Lies of Omission

Lies of Omission
An Amazing Documentary

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Anti-Christian is Anti-Feminism

I am working on a project that illustrates the issues surrounding the Liberty/Patriot community. So, I have been a bit distracted, but when I see the total oppression of Christians, it bothers me. Nowhere is this oppression more documented than in China. If you think this is just happening in China, you are misinformed. Despite the fact that our Commander In Chief believes that he is a Christian, no one has done more to promote Islam, than Barack Obama.


There comes a time, and I certainly have no idea when that time arrives based on conversations with other Christians, that the faith needs to defend itself, but I don't think I would be out of line to suggest that it happens now. The nation is being infiltrated by Muslims for a specific reason: to displace the voting habits of Christians. One must not think of Christian vs Muslim, when considering the idea of who to vote for, as there are no Christian candidates. The understanding must be that pro-Muslim candidates are necessarily anti-Christian, anti-republic and anti-Constitution, because whenever a large Muslim community exists, it invariably trends toward concepts of Shari law vs Constitutional law and that is a large societal chasm.


Those who have spoken of Women's rights, who now speak in favor of Sharia Law, or Muslim self-determination, (which is how it is always promoted) is ridiculous, it is contrary. A nation ruled by Sharia Law is anti-feminist. It is more than the equivalent of setting the Feminist agenda back a thousand years.


So, when I see Christianity being oppressed, I see the values of women being suppressed. How any of these so-called feminists can turn a blind eye to the oppression of Christians and believe that it is a good thing, is beyond rational conclusion. The opposite is true. How is it possible that in order to conform to a Democrat agenda, these so-called feminists can support the importation of Muslims, understanding the detrimental impact the Muslim society would have on feminism, is mind-boggling.


I have always known that in the last instance, liberalism would be at war with liberalism. To the extent that this has not happened is a manipulation of one sector or another, but it cannot last. Sooner, or later it comes down to "nut-cuttin'" time and agendas have to be squared. But, that will be the war that happens after they have done away with the Constitutionalists, the Survivalists, the Patriots.

Sunday, December 6, 2015

That Is Not Who We Are

Blaming guns for the murderous impulses of terrorists is not who we are. We are Americans and we believe in self-defense. Lying prone on the ground hoping people will not murder us is not who we are. The sudden eruption of gun purchases, or at least the background requests in order to do so, was as American as it gets. That is who we are, we are not dependent on the government to protect ourselves or our families, we'll handle that.
When Americans recognize that the enemy is within the gates, they prepare to defend themselves, especially when it has become openly apparent that the government is complicit in holding the gates open for the enemy to pass through. The government is not on the side of the American citizen. It has been a long time since the government felt a duty to protect and defend the citizens of the nation. We are basically ATM's for their political supporters. If this were ever disputed it was made clear with the passage of the Stimulus Act, which did nothing else, but fund political supporters. Without our consent, they bailed out the banks, bought up toxic assets, purchased shares of bankrupt  auto companies. All they had to do was go to the citizen ATM and put us further in debt. That might be how Chicago politicians do business, but that is not who we are.
Now, they have dropped the pretense of caring and simply tell us to shut up and go away, but not before we pay our taxes. This is what happened during Obama's interruption of the Sunday football games and don't think that was on accident, either. The biggest ratings in television are the weekly football games. Where else would Obama get an audience? It was a capitulation that it was orchestrated between the end of the afternoon games and before the Sunday night game. Pathetic, but I don't think he really wanted to trot out his gun-grabbing agenda in front of the football audience. That was a miscalculation, in my opinion. Commandeering an audience might be the only way Obama can speak to more than a few hundred people, but it is not who we are.
The fact that his suggestion that anyone on the No-Fly list should be made to surrender their weapons was as unconstitutional as it gets. Of course, that has never been a deterrent to Barack Obama. His absolute disregard for the Constitution is so widely documented it barely justifies recognition. But, just as an exercise, I would like to point out that the deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law is patently unconstitutional, and that is not who we are.
We are a nation of laws, respecting individual life, liberty and property. We are a nation of citizens who understand that they have certain inalienable rights that no government can violate without the resentment of the people rising up against it. That is who we are.
We are not the type of people who watch the government invite terrorists among us, with no serious will or ability to properly vet them prior to entry and then sit back and wait to be massacred. That is not who we are. We know who is abetting the enemy, who is trying to use charges of racism to allow a further infiltration into our society of terrorists and we will arm ourselves against the threats the government has encouraged among us. That is who we are.
I am sorry we have elected a president who does not know who we are as a people and sends his minions out to publicize that we are something we are not, or are not something we are, but I hope I cleared it up.
Of course, I am not talking about Muslims in general, I am speaking of those radicalized Jihadists who are infiltrating our nation with fake passports from Greece. Fake passports our government agencies seem incapable of identifying as such.


P.S. I will turn comments on again once the robot stops spamming this site.

Friday, December 4, 2015

Racism Cannot Stop Racism

When U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch spoke to attendees of Muslim Advocate's 10th Anniversary dinner she pledged to vigorously prosecute speech that "edges toward violence." Meaning, of course, when other than Muslims use speech that "edges toward violence," because "death to America" and "death to infidels" seems to pretty much cover speech that does much more than "edge toward violence;" it advocates for it.


All evidence suggests that Muslim speech has led directly to violence, but there seems to be no interest in prosecuting these violations of her policy. But, this is just another example of the Obama Administration's predictable and determined efforts to divide America; to set up different rules for Muslims and blacks from those that exist for all other races and religions in this diverse nation of ours. Defending and protecting terrorists and criminals is the priority as they are able, with a compliant and blind-folded press, to couch their divisive policies in the struggle against racism. Any real, objective reporting would reveal the openly racist stance the Obama Administration has always preferred.


I abhor racism. The very idea of hating someone based on their lineage is ignorant. There are horrible people of every race and religion. There are wonderful people of every race and religion. Written into the Constitution is a prohibition against corruption of blood. In other words, the sins of the fathers cannot be visited upon their progeny. The Obama Administration disagrees with this and, as far as I can tell, every aspect of the Constitution.


Loretta Lynch was just verbalizing the open policy of the Obama Administration that white people and Christians do not deserve equal protection under the law, because some of our forefathers owned slaves and have been responsible for the oppression of the black community over the past decades. I will not attempt to deny that these things have taken place, they have. But, turning the tables and therefore visiting oppression and degradation against whites and Christians does not end racism, it validates it, encourages it and institutionalizes it.


The question they really should be asking themselves as they go about their brand of racism that seems so normal and justified, is how will their rhetoric be viewed by Americans a couple of centuries hence, when whites and Christians are the minority and have been persecuted and brutalized over a century or two? I know it doesn't matter to them, as long as they get what they want, but to pretend that we are required to ignore their obvious racism is too much to ask.    

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

This Business Will Get Out Of Control

In just an unbelievable series of spectacularly foolish comments made by either Barack Obama or members of his administration, Ash Carter, U.S. Secretary of Defense, in response to the concerns of Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) stated that: "“We have a different view, a very different view from Russia about what would be constructive for them to do in Syria,” he said. “That’s not the same as the United States and Russia clashing.”


Gabbard's concerns were that with Russian anti-aircraft missiles being placed in the combat zone, with so many different aircraft and conflicting missions taking place, there could be a launch, even mistakenly, of a missile that would shoot down a NATO aircraft.


Typically, the Obama Administration belittled this woman with a sort of "never mind little lady, the boys will take care of the details" sort of response when Gabbard raised the very real and even likely possibility of just such a thing happening. But then, this is the Obama Administration that could not remember that just a few days ago Paris had endured a tremendous, coordinated terrorist attack that killed 130 people when Obama suggested that the murder of three people in the United States was a unique sort of murder that didn't happen in other countries. Ash Carter, Secretary of Defense, must have forgotten that only a week ago Turkey shot down a Russian jet over a misunderstanding of whether the jet was in Turkish airspace, or Syrian airspace.


Carter suggested that the very different and conflicting views of the US and Russia concerning Russia's role in the Syrian conflict could not possibly lead to an outright confrontation when he said: "That's not the same as the United States and Russia clashing."


While that may be a true statement, it is false in all rational logic. No, the idea that Russia is supporting its ally, Syria, and is attacking ground troops trained by the United States and occasionally ISIS, whenever the US is not bombing either supporters of Syria and occasionally ISIS does not mean that they are clashing. It does mean, however, that since one of the major military powers is supporting one side of the struggle and another major military power is supporting the other side of the struggle and occasionally shoot the same people and at other times shoot different people, somewhere along the line one major military power will shoot down or bomb the planes or soldiers of the other major military power. And that, Mr. Carter would be a clash.


As the late Fred Thompson famously said in the film Hunt for Red October: "This business will get out of control, it will get out of control and we will be lucky to live through it."


Really, does it seem to anyone else that Barack Obama is trying to push every tender spot in every conflict the world over just trying to get some horrendous conflagration started? Or, is it just ME?

Barack Obama the Ugly American

Every once in a while someone says something so outlandish and ridiculous that while I know everyone else will make similar comments to mine, I can not stop myself.


