Monthly Archives: April 2010

>The Fort Knox Contretemps: “Army Preps for Tea Party ‘Terrorists’”

>
Go read this link, and then the rest of the story at Mike’s place.

Then contact your Congresscritters and ask them:

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

>Beck and Vandam On Communism

>Billy Beck is here.

Malone Vandam is here.

The Bad People mean what they say.

They likely have captured, aided by the Dead Elephants’ abdication of principles, the electoral process.

You will have only two choices:

Submit.

Or fight.

>The ‘Jews In The Attic’ Test

>Read it.

Learn it.

Apply it.

Live it.

(h/t to The Smallest Minority)

>That Was Then — This Is Now

>
From the Belmont Club:

That (the video above – ed.) was then.

This is now. As it turns out, decisions are now going to be made by a government appointed board whose rulings can’t be overturned unless both Congress and the President agree. Listen to the Orszag at the video at the link.

I like the part where Orszag claims this was all made clear up front. Ed Morrissey writes:

If anything, Orszag might be underestimating the difficulty in changing the IPAB’s decisions on rationing. The bill required a supermajority of 67 votes in the Senate to override the IPAB, which made Jim DeMint irate and prompted a big “I told you so” from Sarah Palin.

If Orszag’s remarks make any sense at all, then they suggest that IPAB is going to provide a brake against the “quantity” that can no longer be afforded. That sounds like they will be allocating less than will in the nature of things be demanded. Is this “rationing”? Well it all depends on what “is” is. Certainly it is a form of resource allocation and one that has all the hallmarks of finality…

Do you understand yet?

And no, even a Republican sweep in 2010 will not result in repeal of this abomination.

What are you going to do about that?

>A Meditation On The Tea Party Movement

>An essay worth your time from Charles Hugh Smith.

My primary question: what happens when enough tea partiers (the true grassroots kind) accept that the Dems and the Repubs are both faces of the same Beast and hence are incapable of reform?

>More Of The Chicago Way

>
Tam explains:


Oh, hell no.

Six years after the state Supreme Court dismissed his $433 million lawsuit against the gun industry, Mayor Daley today called for a change of venue — to the World Court normally reserved for disputes between nations and crimes against humanity.

Dick Daley is a venal, corrupt, lying sonofabitch, from a long line of venal, corrupt, lying sonsabitches. What he knows about ethics could be written on the head of a pin, in Sharpie. And this lowdown moral cripple, this wart on the body politic, smarting from one courtroom loss and pissing his britches over the possibility of another stinging defeat, this time in the highest court of the land, wants to run crying to the World Court, a body with all the majesty and legal authority of a mail-order divinity degree from Draw Tippy Turtle U., with his tale of woe.

Get bent, Dick. Go get good and bent.

Molon frickin’ Labe, you scrofulous little toad.

*****
David then gives his view here and here.

Keep an eye on this story, folks.

Nothing happens in Chicago politics — especially during the reign of the Mighty Kenyan — by accident.

>4/19 RTC: Bob Wright’s Speeches

>Mike links them here.

Very inspirational.

>Spooner: No Treason – Part 2: The Constitution

>Via the Molinari Institute, Lysander Spooner’s second No Treason essay:

NO TREASON

No. II.

The Constitution.

I.

NT.2.1.1 The Constitution says:

“We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

NT.2.1.2 The meaning of this is simply We, the people of the United States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution.

NT.2.1.3 The necessity for the consent of “the people” is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one’s consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of “the people of the United States” would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, “We, the people,” is, that the instrument offered membership to all “the people of the United States;” leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure.

NT.2.1.4 The agreement is a simple one, like any other agreement. It is the same as one that should say: We, the people of the town of A––––, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children.

NT.2.1.5 Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of “the people of the town of A––––,” should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such.

NT.2.1.6 Neither the conduct nor the rights of these signers would be improved at all by their saying to the dissenters: We offer you equal rights with ourselves, in the benefits of the church, school, hospital, or theatre, which we propose to establish, and equal voice in the control of it. It would be a sufficient answer for the others to say: We want no share in the benefits, and no voice in the control, of your institution; and will do nothing to support it.

