Lies of Omission

Lies of Omission
An Amazing Documentary

Monday, March 31, 2014

The Game Of Politics

There was a news story the other day in the Washington Post (liberal rag that it is) about the finance and influence brokers in the conservative circle lining up behind Jeb Bush for President in 2016. The story promoted the idea that Jeb Bush is the brightest star most capable of winning the 2016 election. It was as much of a cheer-leading piece the Post is capable of when the subject of the article is a Republican candidate. That ought to throw up some red flags right there.

The Republican Party hates the Tea Party and for a lot of good reasons: the Tea Party threatens their power structure; it brings principle into the equation; it exposes illegal and unconstitutional acts; it demands accountability. These are all things that interfere with the game of politics. Republicans like the retired Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming and current senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky are big players in the game of politics.

The Game of Politics

The average American does not understand politics, because they do not realize the utter contempt politicians have for their voters. Politics is a game played in capitols by players called politicians. Politicians are dedicated to the art of the game of Politics, which is not unlike the art of chess. The idea is to be clever, to allow the opponents to make their moves with confidence that one is capable of an artful maneuver to negate that move and produce a favorable outcome. The game starts after every election and runs until the next election. Some games run over several election cycles. The end result of the game (to them) is government.

This is why principles do not matter to politicians (and if it does they are considered outcasts). Principles get in the way of the game; they disrupt the flow. Sometimes, when these principles are used as a creative move, they are respected, but not because they are principles, but because they are clever.

It doesn't matter what is written in the Constitution, unless it lends itself to the artful move. It doesn't matter if wars are started, or banks are busted, or the people are enslaved, as long as the moves being made result in an advantage to one party or another.

Of course, this does not address every politician in every case; there are no absolutes. Yet, when this game has been played for so long the purpose of government is lost. Every day is just another opportunity to take advantage of a clumsy or inartful move by one's opponent. Passing laws is what governments do, the game cannot be played without the passage of laws. So, when a citizen asks a politician about the Constitution, it is a question of principle that discomforts them, because it constrains their plan of attack and limits their actions in the game.

This was evident when the Rhode Island State Senator told the Second Amendment advocate to "go f*** yourself." Politicians don't abide by principles, they figure out what bills they will have to sponsor, or pass to obtain votes or funds and become advocates for those bills. Simple.

This is also why voting does not bring about the desired outcome. The vote is simply the totaling of the scores at the end of the game, which realigns the board for the next game to begin. It is a way of distributing chips to one party or the other producing handicaps and strategic advantages based on the results of the last game.

This cynical view of government is what has led us to our diminished status as a nation. It is why we need principled representatives in congress. It is why there is no point in voting for one party or the other. The people will never get what they want, which is liberty, justice and prosperity. It isn't so much that the game is fixed, it isn't. It is just that the outcomes of government are fixed: more laws, less liberty, less power for the citizen, less accountability, more taxes, more scandals and more abuse.

Reform is impossible, no matter how many right-minded politicians one sends to congress, the game remains the same. They either learn how to play, or they are shuffled off to the closet for not being a "good player" i.e. an asset to the team.

The only remedy (a temporary one at that) is to reset the entire game and change the rules before they begin to play. This reset will happen, but only as a result of some horrible event: the economic collapse of the Western world or an internal civil war, both of which might lead to foreign invasion and occupation at any rate.

The Republicans seem poised to take some advantage over the Democrats in the next election due to the clumsy way the Democrats played their hand with Obamacare and the incompetence of the Obama Administration (the only legacy Obama will ever own outright). But they are overplaying their hand. The bloom is off the rose and most conservatives understand that there is no real difference between a Republican and a Democrat. Offering up Jeb Bush will have the same result as offering up Mitt Romney only with much greater devastation.

Mitt Romney did not lose because Barack Obama was popular, he lost because 4 million conservative voters opted out of the decision. Jeb Bush will likely cause the same defection if not worse. This is the last gasp of the dying Republican Party. They have betrayed the Constitution; ignored the abuses of power by the Obama Administration; aided and abetted the budget deals that have indebted the nation, indeed the world, to hostile powers. How many acts of treason must be committed before conservatives finally understand that the Republicans are not capable of fidelity to the republic? To them it is a game they play with our lives and liberties.

The Republicans think conservatives have nowhere else to go with their votes so they will be returned to power, but why empower people who will never deliver principled government? Don't forget, Republicans passed the Patriot Act, out of which sprang Homeland Security and TSA. Jeb's brother signed on to TARP and saved the bankers while it ruined millions of small businesses and cost countless families their homes. Reagan signed the first immigration amnesty bill in the 80's. Nixon created he EPA. The Republican Party is as devastating as the Democratic Party, because they are playing the "game."

The only way to change the game is to change the rules. The only way to change the rules is to reset the game. The only way to reset the game is to clear the board.
  

Sunday, March 30, 2014

No Other King

Occasionally in comments on this blog the link between Christianity and the Constitution arise. Inevitably, Romans Chapter 13 is referenced to bolster the excuse of Christians to remain safely out of the political arena. It allows them to throw their hands up and avoid political confrontation within the church, but Chuck Baldwin has done a masterful job of defining the truth (h/t Woody Creek Farmer).

As Baldwin points out, due to our unique political institution, the Constitution is our divinely sanctioned "leader" or "ruler." We have no other king than God and our rights are not given to us by the Constitution, but by God and secured by ourselves through resistance to corruption and usurpation.