Today, Barack Obama, in Paris, France, stated that shootings like the one in Colorado Springs just doesn't happen in other countries. No, Barack, in other countries they shoot 130 people, like recent events some place far, far away like Paris, France. You might have heard of it. That is the sort of thing that happens in other countries and why we do not want people who might do that to us to come here.


But, let's take a look at what happens in "other countries."


In Mexico, if one runs afoul of the Narco-statists, they get their hands and heads chopped off and left in the dirt. They get kidnapped and ransomed back to their families for as much as they can get, so they can buy some of those weapons that the Obama Administration so infamously funneled to the Narco-statists.


In Syria and other Muslim nations daughters are stoned to death for flirting with a boy, but those deaths are not totaled up, because they are accepted and even expected of the father to do so.


In Syria and other Muslim nations suicide bombers walk into mosques of their hated rivals Shia/Sunni and detonate their belts.


In China Christians (and I know you don't consider Christians even quite human) are slaughtered for no other reason than they are Christians. Their churches are burned and the congregations disbanded or killed.


In most Muslim nations speaking openly about one's Christian beliefs to others is to invite the charge of promoting a religion other than Islam and the price for that is one's head.


I understand that Barack Obama considers the United States the most base and horrible place one could have the misfortune of living. I understand that Barack Obama has been busy fomenting a race war in every way he can, just to "stick it to the man" which, by the way, is technically him. I understand that (though to this day he claims to be a Christian) he does not consider Christians worthy of support in nations all over the world where they are being persecuted. I understand that though he claims to be a Christian, he does not allow them into the nation as refugees, even when they are from Syria or Iraq, preferring only Muslims. I understand that though he claims to be a Christian he is all too willing to send Christians, who have escaped Iraq and sought asylum in the United States, back from whence they came.


What I don't understand is what difference it could possibly make if he were a Christian. Though I have no evidence that Barack Obama is a Muslim, when I look at his actions both in favor of Muslims and against Christians it is really difficult to see what technically being a Christian would matter. It is not the fact that he is a Christian that is valuable, it is whether or not he, as a Christian, would protect Christians across the globe from the sort of persecution they currently suffer.


While Barack Obama considers living in the United States, even as the president, the worst fate that could befall a human being and that there are things that happen in the United States that do not happen anywhere else in the world, it is actually a point of fact that things that happen in the rest of the world do not yet happen here.
We do not have "honor" killings. Lutherans do not enter Catholic churches and blow up themselves and as many of the congregations as they can. We do not kidnap tourists and ransom them back to their families for fun and profit. But, these are all things that come from those "other countries" of which Barack Obama is so enamored. But, give him another year and he might yet accomplish it a similar society.


I really do wonder how the families of those so horrendously slain in Paris think of his clever stab at his political opponents. I wonder how they see him, now that he has made his point. I find that he has done nothing other than confirm every European stereotype of the "ugly American" when he can so glibly belittle the lives of so many French citizens to make a specious political point.


And, what was the point he was making, exactly? That Planned Parenthood should be able to continue their yard sale on baby parts? That anyone who finds that despicable and horrifying is a backward rube? And no, I do not support the actions of the individual, but maybe, when the government funds this abomination and stands behind it they are perhaps more at fault for the unfortunate carnage than the perpetrator himself. 

Sunday, November 29, 2015

Seeds of Hatred

It boggles the rational mind that so many could be so dedicated to nothing other than the preservation of the nation, of the rights of individuals and the respect for human life and be denigrated so thoroughly by those who call themselves humanitarians.


This is the trouble I have with liberals. There is no substance behind their professions of compassion. And it doesn't take much of a peek behind the curtain to see their true ambitions. They openly celebrate and even honor despicable people such as Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, an obvious and emphatic racist. They continue to give the Margaret Sanger Award to their most productive child destructionist and parts salesperson of the year with no shame.


They have injected into the American mindset the concepts of communism so thoroughly, some of it sounds American, because it incorporates Christian values of charity. The weakness in America is largely due to its Christian ethos, where all baser instincts towards dealing with the dismantling of a once great culture are smothered by decency. So, we stand by, watching the life-blood of our nation spill out over the continent, while we comport to the values of the Bible.


Even when our Christian faith is assaulted, our belief belittled by the masters of the media and our own government, we stand by. Now, as the Muslim faith is brought among us, built up in specific areas where Sharia Law is given precedent over our laws and our Constitution, there is only the whimper of Christian prayers.


Here again the liberals define themselves with irrational contradiction. As liberal politicians and citizens alike cry for the free importation of Syrian refugees and the voting block grows increasingly Muslim, all advocacy for women's rights seem like so much of liberal activism, which is only intended to tear down the Christian culture, but has no intention of replacing it with something valuable. Sharia Law and feminism are contradictions, they are diametrically opposed. The liberal intent appears to be to use feminism to destroy the Christian value of a generally paternal society and replace it with a Muslim value of paternal absolutism. If one has not spent time in a Muslim nation (as I have) they might not understand the degree of female subjugation that "paternal absolutism" suggests.


The only rational outcome of their support is the eradication of feminism and this support is led by avowed feminists. And, were this the only example of aims opposed to goals, it might be dismissed as an aberration, but it is infused in everything a liberal does. They use Global Warming as a club against coal companies that produce electricity and at the same time encourage the increased use of electric cars, further taxing an electric grid that teeters on collapse. On and on it goes, on every issue.


Their blind devotion to their masters lead them to defend the indefensible as a means of countering public opinion. Their leaders understand that public demonstrations, cheered on by a compromised press corps, can lead to the alteration of the American culture, a bending toward the Marxist model. They don't ask if the world being constructed around them is better than the old, or even to their benefit, only that it is asked of them and they comply. Because of this they have been largely successful in the destruction of the American culture. The majority have not yet thought rationally about what will replace it. They are fed promises of equality and harmony while they sow seeds of hatred and destruction, perhaps even genocide. Their masters know well what they are building and have not the humility or compassion to care.


That is not what is asked of those in this community of liberty, it goes against all that we believe. We take strength in our ability to confront lies and deception; to think for ourselves and arrive at the truth. When the smoke clears from the devastation, these are the strengths we will need to do what we must to restore the values that made this nation great with moral clarity.

Friday, November 27, 2015

A Patriot Needs Your Help

I don't pretend to know the specifics, but I know Wirecutter and if he has been hit with a specious lawsuit and/or complaints, I will support him. I would suggest visiting his site and this one to help out, if you have the funds.


No, I am not interested in the circular firing squad of this Patriot/Liberty/III community. The biggest disappointment I have experienced has been with these internecine squabbles, but when lawsuits are filed and legal representation is required, I believe in helping out.


I will tell you all that Wirecutter is a good man and I don't believe he is guilty of anything.


But, this goes much deeper than just that. This is indicative of this community. There are those who will not help others, because they disagree with them. There are those who hold grudges to the detriment of the whole community. There are those whose hatred debilitates the efforts of everyone else. It angers me, because we neuter ourselves with these petty, egotistical tantrums.


Mostly, I hate it because it demonstrates to our enemies that we are weak and immature as an organization and that sets us back a decade.

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

The Survivors Must Decide

For conversation and thought. I have long been concerned about the direction, purpose and outcome of the liberty/patriot movement. We prep, we put up stores, we purchase guns and ammo, we, theoretically, walk our AOs and locate assets, people and articles that might be of use when local, state and federal government agencies inevitably fail, or are unprepared for the next crisis, or are likely complicit in that crisis.


We are still people with lives and families and investments to protect. Here is where I ask the reader to take a step back, to realize that the initial frontiersmen, those who came to America in wooden boats, to people who crossed through the Cumberland Gap, to people who settled out West knew the price of survival . There were no government services for a good period of time, no police, no fire department, no water works, no sewer. They had nothing, but what they brought with them or built on site. And, when these services fail, for whatever reason, it will be up to the true "adults" in this nation to provide for ourselves and yes, for others. It is the Christian thing to do.


So, these will be America's "dark ages," the days of chaos. This is what we all work to survive, this is why we build tribes and make cooperative defense agreements. To survive it, to make it through the difficult times when all sorts of realities long understood and embraced by our forbears become the new normal for us.


It is easy to be kind when kindness is not met with a brutal and inhumane response. Yes, help those in need, sick, injured or destitute, but within reason, without jeopardizing your security. Beware of those who are complicit in your situation as well as theirs. Be sure to help, where that help is appreciated and hopefully returned, but not where it is coerced, or demanded. These are tough decisions and tough actions, but those capable of them will be the survivors.


Face it, there will be those families, hungry, thirsty and in need of shelter who have not prepared when they had a chance; who were led by a man convinced that the largess would never end; who believed in the myth of benevolent government. They have not prepped, but they know well that you did and they want what you have.


If you are savvy and you made it through those dark times, when you have had to say no and back up the statement with force of arms, who now stand in a nation thrown into chaos and hear that they are working on another Constitution in the capitol, you have to ask yourself "who is working on it?" Is it you? Probably not, because while you were defending yourself, protecting yours and aiding those who have aided you over the past several months or years the others have been scheming to take advantage of the chaos to pursue their long-held goals of total control.


Those busily scheming were the ones who lived off of other people's efforts while they eliminated competing viewpoints until they were confident that they might develop their new Constitution with the assurance that there will be no dissent. Do you then let this process take place? And if not, what would you present as your demands and what would you be willing to do to ensure that those demands were met?