NT.2.1.7 The number who actually consented to the Constitution of the United States, at the first, was very small. Considered as the act of the whole people, the adoption of the Constitution was the merest farce and imposture, binding upon nobody.

NT.2.1.8 The women, children, and blacks, of course, were not asked to give their consent. In addition to this, there were, in nearly or quite all the States, property qualifications that excluded probable one half, two thirds, or perhaps even three fourths, of the white male adults from the right of suffrage. And of those who were allowed that right, we know not how many exercised it.

NT.2.1.9 Furthermore, those who originally agreed to the Constitution, could thereby bind nobody that should come after them. They could contract for nobody but themselves. They had no more natural right or power to make political contracts, binding upon succeeding generations, than they had to make marriage or business contracts binding upon them.

NT.2.1.10 Still further. Even those who actually voted for the adoption of the Constitution, did not pledge their faith for any specific time; since no specific time was named, in the Constitution, during which the association should continue. It was, therefore, merely an association during pleasure; even as between the original parties to it. Still less, if possible, has it been any thing more than a merely voluntary association, during pleasure, between the succeeding generations, who have never gone through, as their fathers did, with so much even as any outward formality of adopting it, or of pledging their faith to support it. Such portions of them as pleased, and as the States permitted to vote, have only done enough, by voting and paying taxes, (and unlawfully and tyrannically extorting taxes from others,) to keep the government in operation for the time being. And this, in the view of the Constitution, they have done voluntarily, and because it was for their interest, or pleasure, and not because they were under any pledge or obligation to do it. Any one man, or any number of men, have had a perfect right, at any time, to refuse his or their further support; and nobody could rightfully object to his or their withdrawal.

NT.2.1.11 There is no escape from these conclusions, if we say that the adoption of the Constitution was the act of the people, as individuals, and not of the States, as States. On the other hand, if we say that the adoption was the act of the States, as States, it necessarily follows that they had the right to secede at pleasure, inasmuch as they engaged for no specific time.

NT.2.1.12 The consent, therefore, that has been given, whether by individuals, or by the States, has been, at most, only a consent for the time being; not an engagement for the future. In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, be finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.

NT.2.1.13 Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby ameliorating their condition. But it would not therefore be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or ever consented to.

NT.2.1.14 Therefore a man’s voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently we have no proof that any very large portion, even of the actual voters of the United States, ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his property to injury or trespass from others.

II.

NT.2.2.1 The Constitution says:

“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

NT.2.2.2 This is the only definition of treason given by the Constitution, and it is to be interpreted, like all other criminal laws, in the sense most favorable to liberty and justice. Consequently the treason here spoken of, must be held to be treason in fact, and not merely something that may have been falsely called by that name.

NT.2.2.3 To determine, then, what is treason in fact, we are not to look to the codes of Kings, and Czars, and Kaisers, who maintain their power by force and fraud; who contemptuously call mankind their “subjects;” who claim to have a special license from heaven to rule on earth; who teach that it is a religious duty of mankind to obey them; who bribe a servile and corrupt priest-hood to impress these ideas upon the ignorant and superstitious; who spurn the idea that their authority is derived from, or dependent at all upon, the consent of their people; and who attempt to defame, by the false epithet of traitors, all who assert their own rights, and the rights of their fellow men, against such usurpations.

NT.2.2.4 Instead of regarding this false and calumnious meaning of the word treason, we are to look at its true and legitimate meaning in our mother tongue; at its use in common life; and at what would necessarily be its true meaning in any other contracts, or articles of association, which men might voluntarily enter into with each other.

NT.2.2.5 The true and legitimate meaning of the word treason, then, necessarily implies treachery, deceit, breach of faith. Without these, there can be no treason. A traitor is a betrayer – one who practices injury, while professing friendship. Benedict Arnold was a traitor, solely because, while professing friendship for the American cause, he attempted to injure it. An open enemy, however criminal in other respects, is no traitor.

NT.2.2.6 Neither does a man, who has once been my friend, become a traitor by becoming an enemy, if before doing me an injury, he gives me fair warning that he has become an enemy; and if he makes no unfair use of any advantage which my confidence, in the time of our friendship, had placed in his power.