The church hates this reality, because the church seeks to secure and protect the church through social and political acquiescence. It does not necessarily defend Christianity and certainly not the United States of America. Augustine (340-430) first advanced the idea that the Bible rather than the church is the ultimate religious authority, just as we might look at the Constitution rather than the Supreme Court as the ultimate legal authority.

Supreme Court justices can be compared to the Cardinals of the Catholic Church, placing themselves between the Word and the people, dictating the meaning of the Bible and handing down their opinions as the Word of God. But the Cardinals are not the Word of God and though they may have studied the Bible, God does not speak through them to the people, but to the people directly.

The Supreme Court justices are not the Constitution and while they enjoy the usurped power of dictating the meaning of the Constitution, it remains an usurped power and inherently incorrect. The Constitution speaks to the citizen directly. Where a citizen might not completely understand the particulars of the Constitution, it is within their discretion to seek guidance from lawyers, or justices if they choose, but it is also within their discretion to reject that guidance and seek counsel elsewhere.

There is no shortage of Constitutional scholars who arrive at completely different opinions from that of the Supreme Court. Even within the Court there is most often a disagreement. How many rulings are a result of a 5-4 decision? The Supreme Court, therefore, cannot be correct, even in the rare case of a unanimous decision, because there are other opposing arguments of equal merit, or there would be no case before them.

It is not suggested that a common reading of the Constitution is sufficient for one to know what is and is not Constitutional, but a dedicated citizen might read the founding documents; read of the Federalist and (more informative in our times) the Anti-Federalist Papers to educate oneself. Generally, however, the Constitution does not tell the people what is and is not their rights, but what limitations the government must endure when it seeks to pass laws against those rights. A fact conveniently ignored by the courts, which is made clear by the Ninth Amendment which affirms that a citizen has rights largely without limit. 

The Constitution does provide for the citizens to choose their representatives, but this does not guarantee that those representatives will act according to the Constitution. Of late, the hostility of duly elected representatives toward the Constitution is stark, open  and unapologetic. It is a clear sign that a government comprised of any composition of opponents to the very document that gives it authority is wholly corrupted.

The most obvious example of this reality is present in the violations of the First Amendment guarantees of the "free exercise of" religion; to practice religion freely. This right cannot be reconciled with the banishing of religion, by law, from public institutions. If government officials can banish God from our lives, there is no possible reading of the Bible that would justify it.

Romans Chapter 13 is not a defense against political action, but an admonition to engage in political activity on behalf of the rightful authority: the Constitution. 

Friday, March 28, 2014

Treacherous Path To Oblivion

The conflict between the government and the people over the Second Amendment is being misunderstood. Those in possession of firearms are not asking the several governments if it is legal for them to have such weapons, they are telling these governments that they are legal and any attempt to confiscate them will be forcefully resisted. This is a conflict that supporters of Constitutional rights across the nation are watching with great interest, because it affects every citizen of every state. If Connecticut officials think they are only going to be dealing with citizens of their own state, they are mistaken. Everyone has a stake in Constitutional rights.

The police departments, legislators and governors appear to be under the misconception that they, or the courts are in charge of deciding what rights the people have. The truth is much more stark: the people decide that by deciding which rights they will defend with their lives. Once blood is shed by the government, that decision comes much easier to make. The governments can come to grips with that in their own time, or they can push the issue and find out what little power they actually possess.

They have not thought it through. Like most government agencies they are too accustomed to handing down orders and people scrambling to comply, because no one wants to go to jail. But, there is a point where society has been so devastated by this approach that every new order will be enforced at the cost of lives.

That realization is coming to the forefront in Connecticut, but it is a realization that will be coming to many other government agencies in the next few months as each state takes a swing at oppression. Second Amendment activists are not the only Americans who feel this way. There are Fourth Amendment activists who are just waiting for the festivities to begin. There are First Amendment (religious freedom) advocates who are also watching the confrontation in Connecticut, wondering if this is the chance they have been waiting for to push their agenda. Once it starts, there are all sorts of special interests who will take the opportunity to press their case.

The dangerous militarization of police departments has raised alarms among numerous citizen groups who have watched the police deal lethally with the homeless, the mentally handicapped and innocent citizens who found themselves the victims of mistaken identity. This is not isolated to any state and it is not going unnoticed. This video has been making the rounds and should be taken seriously as it is a response to the abuses that have already taken place and a sign that citizens are starting to wake up to the fact that they can no longer trust the government, especially the police departments.

Initially the governments who have always encountered a compliant citizenry, will be confident they can put down the resistance. They think they know what they are doing, but they have not seen  American resistance for a very long time. Americans are inventive and in positions to cause all manner of havoc in ways that don't even occur to those in government agencies, yet. Anyone could be an agent of the patriot; anyone could be an informant to the patriot; anyone could be a saboteur. No one even knows how infiltrated the police departments are at this point.

There are many orders that will be given by politicians desperate to exert their control as it begins to slip that will put the lives of officers in harms way. At some point the officer starts to question those orders when he has witnessed the deaths of his fellow officers and had to look their families in the face and admit that their partner died serving a questionable warrant.