As important as survival is, it must have a purpose. To survive only to awaken to horrors greater than those that created the chaos in the first place is unacceptable. There will be that struggle as well, the struggle for who we are as we go forward. On what precepts will we build the new society? Because a new society will be built upon the ashes of the old, one way or the other.


If this loose community will mean anything, in the end, it will be how well we represent ourselves when they try to build something totally abhorrent to Western culture on the ashes of the fire ignited by collectivists. America, for all of its failures and excesses, once understood that a free people will naturally build, improve and innovate. Those efforts, whether intentional or not, inevitably produce
an advanced, educated and productive society.


When the rulers recognized themselves as "rulers" they tried to make that dynamic engine of commerce subservient to the Socialist model, to coerce industry to divided goals, to establish themselves as the gatekeepers to wealth, we, as a people, as a society, began to devolve. We went backward, poverty soared, debt multiplied and all to achieve what had already been achieved.


Now, as it is, everything society needs cannot be met because the gatekeepers choose who is aided and who is debilitated. Our advancements are not forthcoming. We cannot build the refineries we desperately need, we cannot build commonsense power plants, but instead waste funds on inefficient and largely useless power generation sources the gatekeepers have selected, that do nothing other than perpetuate the myth of "social consciousness." For some, this is a legitimate concern, for far more it is a pathway to that "gatekeeper" status that cements all power in their hands and they are dedicated to it.


They are saboteurs and we cannot allow them to win. The only way to prevent them from achieving their goal of absolute power over this great nation and its people, is to have a plan, a strategy to emerge from the chaos with demands for the rights that allow for that freedom to create and innovate. Anything less is a loss, not just to you and yours, but to the world. Without the shining light of liberty the world is a dark and miserable place.


Be the adult, be the light, be the voice. This is a multi-level battlefield and everything is on the line. The survivors must decide who we will be.

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Shine A Light On The Federal Roaches

In a recent communication sent to many of the supporters of the Bundy family there is news of the Hammond Family and their struggles against an abusive and dangerous government. The Hammond story is not unique. Many ranchers with lands near a National Park, a Wildlife Refuge or any federal government land, such as the Bundy Ranch, have experienced brutal treatment at the hands of the federal government.


This is how the agents, supported by tax dollars, treat citizens in the way of their ever-expanding land grab. It happened in the 1970's with regularity and it is a favorite tool of federal bureaucrats today, who are not subject to elections and who are insulated from prosecution, because who would arrest them? A federal agent of another bureaucracy?


I first wrote an article about just this sort of thing in the 1990's and submitted it for publication to National Review, who accepted the article, but by then the National Park Service had settled with the subject of the article and I killed it before it was published.


But, the only way to deal with federal cockroaches is to shine a light on them. Their actions are so abhorrent to the average citizen and their excesses so brutal that they cannot stand the light of day. I do not personally know either the Bundy family or the Hammonds, but this is so commonplace out here in the West that none of their tactics are even surprising. It is the way they get what they want, but it illustrates one thing very clearly: they are a gang and willingly use gangland tactics to get what they want.


Watch any good movie like "Goodfellas" or "Hoffa" to see how it is done, that's where they learned it. It is a protection racket and when the poor shopkeeper (rancher) does not pay protection, they burn the place down or in this case make it uninhabitable for some other reason.


By the way, the Sheriff responsible for keeping these citizens safe from the gang that is threatening these good people can be contacted here:


David M. Ward, Sheriff
485 N Court Avenue #6
Burns, Oregon 97720-1524
Phone: 541-573-6156
FAX: 541-573-8383

 

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Obama Reveals Contempt For Women

It is not often that a leftist liberal reveals their true feelings, which are typically held in check by the cocoon of deception they are most comfortable with, so it was startling to hear Barack Obama denigrate women with such openness. In a response to a question concerning the debate as to whether the United States should allow Syrian refugees into the country, Barack Obama mocked Republicans by stating that they were afraid of widows and orphans. He said: "Apparently they are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America..."


Of course, it is Barack Obama's deceptive nature to portray the Syrian refugees as widows and orphans, though 76 percent of the refugees are young, military-age single men, or about 97 percent of all jihadists across the globe. But, in his effort to portray Republicans as scared little children themselves, he unwittingly admitted that he did not consider women capable of the sort of organization and dedication it would take to pull off an organized attack.


To Barack Obama, women are meek, incompetent rubes. They are defenseless and incapable of providing for their own, but are in need of government coddling, assistance and direction. While he considers men a concern in the battle for Islamic supremacy, he sees no threat from women at all.


This is one reason not to trust Barack Obama with the security of the nation. He is incapable, or worse, complicit in the dangers presented by the vast majority of male, military-aged Syrian refugees, but is likewise incapable of seeing women as a threat. This is particularly startling since the second wave of terrorist activity in France was thwarted by a tip to local authorities where they encountered a female suicide bomber, who detonated her bomb during the raid.


This woman, who would not have been considered even a slight threat due to her gender by Barack Obama, detonated a bomb while being investigated. In Barack Obama's America, she never would have been tracked, never would have been questioned, never would have been suspected and had she been suspected, those insinuations would have been disregarded because she is a useless, weak, ineffective and incompetent woman.


Thank you, Barack, for some honesty, for once.  

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Importing Hatred and Force

The Obama Administration tells us that they have a "robust" vetting system for Syrian refugees. The problem with that is that the Obama Administration said that the average person would save $2,500 by the implementation of Obamacare; it said that the Stimulus program would restart the economy; it said that ISIS was a Junior Varsity (JV) type terrorist organization; it said that ISIS was "contained." So, excuse me if I am wary of its statements on a "robust" vetting system. But, if so, why not tell us what that is? Run it down for us and please be specific.


The real question I have is why the Obama Administration seems intent on bringing Syrian refugees, many of whom are jihadists, into the United States while at the same time is deporting Christian refugees from Iraq and the clutches of ISIS? Are these not the same refugees fleeing the same dangers, the difference being only whether they are Christians or Muslims? And, if he is a Christian, as he claims, why does he always defer to Muslims in any instance of choice?


I am not going to pretend to know anything about Barack Obama. I have not researched his lineage, or his religion, or his childhood. It has long been moot. I recognized that we wanted a black president for all sorts of reasons. Obviously the black population wanted someone like them in office. Okay, I want someone like me in office, too, only I don't consider just being white as being like me. There are lots of white people and black people I don't want in the office of the President of the United States and there are very few who I do want in that office.


The main criteria for any president should be a love of country and through that love an undying determination to protect it and the citizens of it. Objectively, does that sound like a description of Barack Obama? Barack Obama is, and by his own proud admission, not that sort of president. I think he would gladly point out America's flaws as he sees them and as proudly point out his efforts to "correct" those flaws.


The first flaw that Obama recognizes is that this is a predominately white nation. He would like to correct that, first with opening the southern borders while at the same time enforcing the northern border. What is the difference? It is the difference between Christian refugees from ISIS and Syrian refugees from ISIS. The Syrian refugees are even better than Hispanic border jumpers, because they are both non-white and Islamic. That they are infused with Jihadists just makes his vision better as they would naturally attack whites or Christians in their terrorist attacks. Even better, he could stand on his podium and condemn the acts of violence while he has done everything he could, as president, to make them possible. We have already seen examples of this where illegal immigrants have committed horrendous crimes against the citizens of America with the encouragement of silence from the president and the continuation of the policies that have enabled them.


This is the administration we are expected to believe has a "robust" vetting system for Syrian refugees.


Knowing that I will be accused of hating Barack Obama and that is the source of my criticism, I will just say that I don't hate Barack Obama. To hate Barack Obama is to hate those who put him in office, which is a very good portion of the citizens of my nation. It is not his fault that the electorate put him in office twice. It is not his fault that he "fundamentally transformed America" as he promised to do. It is not his fault that the citizens of the United States elected a man who clearly had a past they all knew about, who had beliefs they all shared. How can I hate a man for being who he is and that the electorate of the United States elected twice? What would be the point of that hatred?


I don't even hate those who put Barack Obama in office. It was their support, or guilt, or "feelings" or hopes that made them vote the way they did. That I whole-heartedly disagree with them and their purposes does not make me hate them. It is a struggle, this idea of liberty and self-governance, that cannot be won by hatred and force. Unlike the leftists that have given up on the idea of liberty and self-governance and have resorted to hatred and force to accomplish their goals, I continue to hold onto the idea of making convincing arguments that avoid the confrontation.


Having been given their choice of presidents, Barack Obama, and the cooperation of the House and Senate for a time, we now have the America they wanted. Even with Republican control of the House and Senate, Barack Obama has been supported and enabled so nothing much has changed with that realignment.


So, this is it, this is "their" America. It is much more racially divided; it is much more dangerous; it is much more bankrupt; it is weaker internationally, both militarily and economically; it is much poorer on an individual basis; it is much less "free" with the NSA recording phone calls and reading emails. But, they will never recognize any of it, because they are not rational, these leftist supporters of Barack Obama. Their hatred for what America was overwhelms their ability to see the truth.


Okay, I understand that as well. There are political delusions on all sides, including mine. Even when this nation is thrown into chaos as a direct result of the economic and political policies of Barack Obama and those who support him, they will not see it. They will find it is all the fault of people like me, who lust for liberty and a sense of legal restraint of the government.


