oath.

      I have ZERO use for people who don't know the difference between CONSENSUAL cooperative Leadership and Dictatorial Coercive Collectivism.

      Sadly, I think they will go to their mass graves spouting..."But I am an INDIVIDUAL, I have rights!"


  9. There is no utility in alienating friends and allies who share values and principles with you, especially when the numbers are so small.

    I've taken the oath.

    I've not renounced the oath.

    I just won't pretend that something is something that it is not.

    The USC/BoR have utterly failed to confine government and to protect individual freedoms.

    People fight for good reasons.

    The ideals behind the USC/BoR are worth fighting for.

    The document itself?


    Good luck to all.


  10. Here is the fundamental difference Pete,

    "The USC/BoR have utterly failed to confine government and to protect individual freedoms".

    NO, WE have failed, OUR FATHERS failed, our GRANDFATHERS failed.
    WE OWN IT, we sat, drunk on our TV, steak dinners, easy credit, and slutty lifestyles and watched it get pissed on.

    Maybe thru ignorance, or apathy, or just plain stupidity,
    but BY GOD, WE OWN IT.

    good luck to you and yours too.

    1. As Sandman has said. We and the two prior generations have dropped the ball. Time to un-drop the ball. No more passing the buck to the next generation. The document worked as a fantastic outline as long as the people held it in their hearts as something worth adhering to.

      Let's not split hairs here. The greater goal can be achieved without getting bogged down in the endless mire of pseudo-intellectual minutiae. We're all smarter than a box of rocks here gents. We either agree to work together on this, or we don't. If we do, great. If not, that's fine too, and we'll not think less of any of ye. Just chalk it up to 'irreconcilable differences', and consider it a civilized divorce. I'm taking the coffee table and the cat though. ;)

      As I said a few days back, Did our ancestors care about 'Rightful Liberty'?

      In short summary:

      "Because if WE don't, it means OUR children and grandchildren and great-grandchild will live in tyranny and Rightful Liberty will disappear from the world forever.

      I'm not willing to let that happen. I'm not willing to continue the three generation of duty shirking that MY ancestors participated in that helped lead us to this point that we are at today which requires us to have to do this in the first place.

      Had they gotten their house in order, we'd be living in Rightful Liberty RIGHT NOW, instead of having to do something like the III Citadel in order to give ourselves and our posterity a chance for something better."

      Sandman pegged it.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.