No, I don't expect police officers to come to the rescue and refuse the orders, not while they feel like they are going to win. The problem comes when they realize that they are going to lose; that they are already losing and then the question becomes whether their lives are worth protecting the politicians who consider them nothing but rabid dogs to be sicced on the enemy, i.e. their neighbors. At that point the smarter ones have to recognize the price being paid is not worth the benefit.

Unfortunately for these government stooges, there is no way for them to back down. It is not in their DNA. They are bullies and have relied too long on deadly force to get their way. They are busily making the case and providing cover for any action Constitutional rights groups might take against them, because they are slowly alienating the average citizen.

Anonymous (in the video above) is not even a Second Amendment group. Who knows who they are, except they are just one of millions of disaffected citizens who feel the government is out of control. When a government frees itself from restraint it embarks on a treacherous path to oblivion. Sadly, there is a lot of blood that will serve as paving.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

The Indomitable Spirit of An Armed Citizenry

It is painful to watch the last spasms of America playing out as clearly as if reading it from history. America is not just a place, it is a set of ideals so successful that it is easy to let one or two slide in the interest of peace. While the true ideal of liberty might be able to take a body blow now and then, it is always with the understanding that there will be a counter-punch that will set things right.

The clear decline of America is that it has stopped counter-punching and is just lying on the ropes being pummeled by a merciless federal government. The government has been so focused on landing one blow after another that it has become confident of a knockout. It will succeed in stripping every last vestige of liberty from the people once and for all. But, that changes the game.

When there is no hope of recovery, when each person looks at life as an endless string of abuses heaped on it by the rulers (who have long since ceased to be representatives) the only thing left to the individual is to fight.

The lessons being learned now in Connecticut and perhaps New Jersey and New York is that once the veil of legitimacy falls from the rulers and they are exposed as mere tyrants there is nothing of the state left to protect them. Passing laws is now and always has been with the consent of the governed. This is not an American truth, it is a universal truth.

Americans don't like to think of themselves as giving consent to all of the laws they detest, but the power is always within them to defy those laws. There is the illusion of voting that generally keeps the majority mollified and tolerant of the actions of elected representatives, but when that illusion fades and it becomes obvious that anyone who holds office will act in the same manner as those just put out of office, the reality of the corruption becomes inescapable.

When it comes to the violation of rights, there is no law that is legal and there is no protection from the voting booth that will allow it. When it comes to the Second Amendment, there can be no room for tolerance, because the Second Amendment is the only right capable of securing the others. This is why the stand must be made and why now the crucial test of legitimacy is being played out in Connecticut, New Jersey and New York.

The question in Connecticut is no less than the question of the republic. Does it stand, or does it fall? Do rights mean something, or nothing? Are we slaves, or free? Are the people the final arbiter of their rights, or are they serfs bound to the dictates of political judges paid by the federal government?

No human being is without these inalienable rights, it is just a matter of enforcement. Policemen are just that, police. They like to be called law enforcement now, but they are not law enforcement, the people are the enforcers of the law. They enforce it with compliance, or they enforce their rights with disobedience. They have been silent for all these past decades and their silence has led to this confrontation.

There are much greater issues at hand in Connecticut than some might understand. If America can be disarmed, it will not only remove the deterrent of the government to act as it will, it will also encourage foreign invasion. The federal government is weak, in debt, unreliable and ripe for concessions to foreign powers. Without the indomitable spirit of an armed citizenry, the people cannot long depend on liberty or the security of the United States.

Friday, March 21, 2014

The Liberty To Disobey

There are only three types of people in America: the good, the evil and the zombies. While the Zombie theme is big in Hollywood and video games, it escapes me. Yet, how else to describe all of those people who, in these incredibly interesting times (for good or bad) are oblivious; who are focused on their own petty lives rather than the dramatic evolution going on around them?

The world teeters on the brink of World War III, because Putin will never stop now. Whatever chance there was to limit Putin's desire for an empire, it is gone. How long before he invests in an effort to get California to hold a secession vote? I know there are more communists in California than dedicated patriots.

But then, it is getting to be a bit of a curious dilemma for those of us who lived through the Cold War and always associated the Soviet Union with Communism. What is Russia? They hold elections and it would be difficult to consider that Putin is not actually popular enough to win those elections. At the same time, this great nation has turned its back on everything that made it different from the Soviet Union. We live now through looking glass.

Which brings me back to the first point: the good, the evil and the zombies.

The Good: those of us who believe in the principles of the Constitution; that our rights are God-given and our nation's most important documents were drafted with securing these rights as the primary goal. Now, lest one think me simple-minded, it might very well have been a bunch of rich, white men who drafted the documents they did to protect their own assets and encouraged a bunch of backward yokels to put down their lives to secure those riches to themselves. If that's how one chooses to see our history, it tells me so much more about them than it does about the founders.

The fact is, I don't care what their motivations were or what they were trying to accomplish by drafting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The point so many cynics miss is that it doesn't matter. A true patriot feels the deep gash of tyranny from their first encounter. The lovers of liberty recall that moment the state became bigger than anyone else, bigger than their parents or teachers.

What the founders brought to us, intentionally or unwittingly, is the vital concept that individual human beings were greater than the state. By having God-given rights we are more powerful than the state and that when the state interferes and denies us our rights we have the right and the obligation to do away with it. We have the duty to overthrow that dangerous and abusive state and recreate one that will be better designed to secure those rights.