The question is what will they do about it? My guess is they will resort to hatred and force as they have so far and that will put me in the place of having to engage their hatred and force with hatred and force. I would much rather simply be left alone to live my life, but if it is their intent to import hatred and force into my neighborhood, that pretty much writes the script for the rest of my life, doesn't it? 

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Building the Next Nazi State

So, what would it take to build a Nazi-style society?


First, a sense that one race is responsible for all of society's ills and deserve whatever punishment is meted out by government forces. Second, a serious propaganda effort especially a sycophantic press that encourages the violation of individual rights. Third, a corruption of "science" that enables government officials to make outlandish claims requiring government action. Fourth, a means of confiscating property through seemingly legitimate means. Fifth, police agencies divorced from the concept of public service and infused with a "superior force" mentality. Sixth, the subjugation of religion. Seventh, the de-legitimization of traditional political roles and limitations.
There is no question that each and every one of these requirements have taken place in the United States over the past several decades and that the implementation of them have accelerated in the past few years.


The image of society in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union included the sense of being watched at all times; of being careful what one said in public for fear of being punished; of being harassed by police and questioned for political opinions; of being attacked in the night by security forces.


How, exactly is the feeling any different in the United States in the past few years? Maybe the East German Stasi is not the inquisitor, but the IRS has made a suitable substitution.
So, what were all of those wars for? What have our fighting men given their lives to secure? Are they not, at this point, all in vain? We celebrate our veterans on Veteran's Day as if we appreciate their sacrifice, but go to work the next day implementing everything they fought to prevent. We endure exactly the society they pledged to defeat.


Tyranny is a vague and outdated term. It has lost its definition, because though it presents itself in the U.S. every day and with more vigor than the day before, it is not recognized as such. Because tyranny is something only other people endure. But, the point is, we have become the "other people" because we have accepted the actions of the government that have allowed constant spying on the people, sorting through their e-mails and phone calls for fear of what? For fear that some enemy will take our freedom?


All efforts to point out the dangers of a government given free access to all private communication, all private thoughts and private funds have been met with great resistance from a media openly hostile to that message. The whistleblowers have been labeled dangerous nuts. They have been vilified as racists and backward religionists. At the same time the media expounds the virtue of diversity, they rule out hearing messages that are different from theirs, or as one might say: diverse. They have only one interest and that is the increasing power of government. They ignore the excesses of government harassment against citizens, because they believe that a leftist government is infallible. It is their mantra as it was in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.


We have all the building blocks for a new genocide. The excuses are already built into the media's narrative. The alarm has been raised and effectively silenced. So, what is to stop the U.S. Government from becoming the next genocidal machine? The courts? The police? The military? The Republicans? Do you see now how ridiculous any of those limitations seem?


Without giving credence to the alarmists, the nation will continue to sleep and perhaps some will never again wake.

Monday, November 9, 2015

Sanity In A Schizophrenic Society

The phenomenon of self-destruction of the United States continues apace, but this is not normal, it is not the same as societal upheaval. Societal upheaval is fairly common; it is always accompanied by technological advancements. From Greece and Egypt to the United States, whatever technology advances a society ultimately rips it apart. It is somewhat of a maturation.


Societal upheaval is inevitable. It has happened several times in the United States as technology progressed. A good example of this exists in the transformation of farming. Technology turned farming from a labor-intensive occupation to an equipment-intensive industry. This development was accompanied by the societal upheaval of the abolition of slavery, the repercussions of which continue today.


A farm big enough to be successful in the pre-industrial revolution required manual labor at the lowest cost to production. This is not a statement of conscience, it is a simple economic fact that enabled slavery. To abolish slavery was to destroy the South's primary source of economic strength, farming plantations, and it is why this was not a decision of conscience for most of those who engaged in slavery, it was a system necessary to their survival.


Unlike the societal upheaval of the abolition of slavery, the current phenomenon of self-destruction is, to a large degree, schizophrenic.


Government officials are engaged in more than self-serving power grabs and domination over the people, they are actively seeking the destruction of their own legitimacy, as if to force a confrontation with...themselves.


This effort is enabled and even cheered on by a media openly hostile to the concept of freedom of the press. Their willingness to limit and even regulate the media in order to ensure the monopoly of message is, frankly, startling.


Self-hatred seems to be the order of the day; the common motivating factor society-wide. The Christian church has turned on itself, openly rejecting principles hard-wired into their formation. They reject concepts of freedom of religion. They seek persecution as a means of self-flagellation for some perceived sin of defending Christian values.


The military has given up the concept of superior firepower and readiness, opting instead for social experimentation at the risk of national defense. National defense is no longer their mandate. They are unwilling to identify enemies, preferring to ensure that all members of society are welcome within their ranks including and especially elements dedicated to the destruction of the military.


There is not one traditional pillar of society that is not engaged in some form of self-destruction. They have all turned on their own stated principles in search of acceptance by some equally schizophrenic element of this emerging society.


If all of this were to no consequence it would simply be curious, like the "free love" movement of the 1960's, but it does have consequences. A church unable to teach and respect the word of God, has rendered itself useless. A media unwilling to tell the truth in the face of power is useless. A military more focused on internal demons rather than external enemies is useless.


In the end, enemies both societal and military who are unidentified as enemies are left to grow stronger and more formidable, perhaps they grow strong enough to become indomitable. Our sources of strength, once embroiled in self-destruction to the point that they are unable to protect the society they were created to defend, become enemies themselves.


As is typical, when the sane are surrounded by the insane, insanity is normal and the sane are hunted down as dangerously insane. They are replaced in society by immigrants as hostile to the American tradition as the schizophrenic powers that encouraged the immigration.


The fact is, if you believe in the Constitution, the Church, or the strength of the military you are considered insane. If you believe in the courts or the media as defenders of your freedom, you are insane. If you are actively engaged in the destruction of any or all of these institutions of American strength, congratulations, you are considered sane in this schizophrenic society.


Today, we are a confused nation, a conflicted people undedicated to the core principles of the homeland and therefore ripe for conquest.

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Fabricated Nonsense

Travis Gettys begins his story with the title: Anti-Muslim militia warns against refugee invasion at Idaho statehouse. I say "story" because that is what it is, a story, not an article or any sort of honest reporting. It is a liberal shock story, replete with as many inaccuracies and conspiracy theories as it can pack between the lines. The title itself states that these are Anti-Muslims, unless the author suggests that all Muslims are Jihadists, the title intentionally misidentifies the purpose of the protest. The protestors were not militia, they were III Percenters. Militias are self-identified as such and make no apologies for their organizations. III Percenters might be of similar politics or ideology, but they are not militias.
The protestors were concerned with Jihadists being relocated into their communities, a consequence of misguided government, or worse, malevolent government action with the intent to stir civil unrest, the logical outcome being the perceived need for more government.


To Travis Gettys and RawStory, who apparently take their marching orders from Hatewatch, an outgrowth of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the III Percenters are not citizens interested in the integrity of US Immigration law, or the safety of their community threatened by imported Jihadists. They are described as: "about 100 anti-government activists, many wearing flak jackets and other armor, waved American flags and banners promoting their pro-gun militia group" 


This despite the fact that it is commonly known that Syrian refugees are infused with a certain percentage of Jihadists. There are stories, even from mainstream news outlets, that have documented the inability of the government to completely vet those who arrive from Syria and that some extremists might be among the refugees being resettled across the nation.


Later in the story, Travis gets in another inaccurate insinuation against as many imagined enemies as he can when he writes: The III% movement was co-founded by pro-gun, anti-government activist Mike Vanderboegh, who promotes the idea that the Second Amendment allows unsatisfactory election results to be overturned by armed revolt.


First, the III Percent movement might have been co-founded by Mike Vanderboegh, I don't know, but I do know that there is no III Percent national organization to which every III Percenter looks to for guidance from Mike Vanderboegh, or anyone else. That Travis injects Vanderboegh into the issue is for one purpose only, in his mind anyway, to discredit and somehow link III Percent Idaho with SPLC's greatest boogieman, Vanderboegh. To push the point as far as he can Travis writes: group members take pains to describe themselves as a mainstream conservative group — although their rhetoric frequently overlaps with other far-right “patriot” groups and even white supremacist groups.


He just had to get that shot in about "white supremacists," because anyone who cares about the direction of the nation, or the Constitutional integrity of the government must be a "white supremacist." In the same way, Travis makes it quite clear that anyone who is concerned about the 300 Syrian refugees being settled in Idaho must be Anti-Muslim, because the accurate portrayal of the protest as a protest against the release of these refugees because the government has admitted that it CANNOT properly vet these refugees to ensure that no Islamic extremist jihadists are released into their communities, would just not fit the narrative, would it?


The one thing Travis Gettys does not bother to illuminate for the reader is the obvious irony of his narrative where he describes the III Percenters as "anti-government" activists who wave American flags and threaten violence over violations of the Constitution. How does that work, Travis? I mean, even in your own mind. Unless you have already recognized that the government is disengaged from the value of the American flag and the legitimacy of the Constitution.