NT.2.2.7 For example, our fathers – even if we were to admit them to have been wrong in other respects – certainly were not traitors in fact, after the fourth of July, 1776; since on that day they gave notice to the King of Great Britain that they repudiated his authority, and should wage war against him. And they made no unfair use of any advantages which his confidence had previously placed in their power.

NT.2.2.8 It cannot be denied that, in the late war, the Southern people proved themselves to be open and avowed enemies, and not treacherous friends. It cannot be denied that they gave us fair warning that they would no longer be our political associates, but would, if need were, fight for a separation. It cannot be alleged that they made any unfair use of advantages which our confidence, in the time of our friendship, had placed in their power. Therefore they were not traitors in fact: and consequently not traitors within the meaning of the Constitution.

NT.2.2.9 Furthermore, men are not traitors in fact, who take up arms against the government, without having disavowed allegiance to it, provided they do it, either to resist the usurpations of the government, or to resist what they sincerely believe to be such usurpations.

NT.2.2.10 It is a maxim of law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent. And this maxim is as applicable to treason as to any other crime. For example, our fathers were not traitors in fact, for resisting the British Crown, before the fourth of July, 1776 – that is, before they had thrown off allegiance to him – provided they honestly believed that they were simply defending their rights against his usurpations. Even if they were mistaken in their law, that mistake, if an innocent one, could not make them traitors in fact.

NT.2.2.11 For the same reason, the Southern people, if they sincerely believed – as it has been extensively, if not generally, conceded, at the North, that they did – in the so-called constitutional theory of “State Rights,” did not become traitors in fact, by acting upon it; and consequently not traitors within the meaning of the Constitution.

III.

NT.2.3.1 The Constitution does not say who will become traitors, by “levying war against the United States, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

NT.2.3.2 It is, therefore, only by inference, or reasoning, that we can know who will become traitors by these acts.

NT.2.3.3 Certainly if Englishmen, Frenchmen, Austrians, or Italians, making no professions of support or friendship to the United States, levy war against them, or adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, they do not thereby make themselves traitors, within the meaning of the Constitution; and why? Solely because they would not be traitors in fact. Making no professions of support or friendship, they would practice no treachery, deceit, or breach of faith. But if they should voluntarily enter either the civil or military service of the United States, and pledge fidelity to them, (without being naturalized,) and should then betray the trusts reposed in them, either by turning their guns against the United States, or by giving aid and comfort to their enemies, they would be traitors in fact; and therefore traitors within the meaning of the Constitution; and could be lawfully punished as such.

NT.2.3.4 There is not, in the Constitution, a syllable that implies that persons, born within the territorial limits of the United States, have allegiance imposed upon them on account of their birth in the country, or that they will be judged by any different rule, on the subject of treason, than persons of foreign birth. And there is no power, in Congress, to add to, or alter, the language of the Constitution, on this point, so as to make it more comprehensive than it now is. Therefore treason in fact – that is, actual treachery, deceit, or breach of faith – must be shown in the case of a native of the United States, equally as in the case of a foreigner, before he can be said to be a traitor.

NT.2.3.5 Congress have seen that the language of the Constitution was insufficient, of itself to make a man a traitor – on the ground of birth in this country – who levies war against the United States, but practices no treachery, deceit, or breach of faith. They have, therefore – although they had no constitutional power to do so – apparently attempted to enlarge the language of the Constitution on this point. And they have enacted:

“That if any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, * * * such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and shall suffer death.” – Statute, April 30, 1790, Section 1.

NT.2.3.6 It would be a sufficient answer to this enactment to say that it is utterly unconstitutional, if its effect would be to make any man a traitor, who would not have been one under the language of the Constitution alone.

NT.2.3.7 The whole pith of the act lies in the words, “persons owing allegiance to the United States.” But this language really leaves the question where it was before, for it does not attempt to show or declare who does “owe allegiance to the United States;” although those who passed the act, no doubt thought, or wished others to think, that allegiance was to be presumed (as is done under other governments) against all born in this country, (unless possibly slaves).

NT.2.3.8 The Constitution itself, uses no such word as “allegiance,” “sovereignty,” “loyalty,” “subject,” or any other term, such as is used by other governments, to signify the services, fidelity, obedience, or other duty, which the people are assumed to owe to their government, regardless of their own will in the matter. As the Constitution professes to rest wholly on consent, no one can owe allegiance, service, obedience, or any other duty to it, or to the government created by it, except with his own consent.