The Evil: those who would deny anyone God's gift of liberty. Evil can only describe a person or a thing dedicated to the enslavement of the masses, discarding the great and noble principle of individual liberty. In the book of Genesis God created Adam from the earth and Eve from his rib. But, if you read the text and think about it, the first thing God gave to Man was liberty to choose whether or not to eat of the tree of knowledge. While Adam and Eve abused their liberty and disobeyed God, if it were not for the liberty to do so, they would have been mere drones of God to do as he instructed. And so, those who have chosen to so construct society to force, through corrupt laws and a corrupt system, to honor themselves as God are truly an evil to be engaged and conquered.

The Zombies: those who blindly follow evil, binding themselves and others to the construct of society to deny rights to the individual in favor of a better good. The Zombies have no mind of their own, but are fed on the enslavement of others. They only feel whole when in total compliance with the dictates of degenerate leaders.

------------------------

Understanding the state of this nation, then, leaves one with only one course of action: outright rebellion. Good must vanquish evil. It is too late to vote. It is too late to protest. The society that has shaken off the concept of individual power over the state must be destroyed, utterly, and replaced with a renewed dedication to that principle. If God gave man the liberty to disobey, it is only right that we do so to preserve His gift to man. And, just so we get this straight, the vast amount of zombies do not matter.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

The Taste Of Crow

The gun owners of Connecticut have an opportunity to turn the clock backward on the concept of gun confiscation. The support for them is nationwide and being watched by every Second Amendment advocate across the country. Patriots are watching too and ready to support their efforts with their lives.

The legislature has overplayed their hand. They are accustomed to using law enforcement as thugs sent out to collect protection payments for their nefarious schemes. Some cops are thugs and like the role, but not all of them.

A few things the legislature might want to consider before they reap the whirlwind: the rights they intend to violate are not just those of the gun owners of Connecticut. An effective confiscation would set a precedent for every other state with the same idea, so Connecticut is poised to cross the Rubicon.

Very probably the legislators, whose addresses are known to Second Amendment advocates everywhere, have acted in a simple-minded and arrogant way. Perhaps they do not know the consequences of their actions. Call it stupidity, simplicity or arrogance, the result is the same. As soon as the first "new Ruby Ridge" takes place, they will be open to retaliation.

Typically, the concept of retaliation for passing a law would be unthinkable, but these foolish legislators, who have exploited the deaths of children to promote their careers, have failed to grasp the enormity of their actions.

Due to the current militarized nature of law enforcement, including SWAT type raids for such minor offenses as drug possession, where a presumption of firearms is used as an excuse to burst into homes unannounced shooting anything that moves, they have willingly, lustfully exposed innocents to the violence of such raids. They are doing nothing other than attempting to terrorize the gun-owning public. For what, a chance to win an election? To make a statement?

The most rational response would be to repeal this law before a lot of people get hurt. Law enforcement should encourage the legislature to back down, because it is their lives that are on the line. Of course, the police don't see it that way, because they are not considering that it will be a multi-directional firing range.

What law enforcement should be aware of is that a lot of veterans are on the other side of this issue. A lot of police officers are on the other side of this issue, some of whom might be providing intelligence on the most ardent supporters of the confiscation (probably to distinguish themselves from the others to avoid confusion when it gets hot). There are a lot of people's relatives in the state who might not restrain themselves when the enemies of liberty are so clearly defined.

It is a bad law: it is bad for Connecticut; it is bad for law enforcement; it is bad for gun owners, but where it gets bad for the legislators, is that it is bad for the families they have placed in harms way with their hubris. Sometimes the taste of crow is better than the taste of blood. Be reasonable, be responsible. Do the right thing.

Saturday, March 15, 2014

Gun Confiscation: Organized, Sanctioned Terrorism

The State of Connecticut is writing checks its police forces cannot cash. The backlash from Officer Joe Peterson's tirade against a gun owner, culminating in his statement that he couldn't wait to get the order to kick in John Cinque's door (because Cinque openly refuses to obey the ban) grew to such proportions that the police chief sat down with John Cinque to see how to diffuse the threats coming into the Branford Police Department, not just Joe Peterson, either.

While I strongly disagree with Cinque's proposal to quiet the storm, it shows that when the people decide that the government is out of line, their resistance will bring even the typically arrogant police department to a point of desperation. It is instructive.

In my opinion, Cinque's response to the overture of peace should simply have been to tell the police chief: "Reassure the public that your officers will not enforce this illegal law. Openly and publicly  inform the legislature of the same."

The dynamic is simple: it is impossible for the police to enforce a gun law if gun owners are serious about refusing to comply. This is personal, they need to understand that simple fact. When cops threaten to invade one's home, placing a person's family in harm's way it is terrorism. It might be organized and sanctioned terrorism, but it is terrorism nonetheless.

Couple all of this with the reality that our economy is teetering on meltdown, the absence of a weapon in the home is reckless. While liberals are incapable of admitting that fact, they will soon get a first-class course in the intransigence of reality. They will be willing to sell their Prius for guns in the coming days, but those who have guns don't need a Prius.

When every inner-city cesspool looks like New Orleans in the wake of Katrina, a lot of things will change.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Monday, March 10, 2014

Ours To Defend

There are some hard truths to be faced in the coming weeks. Ukraine is instructive to people who will go to the barricades and face down a tyrant. Connecticut is instructive to people who will stand before the blue line of the tyrant's muscle and give themselves to expose the demon's face. Ruby Ridge and Waco are instructive to people who will hunker down and separate themselves from society in order to survive.