This is the trouble with the media, and I do not for a moment consider Travis Gettys a journalist or a member of the media, but he does represent the private views of those in the media. They cannot disengage themselves from their views when they report. They cannot see the III Percent movement for what it is. It is a red flag among the populace that there is something wrong with the government. Instead, they see their own private boogiemen and try desperately to link anyone they disagree with, with them.


Mike Vanderboegh is just such a boogieman and has long been a thorn in SPLC's side, because he has not backed down from their harassment and vilification, but has stood up to Morris Dees, a sin that must not go unpunished. The fact that the media cannot see that SPLC is as much a hate group and leftists extremists themselves tells everything about their point of view. I have never been in contact with Mike Vanderboegh, but I respect him and have helped him to expose the Gunwalker Scandal now referred to as Fast and Furious, but I did not help him because I took orders from him. I helped him, without his consent, because he was right and the facts needed to be brought to the fore. In any other world, where the media operated as an agent against government abuses, Vanderboegh would have been hailed as a hero to the public. Not here and not now.


I would not have bothered with this story by Travis Gettys had it not appeared on the Drudge Report as a legitimate article. Had it not been for that, I would have discounted any such story as just that, fabricated nonsense from the extreme leftist point of view.

Saturday, October 31, 2015

A Functional Resistance

There is a post at Western Rifle Shooters Assn. called the Big Delusion that asks the question: What is to be done after the collapse? This is a question that has long vexed those in the liberty/patriot community. We know how to survive. We know how to fight. We know how to make it rough on those who would enslave us. But, do we know how to win? Are we even concerned about winning?


There are those focused solely on survival, but I have always wondered what was the point of survival if one emerges from the bunker with no allies and no one left to understand the purpose of one's survival. To survive only to exist in a state of slavery to a totalitarian regime, is survival, but is it worth it? For me, the answer has always been no. I would rather go out in the first wave if liberty is not to be found at the end.


The fact is, those who are either focused on liberty or see themselves as a patriot to the Constitution, have no plan to reestablish the principles of liberty in the post-collapse America. Probably the best idea out there is to establish redoubts, or zones of liberty mutually defended during the collapse that at least for themselves ensures liberty in small enclaves. But, then what?


These redoubts exist as small, defensible zones of liberty for those who have defended them and while the inhabitants remain within these zones, they will enjoy a degree of liberty unknown in the rest of the altered US, but as such they will become the focus of those who come to power in the post-collapse America. To the new masters, these liberty-minded nuts must be stomped out wherever they exist as they will always be a threat to their power. So, another round of survival is needed, but this time against an empowered and unapologetic foe.


To me, there has always been a need for a strong voice to emanate from those redoubts in the congealing stage of the new power base that threatens to emerge. To allow that reorganization to take place in the absence of a strident voice for the cause of liberty is to accept an endless state of survival and conflict. The problem is, one must defend the redoubt and in doing so is unable to exert influence beyond it.


The issue is one of mindset. A defensive mindset is needed to survive the bad times, but being unable to toggle to an offensive mindset is to ensure a dwindling resistance with ever fewer supplies and ever fewer allies. That is not a winning strategy. So knowing when to switch mindsets is critical. Will we know when and will we be able to launch an offensive at the crucial moment?


The Constitution has always relied on people of integrity. Since integrity does not exist in government today, the Constitution does not exist. We live under some sort of Anti-American America. There is a self-loathing that has been created among the populace that has resulted in a desire to self-destruct. Illegal immigration is a method of self-destruction. Importing Islamic Jihadists is another form. A government that does not respect or even recognize the very document that gives it power is another form of self-destruction. A nation so dedicated to its own annihilation cannot long be deterred.


The US is in debt, it is politically and morally bankrupt. It is considering all manner of actions against its citizens and their cash in order to reform itself into a dictatorship (perhaps this has already taken place, though it seeks more recognition of this fact). A few more corrupt elections and it will be able to step out from under the veil of deceit and move openly and deliberately as a dictatorship.


I would like to say there would be initial resistance to this open acknowledgement of what it has become, but I have seen no sign that such resistance will arise from the cowed and timid population of the US. The one thing I do know is that the US is weak, because it does not have the support of the people and it knows it. Half of the population want to devolve into some sort of socialist paradise, destroy the military and live in harmony with nature. The other half want to watch TV until they die. There is no stomach for a fight for liberty.


Now, when we think of the situation we are in, we must recognize that other nations are taking note and also seek that post-collapse turmoil that would provide them with their opportunity to finally conquer the West. We don't even know against whom we should rebel. Would it be against the dictatorship? The Russians? The ISIS Caliphate? A rising leftist movement, the mirror image of the patriot movement?


The point is, without being able to assemble ourselves into a counter-movement capable of rising in that moment as a force to be accommodated or annihilated, liberty does not stand a chance. Without liberty, Christianity does not stand a chance. Without liberty our posterity does not stand a chance. The closer we come to the collapse, the more we will need to overcome our own internal divisions and coalesce as a functional resistance.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

The Irrational Mr. Roberts

Bill Roberts has submitted another address to militias from his point of view over at Western Rifle Shooters Assn. entitled Current Militia Movement Ver. 2.0. Go there and read and you will see that my refutation derives from his actual text, not made up paraphrasing on my own.


To begin with, I do not agree with Mr. Roberts' assertions, however I do applaud his willingness to engage in the discourse. As he has refrained from the condescension he feels for militias, or anyone who would act to retain their liberty, I, likewise, will refrain, as much as possible, from belittling his point of view.


Roberts gives the etymology of "militia" as miles meaning soldier and itia as the state, or soldier of the state. Government forces.


He goes on to describe the First Continental Congress as taking place on September of 1774, sort of brushing off the fact that, by his reasoning, the governors and/or representatives of the colonies attending the First Continental Congress, along with the militias they controlled, were the first traitors to British rule.


Roberts' take is and has been since the beginning of his dispatches to the militias that they have no business forming into groups or making preparations to resist government aggression on the grounds that they operate under no governmental authority, without recognizing the irony of his legitimizing the First Continental Congress.


It was a more amenable political structure at that time, there were governors of the colonies who did not agree with the Crown. There were militias available to those governors for mutual protection that were closely associated with those colonies and consisted somewhat of citizens of those colonies, but they were, as Roberts so eloquently points out, illegally operating as militias since they were not sanctioned by the British government in that role.


I am the first to agree that one epoch in history cannot be on a level with another. There is no way to compare exactly what the militia movement and the patriot/liberty community of today would equate to in the 18th Century, but it is easy to know the principles upon which the forefathers of this nation decided that their condition was intolerable.


Yes, their political organizations were more solidly established against a foreign nation, with a foreign army as an extension of that political reality. It was much easier to make the distinction between friend and foe, but the issues were largely the same, the violations similar to what we endure from our own government. It is not hard to imagine a person raised under British rule to feel that they were being attacked by their own government for little else than protesting against taxes.


I do not want to go too far into Roberts' instructive dissertation, because I find the very basis for it rationally flawed. Just as it would be useless to quote our forefathers to him about the dangers of a standing army, it is useless for him to describe exactly why the people are not allowed to arm themselves and prepare for the aggression of our government forces against its citizens.


What Roberts has missed is the proper discourse, which must include: What level of oppression is to be tolerated before armed resistance is acceptable to government authority? (there would never be that point, would there?)


There are no laws that allow us to engage in resistance at a certain point of suffering, so using the Constitution as legitimacy for oppression is ridiculous. Using the Constitution to prove that we have no right to oppose those who have rejected it is likewise irrational.


I do agree with Roberts on one issue: there are a lot of societies who suffer under much more aggressive and complete oppression than the citizens of the United States. To expect us to suffer that much and more in order receive his (and others of his ilk) blessing for resistance is very telling indeed. We are jealous of our liberty, entitled to our rights and fully within the blessings of our founders to resist the oppression we now feel.


That sort of statement is laughable to Roberts, a person standing on the other side of the line, dispensing oppression, enforcing tyranny. I would expect no less.


Wednesday, September 23, 2015

That Is What They Do

You cannot miss the obvious accumulation of threats to America that have not only gone unnoticed by our champions in the government, but have been championed in order to comply with political correctness run amok.


In order to not offend, our leaders have allowed every sort of immigrant to enter and take up residence in the United States and while it is easy (too easy really) for people to call bigotry against those who only choose to have some method of discerning who should and who should not enter this country with the idea of citizenship, there are limits to throwing the gates open to anyone who would vote Democrat.


In the U.S. Constitution it states emphatically in Section 8 Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."


Nothing the president of the US has been proposing either through illegal immigration or through accepting refugees from Syria is tolerated in the Constitution. Nothing is more simple than there should be "an uniform Rule of Naturalization." This means that a rule for one is a rule for all. I know for a fact that there are hundreds, if not thousands of applicants from Europe who seek admission and an opportunity to become a citizen of the United States who are waiting for paperwork to be processed while the Administration encourages and makes deals to have other immigrants, from other nations, find access to the United States and to become citizens without the cumbersome process of the typical paperwork. To provide an expedited path to citizenship for anyone violates this clear pronouncement from the founders and for good reason. There needs to be time to evaluate the competency of the individual to be a citizen of the United States. Syrian jihadists would not normally qualify.


In this time when the Constitution has been put on hold in order to accommodate the whims of the current president of the United States, such a complication might not be well received, but it might be noted that the actions of the Obama Administration are absolutely and distinctly Unconstitutional from the very beginning to the end when it comes to Naturalization.