NT.2.3.9 The word allegiance comes from the Latin words ad and ligo, signifying to bind to. Thus a man under allegiance to a government, is a man bound to it; or bound to yield it support and fidelity. And governments, founded otherwise than on consent, hold that all persons born under them, are under allegiance to them; that is, are bound to render them support, fidelity, and obedience; and are traitors if they resist them.

NT.2.3.10 But it is obvious that, in truth and in fact, no one but himself can bind any one to support any government. And our Constitution admits this fact when it concedes that it derives its authority wholly from the consent of the people. And the word treason is to be understood in accordance with that idea.

NT.2.3.11 It is conceded that a person of foreign birth comes under allegiance to our government only by special voluntary contract. If a native has allegiance imposed upon him, against his will, he is in a worse condition than the foreigner; for the latter can do as he pleases about assuming that obligation. The accepted interpretation of the Constitution, therefore, makes the foreigner a free person, on this point, while it makes the native a slave.

NT.2.3.12 The only difference – if there be any – between natives and foreigners, in respect of allegiance, is, that a native has a right – offered to him by the Constitution – to come under allegiance to the government, if be so please; and thus, entitle himself to membership in the body politic. His allegiance cannot be refused. Whereas a foreigner’s allegiance can be refused, if the government so please.

IV.

NT.2.4.1 The Constitution certainly supposes that the crime of treason can be committed only by man, as an individual. It would be very curious to see a man indicted, convicted, or hanged, otherwise than as an individual; or accused of having committed his treason otherwise than as an individual. And yet it is clearly impossible that any one can be personally guilty of treason, can be a traitor in fact, unless he, as an individual, has in some way voluntarily pledged his faith and fidelity to the government. Certainly no man, or body of men, could pledge it for him, without his consent; and no man, or body of men, have any right to presume it against him, when he has not pledged it, himself.

V.

NT.2.5.1 It is plain, therefore, that if, when the Constitution says treason, it means treason – treason in fact, and nothing else – there is no ground at all for pretending that the Southern people have committed that crime. But if, on the other hand, when the Constitution says treason, it means what the Czar and the Kaiser mean by treason, then our government is, in principle, no better than theirs; and has no claim whatever to be considered a free government.

VI.
NT.2.6.1 One essential of a free government is that it rest wholly on voluntary
support. And one certain proof that a government is not free, is that it coerces more or less persons to support it, against their will. All governments, the worst on earth, and the most tyrannical on earth, are free governments to that portion of the people who voluntarily support them. And all governments – though the best on earth in other respects – are nevertheless tyrannies to that portion of the people – whether few or many – who are compelled to support them against their will. A government is like a church, or any other institution, in these respects. There is no other criterion whatever, by which to determine whether a government is a free one, or not, than the single one of its depending, or not depending, solely on voluntary support.

VII.

NT.2.7.1 No middle ground is possible on this subject. Either “taxation without consent is robbery,” or it is not. If it is not, then any number of men, who choose, may at any time associate; call themselves a government; assume absolute authority over all weaker than themselves; plunder them at will; and kill them if they resist. If, on the other hand, taxation without consent is robbery, it necessarily follows that every man who has not consented to be taxed, has the same natural right to defend his property against a taxgatherer, that he has to defend it against a highwayman.

VIII.

NT.2.8.1 It is perhaps unnecessary to say that the principles of this argument are as applicable to the State governments, as to the national one.

NT.2.8.2 The opinions of the South, on the subjects of allegiance and treason, have been equally erroneous with those of the North. The only difference between them, has been, that the South has had that a man was (primarily) under involuntary allegiance to the State government; while the North held that he was (primarily) under a similar allegiance to the United States government; whereas, in truth, he was under no involuntary allegiance to either.

IX.