Then, there are those who will wait on the Supreme Court to rule that all of the Second Amendment infringements are unconstitutional and make the government forces stand down. They will wait for the Supreme Court to rule that the NSA spying is unconstitutional and make the government stop it. They will wait for the Supreme Court to rule that Obamacare violates the First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and the "free exercise thereof" clause.

The trouble with all of the above is that it requires a Supreme Court to act as a neutral and honest advocate for the Constitution, which it is not. In ruling after ruling it has arrived at the point of Constitutional decision and has chosen again and again to rule, not in accordance with the language and intent of the Constitution, but by how that ruling will affect society and whether they (the justices) want society to move in that direction or not. It is evident from their often twisted logic in written decisions that these "decisions" are mere justifications for their political viewpoint. Then, they rule to their political convictions. If the Supreme Court had ever been an honest advocate of the Constitution and the supreme rights of the people none of the issues before us today would exist.

In Connecticut the people are faced with a decision much the same as the Supreme Court is occasionally faced with a decision. Since I hold that the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of Constitutionality, but that determination always lies with the people themselves, it is incumbent upon those citizens of Connecticut whose rights and liberties are today infringed and damaged to decide what is and what is not Constitutional.

The Constitutional legitimacy for the citizens to regard this law as null and void is simple. The Connecticut law ironically called Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety Act, falls down on a few different Constitutionally protected rights, first and foremost is freedom from "ex post facto" laws, creating felons of people who acted lawfully (prior to the signing of the bill) by owning the firearms the state has now decided to confiscate. It also creates felons of innocent persons without due process of law. Simply passing a law is not due process, especially where it is an "ex post facto" law. Due process for criminality to be established requires intent, accusation, trial, legal defense, judgment and sentence (but Connecticut is often vague on the law as it has so many cases challenged on the "ex post facto" clause). That the act violates the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is obvious.

Where the Supreme Court addresses the Second Amendment, it usually hinges its justifications for violations of the Constitution on a few precepts that: 1) militia is defined by congress as the people whom the state might keep in reserve to protect the laws and integrity of the Constitution; 2) that when the Constitution refers to "people" it does not mean people, other than those people who belong to the militia.

What the Supreme Court does not address (conveniently) is that it was never the intent of the founders to allow a standing army among the people in the form the modern police force. It anticipated that the people themselves, being so armed and organized under the Constitution and constituting a militia as a consequence of citizenship, would protect their own liberties against tyranny; they would defend the laws passed by themselves as citizens. No law would have been enforced that went against the liberty of the individual. Certainly, no law infringing the right of the people (militia) to keep and bear arms would be enforced by those who would have to enforce it through possession of those very arms.

Had the court always ruled correctly there would not be a police force as we know it today: as a standing army among the people. Rather, one might draw police duty as one draws jury duty. To that extent one would not be willing to violate another's rights for fear of the other, or a relative, drawing police duty at some time in the future. Had American society always been based on the concept of an actual militia, there is not one crime that might be committed that any citizen, having drawn "police duty" at some point in the past, would not be trained and knowledgeable enough to prevent or empowered to interdict.

A modern police force is nothing if not a standing army among the people who today protect the tyrants from the consequences of their illegal and unconstitutional actions.  

How the citizens of Connecticut go about enforcing the rights they have might be chosen from any of the above options, i.e. direct confrontation via protest; standing in front of the blue line of tyranny; hunkering down in their homes and waiting for the authorities to breach the front door; or waiting for the Supreme Court to decide their rights. The only caveat being that since the violation is of a national nature and can set precedent for other states to follow suit, it is also incumbent upon any whose rights might be violated to also stand with their brothers in Connecticut to decide the issue. 

When a government, of whatever form, has so devolved from its origins, with representatives and justices unloosed from obedience to their oaths, that it has become hostile to its own stated intent it gives license to the people to act in whatever manner which is most likely to secure to themselves the rights and liberties promised, in simple language, to the free citizens of the United States and Connecticut.

To that purpose, the first act needs to be intelligence.

It is vitally important for those in Connecticut to know where the first assault of the state against the the people will occur and to give warning to patriots, just as it was important for the Minutemen to know when the British soldiers would march against the liberties of the citizens of that age.

It is important to inform other citizens, whose rights are offended by the actions of the Connecticut legislature and its standing army, of those violations of the Constitution which might be video-taped, or recorded in one way or another. It is critical to expose the State of Connecticut's intent to deprive their citizens of life, liberty or property without due process of law and to use deadly force against those who would defend those rights. To whatever degree the members of a police force might agree with these views, it is their obligation to assist their fellow citizens in obtaining this information.

We live in a different age, an age of technology that the government has come to use against its citizens, but it does not own this technology. It is the duty of the patriot to use technology to secure their rights, expose tyranny and justify the actions of resistance. Intelligence is power.

Today, we are faced with having to overcome centuries of dishonest rulings of the Supreme Court; of unfair bureaucratic tyranny with the powers of a police state; of local governments drunk with dictatorial excess; of corporations and special interests turning the law to its own ends and against the powerlessness of the individual.