And, who cares? Not the Republican Party, the necessary checks and balance against a president from an opposing political party to do as they please. They are too concerned about the media's absolute devotion to a Democratic president that they are unable to fulfill their obligations to the citizens of the nation and to their constituents whom they claim to serve.


Republicans are nothing. They serve no purpose in the political process. To vote for a Republican candidate is to choose the different lining on the same suit. They are unable to fulfill any role, much less the opposition role to a Democratic president.


Immigration, other than through the normal process, is illegal, unconstitutional and morally and ethically wrong.


But, that is what they do.

Saturday, September 19, 2015

I Will Follow God

I received an email last night that set me to thinking and this is Christian Mercenary, so...


The nation we have now is far removed from the nation our parents and grandparents knew. For those atheists out there, it is probably a better nation now than then, but for Christians, it is much worse. The best way I can explain my Christianity to those who don't believe is that I am a better person for being a Christian. Argument concluded. Only those who knew me when I was not a believer can understand the importance and validity of that statement. I am a better person.


The daily assaults on our culture are a result of having lost the Christian emphasis in our society. Atheists always look at the worst in Christianity to make their arguments, not the best. They do not look at when our neighbors are in need it is always the Christians, the churches, that seek to come to their aid. They do not see that it is the state that prevents churches from offering more assistance to the homeless and the hungry. The state works against the Christian impulse toward charity, because it doesn't want charity, it wants dependence and so passes laws against impromptu kitchens and overnight emergency shelters.


Everything the state runs it runs poorly and since it makes the laws, everything it does is de facto legal. This is why the police come along to shut down lemonade stands for not having applied for a permit, because children must be prevented from an impulse toward capitalism and they must not miss the message that no commerce is outside the scope of the government. The police are the muscle behind the clerks who issue permits.


As the state has risen to push Christianity out of the public realm, it has embraced the opposite. Planned Parenthood is still defended by bright-eyed liberal women on television, despite the disgusting act of parting out of the unborn for fun and profit. Planned Parenthood continues to celebrate the hateful racist founder and liberal hero Margaret Sanger. In this non-Christian nation we are building, the hate is palpable, the evil is evident in rhetoric and deed.


And, just when I was scratching around for somehow to derail this trend toward the destruction of Christianity and the obliteration of charity, I got an email from a reader, Christian and fellow patriot and I realized it is not for me to solve these issues (as if I could). This is what God does. This is what Jesus is for.


I listen to the word of God and follow His guidance. (though I do not think I am a good example of what a Christian is) I do my best to always seek the path that God would have me walk. He has led me through fatherhood, through marriage, through business decisions, through the deaths of loved ones and through the death of my nation. I have asked Him many times if it is time for me to put down the plough and take up the sword. Silence. No signs, no signals.


I have come to the understanding that God created this nation and it is for Him to save it or destroy it. Our predicament is beyond the ability of Man to correct. Only God can fix this one. Then, the words of Revelation came back to me, the part about the mark of the Beast being necessary for commerce and that it is really a choice of which God to worship, the God of light or the Prince of Darkness.


This nation we live in with its denigration of God and Christ is the filthy hole that must exist once God is forced from the public discourse. The poverty, the crime, the corruption and all of the black-hearted impulses that make up our daily social interactions are the natural result.


I take the political betrayal of our system by our elected officials personally. I have fought back against that at every turn. It is necessary for me to expose that whenever I encounter it. Liberty is important and for religious reasons as much as any, because it was the second gift from God to Man behind only the gift of life itself. God gave man the liberty to choose whether to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. God gave man the liberty to worship Him or the serpent. That Man has failed every test has not given Him reason to destroy us all, so that each person still has the liberty to make that choice.


What seems important to me now is to be worthy of His grace and prepare myself to be his agent when the time comes to address the grievances He has for this nation that relied so heavily upon Him during the cold winter at Valley Forge, through the devastation of the Civil War, through the challenges of WWII and turned its back on Him when salvation had been delivered.


I have seen the destruction of this nation as being against the will of God, like we were letting Him down, but now understand that a nation so arrogant that the people think they can shun His grace and remain unconquered and undestroyed is perhaps too arrogant to be saved from the fate they have clamored to obtain. When forced to choose between America and God, I will follow God. 

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

So You Know

It is difficult for me to witness the death of my nation; the death of liberty. The recollection of those days in the late 60's and 70's when a person could walk out on their property and do as they please, without fear of being reported for failure to recycle, or some such idiocy as we encounter daily in America today, remain as banners of freedom in my mind. For those who have never felt the liberty of a low-technology state cannot know what I mean by "liberty."


For all of the technological advances that have led to the 24/7 surveillance of our daily lives, there has been no decrease in crime, no decrease in terror threats. If increased security is not a by product of the sacrifice of liberty, then liberty is sacrificed for no reason at all, but to feed the ambitions of the totalitarians.


It is easy to criticize me for growing disgusted with the talk of this movement and the inaction in the face of absolute surrender to the forces of evil that seek the total destruction of liberty. Yes, I have gotten so fed up with it that I chose to discontinue this blog, but have been encouraged to return. Despite my detractors, there are those who value my point of view and find their opinions voiced on this blog.


I get nothing from my posts beyond the temporary satisfaction of having expressed a frustration that I know others share. Perhaps I provide some insight, or inspiration to others. Were it not for that, I would disappear from the discussion. Since my post Hard Truths and Adios I have written very little and only when I have been encouraged to voice my opinion, or to highlight an event. In the above post I was voicing the frustration that nothing will change and doubt that my voice will have any impact on the outcome. That I have occasionally found something else to write about has been seized upon by some in this community as an insincerity to my decision to back out of the daily discussion. They find in that some instability. Okay. If fault is what they choose to find, it is here.


This is why this movement has done very little to affect the conditions under which we survive, why this nation cannot count on us for the defense of liberty. At least those who focus on survival, rather than defense of liberty have the right focus. My efforts toward mere survival have been well placed. I have no fear that my tribe will survive, but that is all. They will not be able to help secure liberty or to defend the our rights, not ours and not yours.


My purpose in starting first TL in Exile and later Christian Mercenary were to highlight first the violations of the Constitution by government officials and the danger that presented to liberty. It was to expose the violation and to educate the readers on those particular clauses of the Constitution that were being violated. I went so far as to write The Constitutionalist to make the points clear that I thought would result in further resistance to the agenda of the federal government. For several years it felt as if progress was being made.


Then it stopped. Events came and went without much disturbance. The actions of the government became more and more egregious, but instead of inspiring this liberty movement toward action, it lead only to greater explanations of inaction.


The only thing I can say that I helped to inspire that has had any success whatsoever is the impulse toward PatCons. These events have brought local people together to produce tribes and to even link these tribes together with militias to create mutual defense agreements.


So, just to be clear, I have rarely returned to this blog to write and I have written only infrequently in the past year. To the degree that has bothered some of you, I apologize.


However, I reserve the right to comment on society as I see fit.


My work to resist the socialization and destabilization of our political system will not stop. My next efforts will be of a more direct nature. I have submitted the plan to a few trusted individuals for consideration and await their response. This does not mean that I will never again post on this blog, for those who seek that assurance.


During the days of chaos that surely await the next economic catastrophe, I will be available to help provide continuity of communication through the efforts I am making at present. I hope there will be some other patriots with whom to communicate. Perhaps when the hoards of jihadists team up with our military to exterminate those evil Constitutionalists there will be some resistance. Who knows?

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

I Pledge Allegiance To...Something

The grievances against this government are clear and appropriate. They are embraced by the wide diversity of the American people of all races. They can be heard in coffee shops, bars, hardware stores, grocery stores and barber shops; places that the American elite do not go. The grievances are openly aired without even the whispers of conspiracy.


What is the purpose of a Department of Homeland Security, encompassing almost every federal agency and even local police and emergency agencies, if defending the homeland is of little concern? It is known that jihadists intend to enter the nation through the southern boundary. It is known that jihadists are entering as Syrian refugees. What is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security if not to prevent these people from entering?


There seems to be a faux government, with all of the insignia and weapons of a legitimate authority without being able to perform their duties. They simply exist as Hollywood extras, occupying space without function.


The people are caught in a moment of transition. Their government has abandoned its own legitimacy and having exceeded their legitimate roles they now run amok. To resist them is still a crime, but their actions are criminal. The president continues to break the laws of the land (at this moment by failing to reveal all aspects of the Iran nuclear deal to congress and the American people) with impunity. He has committed numerous impeachable acts without remorse or even humility, but with pride and arrogance. He is a leader unafraid of the opposition, unafraid of the law, unafraid of the people. He has become a tyrant with a shrug of acceptance, leaving the citizens to wonder what will come next. Will not the next president act exactly as this one? Is there no relief in sight? Is this the new America?


Yes, it is. We are no longer a nation of laws, we are a nation of personalities; in effect a monarchy.


This has been calculated, orchestrated and completed.


In the air now is another election. Who would we vote for? We are no longer voting for a representative, senator or president, we are voting for a king. A person who, in either benevolence or malevolence, our leader, our king. We are voting for a person who can, if so inclined, imprison the opposition.