NT.2.9.1 Obviously there can be no law of treason more stringent than has now been stated, consistently with political liberty. In the very nature of things there can never be any liberty for the weaker party, on any other principle; and political liberty always means liberty for the weaker party. It is only the weaker party that is ever oppressed. The strong are always free by virtue of their superior strength. So long as government is a mere contest as to which of two parties shall rule the other, the weaker must always succumb. And whether the contest be carried on with ballots or bullets, the principle is the same; for under the theory of government now prevailing, the ballot either signifies a bullet, or it signifies nothing. And no one can consistently use a ballot, unless he intends to use a bullet, if the latter should be needed to insure submission to the former.

X.

NT.2.10.1 The practical difficulty with our government has been, that most of those who have administered it, have taken it for granted that the Constitution, as it is written, was a thing of no importance; that it neither said what it meant, nor meant what it said; that it was gotten up by swindlers, (as many of its authors doubtless were,) who said a great many good things, which they did not mean, and meant a great many bad things, which they dared not say; that these men, under the false pretence of a government resting on the consent of the whole people, designed to entrap them into a government of a part; who should be powerful and fraudulent enough to cheat the weaker portion out of all the good things that were said, but not meant, and subject them to all the bad things that were meant, but not said. And most of those who have administered the government, have assumed that all these swindling intentions were to be carried into effect, in the place of the written Constitution. Of all these swindles, the treason swindle is the most flagitious. It is the most flagitious, because it is equally flagitious, in principle, with any; and it includes all the others. It is the instrumentality by which all the others are mode effective. A government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular oppressions it pleases.

NT.2.10.2 The result – and a natural one – has been that we have had governments, State and national, devoted to nearly every grade and species of crime that governments have ever practised upon their victims; and these crimes have culminated in a war that has cost a million of lives; a war carried on, upon one side, for chattel slavery, and on the other for political slavery; upon neither for liberty, justice, or truth. And these crimes have been committed, and this war waged, by men, and the descendants of men, who, less than a hundred years ago, said that all men were equal, and could owe neither service to individuals, nor allegiance to governments, except with their own consent.

XI.

NT.2.11.1 No attempt or pretence, that was ever carried into practical operation amongst civilized men – unless possibly the pretence of a “Divine Right,” on the part of some, to govern and enslave others embodied so much of shameless absurdity, falsehood, impudence, robbery, usurpation, tyranny, and villainy of every kind, as the attempt or pretence of establishing a government by consent, and getting the actual consent of only so many as may be necessary to keep the rest in subjection by force. Such a government is a mere conspiracy of the strong against the weak. It no more rests on consent than does the worst government on earth.

NT.2.11.2 What substitute for their consent is offered to the weaker party, whose rights are thus annihilated, struck out of existence, by the stronger? Only this: Their consent is presumed! That is, these usurpers condescendingly and graciously presume that those whom they enslave, consent to surrender their all of life, liberty, and property into the hands of those who thus usurp dominion over them! And it is pretended that this presumption of their consent – when no actual consent has been given – is sufficient to save the rights of the victims, and to justify the usurpers! As well might the highwayman pretend to justify himself by presuming that the traveller consents to part with his money. As well might the assassin justify himself by simply presuming that his victim consents to part with his life. As well the holder of chattel slaves attempt to justify himself by presuming that they consent to his authority, and to the whips and the robbery which he practises upon them. The presumption is simply a presumption that the weaker party consent to be slaves.

NT.2.11.3 Such is the presumption on which alone our government relies to justify the power it maintains over its unwilling subjects. And it was to establish that presumption as the inexorable and perpetual law of this country, that so much money and blood have been expended.

BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, No. 14 Bromfield Street. 1867.

(h/t to Mama Liberty)

>Grigg: The Borders Are Closing In

>Read Will Grigg’s latest essay.

Think about what things will be like in five years here in the United Socialist States of America.

Are you ready?

>The ObamaCare Fallout Continues

>Read this article from QandO and its embedded NYT link to learn what likely awaits millions of productive, employed Americans who naively believed that the nationalization of American medicine would not affect them.

So sorry, kulaks.

Do you understand yet?

>A Tsunami Of Red Ink

>Read Mish’s take on this Chicago Tribune graphic article re the FedGov’s catastrophic debt problem.

Think more spending will cure anything?

And do you really believe we’ll get through this disaster peacefully?

>Denninger: Chicago Calls For Martial Law

>
Read it all.