We are given the rights of liberty by God, not some piece of paper. The Constitution merely acknowledges what the founders knew as inviolable rights of the people, but they are always ours to defend and protect as we see fit. Since force is the method of government to take these rights, force is available to retain them.

(Will I go to Connecticut? It is my duty

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Domestic Cold War

Somehow, when it is the agreements the U.S. Government officials are counting on, words are important, they have definitions and purpose. It is amusing to watch them invoke every argument of the Constitutionalists to justify whatever actions they might have to take in the Ukrainian crisis.

Is Hillary Clinton talking about the issue of gun confiscation in Connecticut?

“Now if this sounds familiar, it’s what Hitler did back in the 30s,” Clinton said.

No, she was talking about Russia using Russian citizens in Crimea as an excuse to enter the territory, but the rhetoric the leftists use sound eerily familiar to that used by Constitutionalists to put their point across. When American citizens invoke this rhetoric, however, the government(s) have a way of dismissing it.

John Kerry recently invoked the Helsinki Final Act as justification for the United States to seek sanctions against Russia. Is he trying to say that a document means something? Is he using the violation of an agreement as a pretext to action? This can't be, not from an Administration that finds no agreement, or simple piece of paper like the Constitution to have any meaning whatsoever.

I'm not sure how an ally of the United States can hang their hat on anything the Obama Administration promises. Not that this Administration is any different from any other in that respect. There is no legitimate government in the United States. Any government that frees itself from the bondage of law is no longer a government, but an occupying force.

The American patriot can just as legitimately claim that whatever actions he takes is in defense of the original agreement: the Constitution.

Make no mistake, America has been occupied by hostile forces from within. This is a conclusion that many Americans feel deep in their bones, without official declarations to the fact, or the honesty of Vladimir Putin.

As far as Ukraine goes, it is easy to see that due to the Budapest Memorandum the United States is obligated to come to its defense, not because the memorandum demands it, but out of a sense of honor for the intent of the agreement. I doubt that this will actually happen, because we are cursed with an Administration who sees no agreement through any other lens than one of a self-serving nature.

If Obama thought he could divert attention from the failure of Obamacare ahead of the 2014 elections, which might save him the Senate, he would put boots on the ground. If playing peace-maker helps his image he will do that, regardless of the blood spilled not only in Ukraine, but anywhere else Putin seeks to reassert authority. Regardless of the tack that Obama finally takes, it will be heralded as the greatest bit of statesmanship in history by the propagandist media.

The one take-away for the patriot out of the whole Ukrainian crisis is to understand the similarity between an occupied Ukraine and an occupied America. One half of American citizens are routinely belittled and denigrated by the occupying forces in the cities and towns all across America. Police units gear up and seek to punish Constitutionalists for their beliefs, religious or political. Whole agencies of the federal government have targeted and routinely spy on these people. They are confronted by their "masters" in Connecticut with force.

Every day the black heart of our "masters" around the nation demonstrate their hostility to their "servants." For instance, because it illuminates so many of the wrongs in our society today: in Massachusetts, George Thompson openly filmed Officer Thomas Barboza who was engaged in a loud and profane conversation on his cell phone in a quiet neighborhood. When Barboza realized that he was being filmed he charged Thompson and entered his property with the intent to arrest him for illegally "wiretapping." Thompson was arrested and charged with illegally wiretapping and resisting arrest. Anyone who is surprised by the "resisting arrest" charge knows nothing about police interaction with citizens today. It is almost obligatory should one assert their rights or claim to be doing nothing illegal.

Now, here comes the interesting part and why I included this in the post. When asked about the case Fall River Police Chief Daniel Racine defended the officer saying: "I think we all have our basic rights and I think people should not record others surreptitiously or secretively.” The police officer suddenly has rights! No citizen has rights, any NSA goon will tell you that.

Next in this informative case we find that the video Thompson shot on the cell phone disappeared while the phone was in police custody. It disappeared. A citizen would immediately be charged with destruction of evidence, but of course Racine won't recognize that crime at all. Read the whole nasty business here.

That is still just an example of the arrogance of our captors; of our ideological invaders; our occupiers. We are in a domestic Cold War.

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Petrie Dish of Liberty


This nation is at a balancing point where finally the actions of the government have become so egregious that the moral scale tips. It is a psychological point where a greater degree of Americans are predisposed to believe that the government of the United States is immoral and that opposition to it is moral.

This is a dangerous demarcation line that truly no government can afford to pass. When a government passes that line, bad things happen. Most of the way through the Soviet history the population clung to the myth that Stalin was the savior of the nation, so much so that there were those who lived through it that believed it was all done behind Stalin's back.

In this country there is the myth that "our government wouldn't really do that" but there is a point where even the staunchest believers have to give up that illusion. For many that point came as a result of 9-11, when the war on terror began. This is all a little bit simplistic, but for purposes of clarity it needs to be explained this way.

Our great intelligence community is not geared to protect us from terrorism. It cannot infiltrate the ideologically motivated terrorists, because it has nothing to offer them; there is a racial difference between Arabs and whites which was not there in the Cold War; there is a language barrier also that was easier to overcome in Europe. In the Cold War there were simple requests and simple rewards. One can always be bought off in the European world view, but not so in the world of Islam.