By importing aliens who have no expectation of liberty or freedom and value neither, we are packing the electorate with enemies of this nation, or at least of what it was, of what the Constitution designed. Enemies of political processes that have been the American tradition. We have gone too far in this evolution of America to find our way back to the Constitutional values of laws ruling over even the most powerful.


So, if we are no longer citizens of anything, what are we? What are you? Where does your allegiance lie? There is no America, so there is no U.S. military.


At Western Rifle Shooters there was a post, a blunt observation of the liberty movement, of the resistance, where the author claimed "Professional Soldier" status and berated the citizen as a bunch of armed thugs. I have, since reading that post, thought long and hard on it. How is it that this professional soldier sees himself above the rabble while he remains loyal to a political authority that ceases to exist? Is he unaware that he is simply a mercenary? That he is simply fighting for his king and does not have the backing and support of the American citizen? Yes, we support our military, but at this point in history, that would be the same as supporting an invading army.


I don't doubt the patriotism of the American soldier, I just question their ability to comprehend the changes that have taken place in the past few years. They have not been following the ball and have merely defaulted to obedience to their superiors as a sign of patriotism, without understanding that their superiors are not patriotic, but rather revolutionaries who have completed the coup. They fail to comprehend their new status as revolutionaries, because the revolution went on without a single battle. It was a forfeiture completed with the stroke of a pen, between elites at the highest levels of government. They simply decided to be something other than a Constitutional Republic and decided to be a kingdom, or at least an oligarchy.


While these soldiers continue to play with the republic's toys and plot against the defenders of the republic, they assure themselves that they are loyal. They ask only "to whom?" not "to what?"


The nuances of legitimate authority escape them and we pay for their inability to discern the difference. SFC Barry laughed at the idea that there could be a citizen resistance. He'll get a chance to see how wrong he is when the jihadists decide that it is time to revolutionize America once again.

Sunday, September 6, 2015

Good Luck

We are broken. This nation is a disaster area, yet to be declared. The truth of the disaster of the Obama Administration will not be revealed until there is a Republican president to take the brunt of the blame; until there is a wholly Republican government to deliver the horrible news of our predicament. The major media outlets will make sure of it.


If you are not prepping for the inevitable results of an economy in collapse, you are simply providing a market for those who are. There is the assumption that self-reliance is the antidote for government malfeasance, but there are those who will come looking for your bounty.


This is not a prophecy. The destruction of the Chinese economy, as most enlightened traders will avow, is the sign of global economic distress. The Chinese were the last viable market and now that they have had to devalue the Yuan, the gig is up. Without a healthy economy to demand the products of the rest of the recessionaire nations, there is no savior; there is nowhere to turn to maintain demand.


The clocks tick down to the inevitable, which is not to say that it will not come down during Obama's time in office, but the blame must not be his. That would not adhere to the narrative of Obama as the best president in history. Instead, the election of a Republican, even the obvious future of a Republican victory, will signal the "all-clear" for the media outlets to blame the immediate crisis on the future represented by the possibility of electing a Republican.


But, that is all politics. We need to concern ourselves with economics. The banks have not been "fixed" since the last economic crisis. Nothing has been done to deter a future banking crisis. The liability was simply shifted from banks to taxpayers, that's all, that's the only thing that happened after the last economic crisis and that's all they plan for the next one.


The people are the suckers, the marks for the global Ponzi scheme. Debt consumes every nation and without the support of a healthy China, there is no consumer of that debt, or of the products produced. The miss in the jobs report was the first shoe to drop, but it will not be the last.


So, what are you doing to prepare?


There is no longer a purpose in discussing the Constitution, that has been made irrelevant by the refusal of the Obama Administration to comply with it and the refusal of the congress to demand compliance and the refusal of the Supreme Court to rule in favor of it. The Constitution is just some document that used to mean something.


So we are lost; we are broke and we have no will to fix ourselves. As Americans, we are disassociated from our identity. We are random individuals roaming around a police state until we can be rounded up or killed.


It is time to start thinking seriously about the future. Put some cash away, protect your assets the best you can, convert some value to metals and wait for the S to hit the fan. Enjoy yourselves in this empty society as long as you can, but every day take one step in preparation for what will come. Buy things of value that can be bartered, think about what those things should be. How will you get around when gasoline is nearly impossible to be acquired? How will you produce electricity to power the few things that will matter to you?


There are a lot of great resources to consult on the web, while you still can.


The only other piece of advice I will give is to hold accountable those responsible for this mess. Do not allow them to destroy the greatest nation on earth and walk away. There will be no urge for liberty in the future, America is no longer that place. It's too hard of a sell to those invested in the concept of stuff for free, for a society of those who seek cheat codes for life. The hard work of liberty can no longer be done by the people who occupy this nation. Those few of us who still cling to that one value as the key to all of the others are dead elephants.


Vengeance and retribution are the only values that might still be embraced by this slacker society. Good luck. 

Friday, July 17, 2015

I Will Not Go Peacefully

For the most part, I think my last post was seized upon for its anti-tax position much more than it should have been. Who cares about my particular situation? Is it relevant? My answer is no. I was asking how long will you wait to resist? Or as one person suggested: What are you doing to resist?


Trust me, the very mention of resistance caused visits from the Department of Homeland Security (an inclusion which will already invite numerous visits), the USDA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Defense, the Naval Information boys, the Department of State, office of the Secretary and numerous state organizations all interested in what I might say about resistance to their illegal activities.


If anyone doubts that what I write costs me something, think again. I put everything on the line every time I write a syllable. It is something I have understood since 2011 when an IRS agent arrived at my place of business to intimidate me with accusations and insinuations. Ultimately, it cost me several thousand dollars and more than a year of such intimidation.


These are the actions of an oppressive government. I relate such instances to put a personal face to the intimidation and oppression. I do not speak of generalities, of hypotheticals. These things have happened to me and continue to happen to me because I speak the truth and I tell the tale of the abuses of the government. My wife hates me for it, but has now, since she has also been implicated (by association), come to recognize that NO government has the right to treat their citizens as such and still claim the authority of the PEOPLE.


We are not the people to them, we are subjects, serfs, obligated laborers, nothing more. A republic is based on the concept that the people themselves are represented by elected officials. That is not what we have today. What we have, as a government, is an oligarchy (where a group of powerful individuals decide what will happen to the rest). Can anyone argue against that analysis?


WE ARE NOT a republic. We are not a democracy. We are not a functional society. Those who have spent us into debt are demanding from us future funds at the threat of imprisonment. Those who are incapable of functioning under the constraints of a budget are demanding that we give them more and more funds with which they might be increasingly less responsible and increasingly more threatening to our freedom. It is a crude form of extortion (look up the definition of extortion and tell me that it does not apply).


Without going to extremes, tell me that any average understanding of extortion does not apply to a government as well as a criminal organization. What is the functional difference? That we vote? That who votes? Does anyone in power seem to care where the votes come from? Legal or illegal? Paid for or out of intellectual contemplation? They do not. It is their sole claim to legitimate authority and they will not investigate the validity of that vote, no matter what. They do not want to know.


A free people are not fooled by this ruse. A free people respect and require legitimate votes and voters to determine the direction of the nation and to select the leaders of the same. That is what a legitimate republic looks like, not the contrived nonsense we endure today.


The point is very simply if they do not offer us a republic as represented by the Constitution and the amendments thereof, they cannot legally, morally or ethically offer us a republic respecting only the 16th Amendment, disregarding the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th Amendments. It either works as a document and all amendments are respected or none are respected. The government has been very good at picking and choosing which amendments and rights of the people are respected and which are not, but it is not a smorgasbord. One must choose all or nothing, or it ceases to be legitimate, it ceases to embrace the rule of law and becomes a nation of exceptions, of waivers and of concessions to those with the most money, or the correct political persuasion. Is that not what we endure? Is that not what our forefathers fought to liberate us from?


We endure the illegal and impossible government of today, but we do not acquiesce, we do not accept, we do not endorse, we merely endure what we cannot, without forfeiture of life, liberty or property, change. Our opposition should not be held subject to vote, that is what the first 10 amendments were adopted to deny. Those are rights that we, as citizens of the United States, have with or without consent of the government, with or without consent of other citizens. These are individual rights endowed by God and supposedly ensured, guaranteed by the government ordained by the people for this purpose and this purpose alone. They have failed that and they have failed the people.


This is what I protest. This is what I will sacrifice all that I own or will own to secure. This is my line and they have crossed it long, long ago. So, whatever happens to me is just another fact, a statistic on the legal ledgers of a corrupt and criminal government. I do not ask for rescue, or help, or legal defense. It is what it is, but I will not go peacefully into that dark night.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

How Long Before You Resist?

I have been waiting a long time for people in this community to decide that enough is enough and contact me with plans to do something in the face of the continual abuses of the federal government. I don't know what it takes to motivate resistance. We are witnessing the absolute destruction of our society and I know there are those out there who deplore the changes taking place in our society, but none who are motivated to act.


I know there are those who are thinking locally and who are developing strong communication systems, who are busy building the skills of their tribe. And while that is absolutely commendable and to be honest, one of the systems upon which I will rely when the SHTF, there needs to be more.  There needs to be an actual resistance, an actual leader who is willing to stand up, with the weight of those dedicated to liberty and confront the actions being taken in our name.


