« please, a joyous holiday season, to all my readers!!! | Main | to be learned from the events in iran ... »

December 24, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Lance de Boyle

Well, that makes two of us.


While I may agree with sentiments expressed above, I see little hope for a desirable end to such action. Here are my reasons.

At present the most heavily armed groups in this country are street gangs and white supremacist nut cases. I have nothing in common with either and I seriously doubt you will find a George Washington in either camp and (make no mistake) a George Washington would be necessary.

We live in the Disinformation Age. This is probably the most ill-informed generation since the Dark Ages. Do we really want to trust the end result of an armed revolt to a populous who couldn't name the current or last vice president, speaker of the House or Senate majority leader? Ever watched Jay Walking?

I believe in the Constitution of the United States, the Golden Rule and Murphy's Law. The Golden Rule and Murphy's Law will be in effect for eternity. The Constitution is in our hands and I believe the most effective way to preserve it is to use it. It is all well and good (and more fun) to stockpile weapons and ammo and make "Liberty or Death" pronouncements but the best and most lasting victory will only be won by winning hearts and minds. This will take a lot of hard work. It will take harassing elected officials with calm, carefully reasoned, invective-free, factual communications explaining to them just exactly why they are completely full of shit. It will take writing the same kind of letters to the editors of your local newspapers (and don't make the mistake of discounting this medium. There are many potential friends who still read newspapers.) Lastly, it will take climbing into the political trenches, becoming politically active and getting your hands dirty with something other than gun shot residue.

America is still the best and brightest hope for mankind and the worst thing we could do is allow our Great Experiment to fail because we were too lazy to employ the system we created to make the changes we desire.

Yes, this country's backside is in an enormous crack. Yes, it is our fault and yes, it is our responsibility to make it right. Shall we choose the hard road, vindicating the efforts of our Founders or the blood-soaked path to an almost certain hell?


I'm going to agree with USBeast.

I'd like to also add that this country's jewel is not it's 2nd Amendment, but the 5th Amendment. We have the right to due process. We have our Constitution and our laws and the ability to correct our government through this avenue.

We know how to pull a trigger, but do we know how to move a judge in our favor?

john jay

usbeast & orlando:

i read your remarks with no small interest. they are well stated, well thought out, and to my mind very persuasive, ... , indeed, to have been entirely so, until only recently.

i no longer have as much faith in the electoral process as you both, however, for reasons stated in the post.

i am of the opinion that obama and his ilk do not intend to surrender power, and that they have taken institutional measures which will secure them a hold on the government which will not be wrested from them by the electoral process, and that in order to preserve their grip on power they will limit speech and assembly on the part of their opponents.

it is indeed an irony that two former law professors, that being president clinton and resident obama have both flaunted election finance and voter registration law, and, with regard to the latter, have attempted to institutionalize voter fraud via acorn and the s.e.i.u.

i am not reassured by obama's attempts to get a domestic federal police force under his sway in the slightest.

you both decry my thinking that recourse to violent insurrection may be necessary to reclaim our liberties, instead arguing that faith in due process and our rights of speech and organization will carry the day, and that this is to be preferred to the "hell" of bloodshed.

i would remind you first of the words of no less an authority on the american constitution than james madison, who remarked that the words of the constitution were only parchment protections in the absence of a populace not jealously guarded of its liberties.

and, i would remind you of history.

these concepts were not born, fully flowered and self executed. they were girded and given substance by political conflict, quite a lot if not most of it bloody and violent.

the magna carta, for instance, was not freely surrendered by a british crown recognizing the wisdom of its provisions, but wrested from a sovereign who gave way at the point of spear and sword.

our own consitution and bill of rights were secured by the most prolonged war in the history of this nation, and at great cost. an entire generation of leadership, whose prudence and reluctance to enter into war is reflected in the declaration of independence, pledged their lives, their property and their sacred honor to the task of winning those freedoms.

james madison, alexander hamilton and john jay, collectively the "publius" of the "federalist papers," wrote those essays in support of ratification of the constitution immediately after having prosecuted violent revolution in support of the concepts enshrined in the majesty of our constitution.

when they wrote that free men, in order to secure their liberties, had the right to revolt against any leadership or faction that infringed on those liberties, they were not mouthing empty or casually held platitudes, but talking, what for them, was "real politik."

they had just fought and killed to secure those liberties.

you place great stock in the paper protection of the documents. but, the alien and sedition acts were passed with the ink not yet dry on the paper. the document housed the great compromise of slavery, a tension that lincoln recognized as irreconciliable with the liberty protected by the document. lincoln, surely no stranger to irony, must have recognized the deep intellectual contradiction when he suspended the right of habeas corpus to suppress insurrection in maryland and other states.