Billions of dollars were dumped into the war on terror with no where for it to go. Yes, technological advances in surveillance and drones and smart weapons were improved with all of these funds, but that is a double-edged sword as it can be used elsewhere. So, the intelligence community turned itself inside out and began to use those resources on the American people. Since there is not really much internal terrorism, it had to create some in order for all of these people and all of these funds to be used. Anyone who understands politics and budgets gets the point I am making.

Surely the dollars spent have foiled a few actual Islamic terror attacks, at least that is a reasonable conclusion, though due to the nature of the intelligence community it would not be widely known to the average citizen. Still, the dynamic is to use funds and equipment when they are available. To that extent, there needs to be a certain justification for it  and when the governments cannot get enough justification, they have a way of producing it.

The proof of this is evident in the NSA spying; the growth in size and scope of the TSA (branching out to cover sports events); internal surveillance; goading of Second Amendment activists and Christian activists. They are, by passing illegal laws such as the ex post facto Connecticut laws and hostility toward Christian religious freedoms, pushing the buttons of domestic terrorism for which they are better geared to deal with, or so they think.

One might not agree that Connecticut is the demarcation line, maybe it is, maybe it is not, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is a petrie dish; a moment of reflection; a moment for which to train. I don't pretend to be on the ground, or know the up-to-the-minute aspects of it, but if one looks at Connecticut and sees what is inevitable, then it is time to use Connecticut as common point of reference.

If indeed the State of Connecticut is serious about gun confiscation it could provide that dangerous moral division in the minds of the American people, or at least enough of them to tip the rest. So, what should be happening now?

Right now the Second Amendment activists in Connecticut should be preparing the battlefield: identifying and recruiting Oathkeepers to provide intelligence (sure some risk to employment, but if done right that is not necessary); developing some Minutemen who can remove the people and weapons that have become targets of confiscation and quickly developing an active form of resistance (think IRA political tactics). Think of it as a mini Cold War. The next few weeks are crucial.

If Connecticut means to have a war, the citizens there will not be alone, because this is a cause worthy of every patriot's attention and dedication. What is learned in Connecticut will be invaluable to training the rest of the nation no matter how it turns out. If this egregious abuse of power can be politically shut down, it will teach the community how to go about it. If it cannot be shut down politically, tactics and organization could be developed.

The trouble, now and always, is the Patriot community is so busy trying to look intelligent, clever and being ahead of the game there is no common ground. There is no strategy. There are a hundred different camps of thought so that any move one might make another will call those actions silly and uninformed. One ounce of action is better than one pound of distraction.

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

To Uphold and Defend


Lt. J. Paul Vance is now the face of the gun-grabbing liberal establishment. Anyone following the stalemate in Connecticut have probably listened to or read transcripts of his conversation with a person claiming to be the wife of a person on the confiscation list. What Vance revealed is the true heart of those in law enforcement today.

"I don't want to talk about the Constitution. At all," he states at one point when asked if he had taken an oath to the Constitution in connection with the subject of constitutionality of the ex post facto law making hundreds of thousands of Connecticut citizens retroactive felons. I bet he didn't want to talk about the Constitution, because he has no understanding of it.

Just so it is clear to Vance and other law enforcement officers who might attempt a door-kicking session over a clearly unconstitutional law, it is the duty of the officer to know the law and to follow the law. When one swears to uphold the Constitution (the question being asked when he made the statement above) one needs to read it, first. It is their duty not to engage in enforcement of clearly unconstitutional laws, they are void and illegal. The law will not protect them from their actions.

Let me call Vance's attention to Article 1, Section 9, Third clause:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. 


And just so Vance doesn't think this just applies to the Congress and federal law, the Constitution reiterates this sentiment in Article 1, Section 10, First clause:

No State (emphasis mine) shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.


So when they do engage in the door-kicking they have threatened, they might review this from the Supreme Court:

In Stogner v. California, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled that a law extending a criminal statute of limitations after the existing limitations period expires violates the U. S. Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution (123 S. Ct. 2446 (2003)). The case arose from the 1998 trial and conviction of Marion Stogner for sexually abusing his daughters between 1955 and 1973. Justice Breyer delivered the Court’s opinion, joined by justices Stevens, O’Connor, Souter, and Ginsberg. His analysis turned on the nature of the harms that California’s law created, past Court decisions, and the long line of authority holding that a law of this type violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, joined by justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. In his view, the law was permissible because it (1) did not criminalize previously innocent conduct, (2) limited the punishment the prosecutor could seek to that authorized by law at the time the offense was committed, and (3) did not alter the government’s burden to establish the elements of the crime. He also disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of prior cases. Source

When Vance claimed, in his now infamous tirade, that until the Supreme Court rules that it is not an illegal law, it is a legal law, he might want to view the case above with the understanding that the Connecticut law does precisely what Justice Kennedy claimed that the California law did not, which is criminalize previously legal conduct.

The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue, granted the above case had to do with extending statute of limitations where illegal behavior had been committed, the Connecticut law is in conflict with this ruling for the reasons Kennedy cited in writing the dissent.

From the source cited above, it is clear that Connecticut has a bad habit of writing ex post facto laws as the source continues to see how that ruling would affect other Connecticut cases soon to go before the Court.

If there is one single law that should be passed in the states and in the federal government it should be that no office which must swear an oath to the Constitution can be occupied by any individual who cannot demonstrate before a diverse panel a knowledge of the Constitution.

There is plenty of time between the election and the inauguration to study, to read and demonstrate a full understanding of the document they swear to uphold and defend.