Our federal debt has been frozen at just over $18 trillion. $18 trillion.  We have our government planning: taking actual steps and planning to "bail in" the banks when the next financial crisis hits. WHEN, not if, the next banking crisis erupts. In other words, they plan to take your money, your wages for your hard work, and apply it to their bad debts, their bad investments.  They will take the wages you have earned with your labor and give it to the banks to keep them solvent. At what point do you look in the mirror and say that this is wrong and that you will do something about it? How ugly does it have to get? How screwed do you have to be to resist the rapist? 


We are not in unique times, these sorts of things happen to Cyprus, to Greece all the time. It will happen to Portugal, Spain and others as time goes on and it can happen to the US at any moment. When they do it, when they decide it is time to take your hard-earned wages and apply them to those who have made bad debts and bad decisions, what are you prepared to do? What is your plan of action? Who do you go after? Who do you make pay for that transgression? Who is your target?


Damnit men, it is time to know the answers to these questions.


The Supreme Court has proven itself incapable of resisting the blackmail of politicians.  It is not an arbiter of our rights, it is in cooperation with those dedicated to the absolute destruction of the rights of the people.


Our society has been destroyed by the Supreme Court through its rulings in the past decade. What little leverage the people had over the actions of government have been neutered by these rulings, starting with the Patriot Act. A misnomer no greater could be devised.


When the terrorists flew those planes into the twin towers in an effort to destroy America, I thought they were fools; that no action of a terrorist could destroy us, then, we quickly set about destroying ourselves in an effort to resist such future actions. We are fools and dupes. But, I do not wish to remain so. Do you?


Our nation, our beliefs have been systematically destroyed by an administration dedicated to destroying our allies and supporting our enemies. I will not name a single piece of legislation or treaty that caused this, we caused this, we allowed this and only we can fix this. Only we, as Americans, can resolve this crisis of sovereignty.


We have to rise above our representatives, our senators and our presidents to demand a redress of grievances. It is our duty to do so.  Never before has it been so clearly the responsibility of the individual to take matters in one's own hands and rectify the faulty and treasonous actions of our government.


Yes, before they take your money; before they subjugate you to other nations; before they enslave you to pay for the excesses of their waste.


I am about to be arrested for failure to pay taxes. I refuse to pay taxes to a nation so corrupt, so wasteful, so willing to take my hard-earned income and give it to illegal immigrants, who have not paid a single penny to federal or state taxes, that my conscience can no longer tolerate this hypocrisy where good citizens of this nation are treated as criminals in order to support the actual criminals who kill innocent citizens of this nation. I can no longer support this criminal organization functioning as a government of the people.


You are all targets.  You are all patsies. You are all complicit in their crimes for having supported the government who daily passes laws and regulations designed to harm your efforts to support your family, who find all manner of ways and means to support those who can not legally vote in this society. Why? Because if they vote themselves your treasure, it is all done legally through the IRS.


How long will you stand idle before this affront? Will it be the day they take your wages? Or, will you act to deny them that opportunity?  I don't know, but for me, the day of obeying a government who no longer obeys the founding document and the source of their authority has come and gone.



Monday, June 1, 2015

So You Want To Vote Republican?

So you want to know who to vote for in 2016? All right, let's talk this through. First of all, while you don't think you voted for Barack Obama, you did. The fact that you voted at all, or for anyone, validated the vote for Barack Obama. It lent credence to an election that, not knowing that you had been defrauded, it was a legitimate election. It was not.


The reason I brought that up at the outset was to establish context under which all the rest of this post will be written.


One must understand that what we have had for a long time is an acquiescence to voter fraud. What voter fraud does is disenfranchise every legal voter of the nation. When a person votes illegally, it takes one person who voted legally out of the process. It is a one for one exchange. The fact that democrats and republicans alike (no matter what they say to garner one's vote) have acquiesced to the fact that illegal immigrants vote is a slap in the face to every legal citizen of this nation. This fact is attested to by the push by democrats to allow millions of illegal immigrants into the nation and the refusal of the vast majority of republicans to oppose it. The fact that they oppose it when appealing to the legal votes of Americans is irrelevant. Lying is what they DO. They are both either counting on illegal votes, or don't want to alienate the illegal voters hoping that they might get some percentage of those illegal votes if they don't appear to be antagonistic to illegal votes.


So, let's look at the democrat/republican issue. It was a republican president who gave us the Patriot Act, the DHS, TSA, the NSA spy program, etc. It was a republican president that, faced with an economic meltdown, decided to put the average American on the chopping block; to destroy lives and fortunes accumulated over decades to save the very banks and investment houses that caused the economic meltdown. It was a republican president that chose to "violate principles of the free market to save the free market" (what a load of bs).


George W. Bush was a "bad hire" and we have done nothing to improve our hiring process.


Our only criteria should be whether or not the candidate will likely restore liberty. Not some liberty, but the concept of liberty that places the government in the losing position to individual liberty and there are none.


So, let's look at the field of republican candidates. Jeb Bush (more of the above) Mitt Romney (couldn't do it the first time and he looks no better against any other democrat) Rick Perry (I like him in a lot of ways, but the opportunity he had to put the brakes on the feds came and went) Marco Rubio (I like him as well as I do many of these candidates, but the question is will they restore liberty once in office and I do not see Marco Rubio as being someone exceptional, who truly understands that individual liberty is the key and source of all innovation, creation and sustainability as an economic and military super power). Ted Cruz comes to mind along with Rubio. I am a fan of the Hispanic understanding of entrepreneurship, hard work and talent, but that does not make one a republican and while Ted Cruz has established some liberty-minded credentials, it does not wipe away the fact that when it came to putting his foot down on amnesty and Obamacare, he proved himself less than a champion of the liberty cause. One might discount a whole group of other republican candidates with one swipe (Graham, Santorum, Huckabee, Fiorina and their ilk) as just politicians with no convictions other than administering the office. There is no fire for liberty, or understanding of the American ethic or willingness to make the difficult decisions to save the republic. They are merely placeholders in a declining society.


The only other candidates worth discussing are Scott Walker, Ben Carson and Rand Paul. Scott Walker has fought the enemies of liberty in the state of Wisconsin for several years. He went up against the media, the unions and the liberals to establish good government and institute free-market principles in his state and it has worked. If one wants a good administrator, there are few, if any, better than Scott Walker.


Ben Carson is an intellectual and gained famed in a direct confrontation with Barack Obama over Obamacare. As a doctor, Carson is intelligent and thoughtful and has even made traditional republicans like Graham, Santorum, Huckabee and Fiorina blanch at his conservative views. Of those in the field, Carson is articulate enough to carry the liberty message with authority, if he believed in it, which is a question that concerns me. He knows that Obamacare is wrong and can detail its failures like no one else, but does he truly understand the value of individual liberty? Does he grasp the enormity of the changes that need to be made and demanded before we achieve rightful liberty? I don't think so. I just don't, because none of them do. The fact that he has never held public office is not a demerit, but our current president was an amateur as well and did not carry the liberal message as well as he might, what would be the chances that Carson would? If I thought Carson would act as a monarch the way Obama did, but for the cause of liberty, I might be a bit more assured, but I am not.


Rand Paul (only partially because he is from Kentucky) is my personal favorite, though I think his foreign policy is flawed and his isolationism is misplaced. No, we should not get involved in foreign wars unnecessarily, but there is no doubt that foreign nations such as Russia and China are seeking to dominate the US in a variety of areas including natural resources and that they will fund and support proxies in order to diminish the US's ability to wage war. To be unwilling to engage these powers wherever and whenever they encroach the US sphere of influence is unacceptable. Paul is a champion of liberty and the most legitimate candidate for his stance against the NSA spying practices, but the entire Patriot Act should be repealed. I fly internationally a lot, but I do not think that the TSA does anything other nations do not do without that extra layer of government oversight.


It is important to understand one thing about terrorism: one must not accomplish the terrorist's goals by deterring terrorism. It is clear now that those terrorists who flew planes into the twin towers on 9/11 did not destroy America as they hoped, but that we destroyed America in an attempt to deny them the victory. America, as a functioning republic, has been destroyed by our leaders with 9/11 as the excuse, but to believe that they did not thirst for the opportunity is delusional and a republican president pushed the destruction through.


While I admit that some candidates are attractive in the constraints of voting "A" or "B"; we as a people must demand more, or at the minimum not validate such elections with our votes. We must destroy the concept that winning an election is the same as giving consent. We need to be poor losers, because the stakes are much too high. The influx of illegal voters is bound to be substantial and should be challenged legally as a denial of voting rights. It is a civil rights case that must be made, if the authorities are not diligent in exercising their obligations to prevent illegal votes.


Since this is not possible in the diluted social context of today's politics, it is time to declare all elections as illegitimate to be challenged as such and demonstrated against on a civil rights basis. The only way to do so is to refuse to condone such obvious fraud with a vote. The only way to make a case that elections are illegitimate is if there is a substantially low voter turnout by those who consider the process illegitimate. That's how politics is done. That's how legitimate resistance is started, that's how majorities of sentiment are emboldened to action.


This is assuming that there will be another election, an eventuality of which I am not assured.

 

About Me

My photo
I am a published and produced writer, a novelist, a freelance writer, a playwright and blogger.