"due process" and blackstone's faith in the magistrate's fairness did not assure the triumph of liberty in such matters, and recourse to arms was necessarily taken to decide such ultimate issues.

i fear we are at such an impass. just as the founders sought political and diplomatic solution to the conflict with the english sovereign well after the shots fired at lexington and concord, i would favor avoidance of armed rebellion.

but, just as were the founding fathers, i think that we face modern foes who will, in the end, so seek to curtail or liberties, and our speech, that we will have no choice but to fight for them.

you say that guns are not so important in this.

i think that they are entirely pivotal. in my view, the fact that this population possesses arms, and is exhibiting a very prickly disposition toward them if our rights are tampered with, ... , is the thing that may yet prevent war.

i think that it is one thing to attempt to impose tyranny against a populace that is in awe of government power, and quite another to attempt it with a population armed to the teeth with firearms and determination.

don't give up your guns.

and, don't stop yelling how aggrieved you are by this "governance," at the top of your voice.

and, i wouldn't waste a whole lot of civility at this point, in making your points.

john jay


Not every one is a sheep dog. Those that aren't will either sit by and read about it, or get in the way.

Every sheep dog has already drawn a line in the rubble across which the enemies of liberty may not pass unharmed. For most, this is the threshold of their residence. We see how the enemies of liberty have smashed that thin line in places like the UK where you are jailed for defence of your own self on your own property.

So for those of you who doubt: do you not have such a line drawn at your door? What is the difference between defence of your life and defence of your liberty? Your doorway?

I suggest we remove our noses from our navels and take back our liberty peacefully, which still requires moving that line some place besides your own property. Otherwise, the boots, guns, and shackles know where you live.

john jay


walk where you wish, and speak freely.

your rights and liberties go with you. you set the lines. others set theirs.

it all works out.

john jay


Once We the People gain control of the government again, whether peacefully or otherwise, I think we need a provision in the Constitution that "adherence to any form of Marxism, Islam, or any other ideology inimical to individual liberty, SHALL DISQUALIFY a candidate from holding federal office." Once we get the leftists out, we need to KEEP them out of government forever. The character of the people that will hold government power is critical. When psychopaths like the radical leftists in the Obama administration hold power, everyone is in dire peril. One could even rightly say that the tyranny they seek to impose *IS* a state of WAR against the people, and the people are perfectly justified in taking whatever action is necessary against such oppressors to end their oppression, up to and including ending the leftists' very lives. If only individual-liberty-loving and respecting people are allowed to hold the reigns of power, there will be great assurance that everyone's inalienable rights will be respected and upheld, and any measures that end up harming liberty will be by mistake and not by design, and be promptly remedied.

FoC (Friend of Cicero)

Interesting comments all round. And all points are valid too, in most respects, IMO. These are frightening times and whilst the fiddler fiddles, I see a whisp of smoke in Rome. It's not burning just yet but it is smoldering.

jj, your line "...that obama and his ilk do not intend to surrender power......." says it all, I think. From a nobody Jr. Senator to the POTUS in 6 years? Besides George Soros, it is time to find out where these roots of financial support extend and reveal it all. Who else is feeding this root system?

I believe obama is a little cog in all this. He's the marionette.

A quick check at soros's "The Open Society Institute" site, we see where its goal is described as "building vibrant and tolerant democracies". We also see where his philosophy was developed at the "London School of Economics".

Anyone ever hear of the L. S. of E.?

Is it time to reactivate the demand to see 0's birth certificate and passport? Again, maybe a good starting point.

The view from here (north o' the 49th.


john jay

friend of cicero:

thank you for your comment.

in response to your inquiry about the london school of economics, ... , yes, i am familiar with the london school of economics, which has long been a font of doctrine for the british labour party and a very stauch supporter of marxist/socialist thought and policy in england.

i have written extensively about it in these pages.

please look to the following article i did on professor harold laski of the london school of economics, and his american colleague, harold lasswell, a professor of law at yale law school, and a leading american socialist.

the link is as follows:

http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2009/07/libwuhls-aint-the-new-aristocracy.html .

if you read this link, you will recognize in their writings from the 30-50's the modern british state apparatus, and the direct influence of their thought upon continental socialism, and the structure of the euro states.

john jay

p.s. i have done two or three allied posts on the nature of collectivist thought by looking at it from the opposite view, as present by fyodor dostoevsky. and, also by looking to the works of emma goldman, an old line radical anarchist from the 10', 20's and 30's in american & soviet politics: she was a russian immigrant.

Kevin Kehoe

I disagree with some of you gents vociferously , WOW big word.

Anyway .

It is the Declaration that started all this and will end it. IT gives us the Right and Duty to execute our forefathers will they gave us. TO be afraid of a little blood, hell a lot of blood is what has go us to where we are today.

Our forefathers were bloodthirsty because they had to be.

So we can too as long as Logic drives us. we Will be fine.
If we enjoy it then GOD will punish us.

Either way is is our reluctance to use Force which has gotten us here.
It has already been done before, and especially to us. Need I remind anyone of WACO? As far as I am concerned the bloodier the better , and the quicker we get it over with. If not wee see it to the end regardless.

We really need no new laws or tools , just vigilance and courage like our forefathers foresaw.

They knew what would come,so they gave us the tools.
The will we need to supply ourselves.


Kevin Kehoe


Watching the Grief and Disdain the Media have for Arapio, you think that stands a chance , let alone the support Obama is getting in Illegal funding.

NO all civilizations collapse this one is our fault . Our control is only I believe in what comes after.

Kevin Kehoe


Try a SCAR 17 you might like it.

Kevin Kehoe

Oh by the way John, I hope you have a long healthy time remaining.

We Need more MEN like you.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)