Monday, March 3, 2014

Campaign of Cannibalism

When settlers came to America they had to struggle from the ground up. There was no existing government with which they had to contend. The only government they had, they brought with them in the form of mutual compacts. This was the miracle of self-governance into which most had been born and had become accustomed until the colonies began to create wealth that inflamed the greed of Britain.

As a means to enrich itself, Britain passed laws against the liberty of the settlers; choosing for itself a larger and larger share of the profits from their labor. It took more than a century for the laws to become so oppressive that the colonists began to resist, eventually throwing off that yoke. Ingrained in the American psyche, however, was the thought that they could govern themselves; that they needed no master from whom to beg privileges. All they needed was the liberty to create and the freedom to dare.

Now, as American sloth and apathy (encouraged by would-be masters) has replaced those noble instincts toward self-government and self-reliance the mechanism of strength and liberty is failing. Like a long neglected engine, it is starting to falter. It is a mixture of ingredients that make the American engine run smoothly, but that recipe is lost. Those entrusted with it have replaced self-reliance with dependency; liberty with compliance; duty with force and pride with shame.

The Constitution called for a small federal government designed to deal effectively with disputes among the states and with foreign powers, but little else. It called for the states to draft laws and provide for the needs of the population as the people saw fit. It called for defense of the borders and the rule of law. It called for individual liberty protected from the tyranny of mob rule.

As long as America followed that form it was able to grow into a powerful economic and industrial nation. It is this enormous power that the world has come to envy and subsequently detest. It is the peach that seems ripe for the picking, but it is all an illusion. It is not the shiny cars and big houses that made America wealthy; it was not the government treasury that created wealth; it was not the luck of being born in a rich and plentiful land that made it powerful; it was the simple combination of each individual having the liberty to create and laws to protect his success that produced the wealth from which everything else was possible.

The laws of the United States were designed to protect the individual so that he would be free to toil along in his shed building something that would make his life easier. Nothing more. It is as simple as that. They were designed to protect him from patent infringements; from over-taxation; from being forced to work for someone else; from the government taking his shed and his tools to be put to use elsewhere. Why? Because the founders knew that if he were free to pursue his dreams and to rise above the low station from where he began, that he would create a strong and vibrant nation. They knew this because they had just seen the proof of it unfold before them.

When the government of the United States began to see that one guy, not as something to be protected, but something to be burdened with taxes and regulations it authored its own destruction. The government now sees the rights of the individual as barriers to its own power and something to be destroyed, but the power of the government is in the rights of the individual. The government has begun a campaign of cannibalism and soon will be consumed.

Saturday, March 1, 2014

Hypocrites of the Worst Sort

The hardest thing for a rational person to understand about the left is its inherent hypocrisy. It is not just the average bit of hypocrisy that all people have simply by being human, it is an intentional type of hypocrisy that allows them impossible political positions. It goes beyond mere justification, or a shrug of the shoulders at some incongruity of opinion, it is an evil sort of ideological hypocrisy that revels in the cleverness of the lie.

One example of this was the Monica Lewinsky affair with Bill Clinton. The most powerful man in the world, charismatic and a champion of sexual harassment legislation; a supporter of the feminist movement which helped to author sexual harassment laws suggesting that there was no such thing as a "consensual" relationship between a supervisor and an underling. That there was always an aspect of rape to any sexual relationship between a boss and a worker. Somehow, when it came to Bill Clinton, a Democrat President of the United States, a liberal who had some form of sex with an intern; not even a part of the staff; barely even an adult, it was just sex and the left justified it, against all of their previous statements, against the very strength of the argument by members of NOW that stated that such a relationship constituted rape.

A rational person would think this sort of issue would pit the National Organization for Women against a popular president, even one of their own. That in order to remain faithful to their own principles that NOW would have to call for his impeachment, that they would hold up signs and march day and night until the scoundrel was hounded out of office. Silence. Nothing. Hypocrisy.

History repeats itself. Today Barack Obama is free to bring the heat against anyone, any state that does not support the gay agenda. He engages Uganda on passing an anti-gay law and threatens them with the loss of financial support, which will not hurt Uganda itself so much as it will hurt the poor people of Uganda. In order to pander to the gay community, Barack Obama will punish the poor of Uganda and that is fine with leftists, even though they claim defense of the poor as one of their issues. Yes, Barack Obama is the champion of gay rights the same way Bill Clinton was the champion of women's rights.

Given this, how is it possible that Barack Obama supports every Muslim nation, is tight with the Muslim Brotherhood, sends them billions of dollars in support knowing full well that gays are treated worse in Islamic nations than anywhere else in the world? Any nation that uses Sharia as the basis for its laws holds homosexuality out as a sin punishable by death. Where is the outrage by the gay community over his support for these regimes? Silence from the homosexual community in America. Nothing. Hypocrisy.

This is why it is virtually impossible to have a rational discussion with a leftist, because there are no principles at play. There is no hard line that they will not yield for one of their own. Yet, time and time again conservatives cling to their principles and turn on politicians and church leaders who are found not to uphold the values they preach. As soon as one pins down a leftist on such hypocrisy they jump and jerk around and point fingers back at something else, some other claim. They never answer the questions put to them, but find some other argument to distract the discussion from the fact that they are hypocrites of the worst sort, ideological and evil.

About Me

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