Lies of Omission

Lies of Omission
An Amazing Documentary

Monday, June 2, 2014


The past few weeks have been a time of serious re-evaluation. One might only endure a certain amount of outrage before the term loses its meaning; before the outrage becomes merely rage with no means of expression that will not move that line of demarcation between action and consequence to the fore.

I have not revealed my philosophy concerning the coming counter-revolution in the past simply because it would classify me as one thing or another. People always draw the wrong conclusions. They leap headlong into a definition that suits their opinions and always to the detriment of actual understanding. Karl Popper, an Austrian philosopher and economics professor said a few things that strike me as true, one of them is the statement: Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood. The other is this: You can choose whatever name you like for the two types of government. I personally call the type of government which can be removed without violence Democracy and the other Tyranny.

Voting Republican will not remove the government. It will not repeal Obamacare, the Patriot Act, the offending clause of the NDAA or any of the things Republicans promise in exchange for your vote. There will be no reversal of NSA spying, or IRS intimidation, because the government relies on these things to keep us all in line. Patriots are a threat to the government, whoever is in charge of its offices. The Bundy Ranch was attacked by every administration from the first Bush on down. That should tell you something, so when a person is offered the right to vote with no possibility of change, the vote has no value. Voting Republican will only prolong the increasing injustices.

There is no answer other than the determination of a small band of patriots dedicated to the ideals embodied within the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. But, these documents are not sacrosanct, they are not perfect. They cannot protect the citizen from evil done to them under their authority. That role is reserved to the people, the militia, the unorganized militia; it is reserved to those who will go against all odds to enforce them with arms. That is the only Constitutional remedy.

This is a fight, a war against the politicians who have twisted the laws to turn the standing army (the police) against the citizens. It is a form of enslavement, because there is no provision of law left to the patriot other than natural law. As such, every patriot must watch the days pass and the injustices mount until they are no longer able to sit and take it. Each patriot has a different level of tolerance, so no action might be coordinated. Even the victorious outcome will not guarantee liberty as there will always be those left, who did not fight, who did not sacrifice to take the stage and appeal to patriotism as a means of securing their own power and corrupting the intentions of those who did.

For what then does one lay down his life? There appears to be only one rational reason to take up arms, to step out onto the field. It cannot be to secure liberty, because that is not assured; it cannot be to restore the Constitution, because that is likewise not assured. The only pure cause of action is retribution for enslavement.


  1. Speaking of "lawr enforcement" being turned on citizens, ALL ASIANS with Babys are encouraged to leave Habersham Cnty GA or we will blow your babies faces off. It could be "on of them unfortunate things that happens". PS - Don't quit til you get to the money quotes on "domestic terrorism".


  3. We mind find ourselves better off if some of those law enforcement officer contract some lead poisoning from drinking too much cool-aid.
    If enough have such problems, then the others may stop drinking that cool-aid.

  4. I hope you get everything you wish, and you can believe I don't give a hoot what happens to any thug or tyrant, but IMO retribution is a waste of time. Besides, if retribution could be successfully achieved, then so could securing liberty. The latter would be far more beneficial.

    You might notice that the intellectuals who got us into this mess--or at least were paid to come up with the storylines--will tell you that retribution is defense. Me, I say defense is defense. [And no, defense is NOT synonymous with reactive.] There may be instances where retribution serves as defense, but retribution is not defense...much different motivators.

    Basically it comes down to your life being too valuable to be controlled by others, let alone the very worst among us. You shoot the cougar if it attacks tonight, but you don't go out looking for the particular one that attacked yesterday. Usually.

    1. You always go out and look for the cougar that attacked yesterday Jim...If you don't then he will attack when you are at weakest... You track him back to his lair and kill him there on your terms...Wake up man...

    2. C'mon...I get that, lineman. If there are cougars around, you kill them before they attack. That's why I wrote, "And no, defense is NOT synonymous with reactive."

      That's NOT retribution. And even if you go for the particular one that did, which you wouldn't if there were others, it's still not retribution. Think about it. Retribution has a much different motivation than defense. Simply put, it's emotional instead of logical.

      Maybe I picked a poor analogy, but the point stands.

    3. Jim, I think you are wrong.

      Defense might be considered reaction at the point of attack, while retribution is reaction after the attack. But what else is there? Non-response simply invites more future attacks, so retribution still looks defensive to me, in that it deters those attacks.* And it's no more emotional than is defense - defensive action is usually accompanied by extreme anger. In fact retribution seems more likely to be coldly logical than would defense be.

      So defense vs retribution is simply a distinction with little difference.

      *Actually deterrence depends on the situation, but at least the general tendency is that either defense or retribution will deter bullies who do not want to deal with pain or risk.

    4. Sorry, Paul. The important thing you got right is that appeasement never works, so I'm hardly saying, "Turn the other cheek." Obviously in the case of recurrent attacks, pre-emptiveness is necessary. This is why, "defense is NOT synonymous with reactive." But then it's straight-out defense, duh.

      Retribution--or pure retaliation--is something else altogether. It's pretended to be an appeal to the mind, a complex contrivance of "justice." Many would say it's the very definition of justice. Whether that's right or wrong, it's something very different from physical defense.

      Plus, as you know, "What else is there," is a very weak plea. Hopefully you'll acknowledge that "defense vs retribution is simply a distinction with little difference," is false, so nobody deals with non-facts.

  5. The would be tyrants better fully realize that when they come home from "following orders" and "just doing their jobs", they have opened themselves up to some old testament retribution. I consider any of the progressive commies a fair target whether they carry a gun, sit behind a desk, leech off the government titty or just voted these godless scum into office. So we either extirpate all enemies of liberty when the time comes or we will need to fight them again in a few generations.

  6. I could not agree more Mr. Davis. The time draws nye when we shall see what men are made of. There is only one way this is going to go for me.

  7. The real tyrants in this case are the enforcers hired by the thugs and tyrants in state capitals and in DC. They are our neighbors in the broader since of the community if not our direct neighborhoods. I have long said that anyone who supports the tyrant is as guilty as the tyrant himself for without a voting constituency he is nothing but a pathetic image. The tyrant lives and acts only through the consent of the voting masses. The problem is best understood in that old definition (paraphrased, probably poorly) of democracy: 'Democracy is the wolf and the fox voting with the chicken on what's for dinner.' Or stated another way perhaps; 'If the chicken has a rifle, the wolf and fox will become vegetarians.'

  8. Flash-bangin' a baby in the face is another reason why God made snipers....

  9. These out of control SWAT teams need to be set up with a fake drug deal. Then cut down by a team when they show up, take their weapons, burn their vehicles. Make sure there are no survivors. Retribution is all we have left as there will be no fair investigation of police abuses and no help from prosecutors or the courts. Send a sniper to the press conferences by the "outraged" police chief and politicians. It's well past time that they had the fear of the people put in them.

  10. Yep, if there cant be any respect or empathy from "them" for "us" better they have fear to temper their contempt and viscious punitive urges.

    PS G'Day from .au

  11. It's not about retribution. It's about deterrence. Until they start paying a price for their killing of innocent people, family pets, and wholesale abuse, it will only get worse.

    The judges and "commissions" and review boards which allow them to go (Erik) Scott free need to experience the same consequences.


About Me

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