And understand — as this country’s economic death spiral accelerates, more and more places will be begging for Feds in the streets.

As “peacekeepers” only, of course.

Tempus fugit.

>Collaborator

>Codrea nails it — again.

The Bad People are very concerned.

Good.

>Shenandoah: Murder In The First Degree

>Read it all.

>Vanderboegh Speech From 4/19 Rally

>Go and read.

Wish you’d been there.

>Interesting Times

>Go and read.

The “they don’t know what they don’t know” element is what will truly surprise the Bad People.

And they still won’t understand, even then.

Audentes fortuna iuvat.

>A Puzzlement

>When we reached Fort Hunt Park on Monday, the flag was at half-staff.

People asked and we had no answer why.

David now explains.

The current regime apparently now plans to lower the flag every time Bill Clinton appears on the NYT op-ed page.

Vermin.

>How Do You Think We Feel?

>From Red State; take the time.

Then try this piece from American Digest for temporary relief.

>Codrea: A Message To Neal Boortz On The 4/19 RTC Rally

>Go and read.

>We Happy Few

>From Henry V, Act IV, Scene III:

Enter the KING

WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!

KING. What’s he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark’d to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call’d the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian.’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispian’s day.’
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb’red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

More pictures.

More videos.

Video interview with David Codrea on both 4/19 events; go to 15:30 in the vid.

Still more vids, this time from CG (includes MBV and Helmke)

God bless you, everyone.

>Russia Today: Interview With RTC 4/19 Rally Organizer

>
Enjoy.

Beck: On The Recent Glance Directly At Me, From The Death-Star

From Billy Beck:

Yes: of course I am aware that I was paraphrased in a speech given last week by an ex-United States president. The e-mail notes have been furious, and still trail in almost a week later. You can read the speech here. That’s a .PDF, and the passage at hand is in the first paragraph of page eleven. Everyone who has paid attention to me knows that he mangled my line, but that it is without question my line.

Here are some facts: the speech refers to “…these ‘hatriot’ groups, the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, the others…” (Bottom of page ten.)

Mike Vanderboegh has run the line that I wrote on his weblog almost since the day that I wrote it.

Here is my conjecture: the ex-president either briefly eyeballed that blog himself, or accepted a memo from one of his flunkies which included the line that I wrote.

I have made up my mind that I would be no more interested in hearing his apology than I am offended by his presumption. It is simply a matter of note that The Lying Bastard of The Ozark Long March knows nothing of which he speaks, amid his insinuations that I advocate violence in this poor country’s current straits.

Here is a word for that despicable person: I am “a Southerner”, too, you strutting ignoramus. I was born in Little Rock, and my mother graduated Central High School six years before Eisenhower finally saw fit to roll out the National Guard. Don’t even try to hand me your threadbare sanctimony about “paying” for the Civil War. For many reasons which I will not attempt to relate to you, I am quite beyond your ex cathedra pose in the matter. You have nothing to say to me. Sit down and shut your insipid mouth.

To the rest of you reading this, let me try to explain something to you. Pay close attention:

“If we discard morality and substitute for it the Collectivist doctrine of unlimited majority rule, if we accept the idea that a majority may do anything it pleases, and that anything done by the majority is right because it is done by the majority (this being the only standard of right and wrong) — how are men to apply this in practice to their actual lives? In relation to each particular man, all other men are potential members of that majority which may destroy him at its pleasure at any moment. Then each man and all men become enemies: each has to fear and suspect all; each must try to rob and murder first, before he is robbed and murdered.”

Now, I am not going to attribute that quote for you. I have good reasons for that. I will point out to you that the basic principles on display in that passage are now a matter of the public consciousness: it is an accepted maxim now that, in politics, “either you are at the table or you are on the menu”. I will point out to you that America has never before sounded more like a bar-fight than it does now. All of this is because of what Frederick Bastiat put his finger on, one hundred sixty-two years ago, when he wrote: “Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”

We now live under The Sucker State. There will be no voting our way out of this, and that is as it should be, in at least one aspect: free people do not supplicate to government. They become manifest in their actions. In any case, however, whole generations have gone down under the rampant delusion that the sources of life spring from everything but individual human productivity: they believe that government can steal for them forever.The hideous noise that you hear all around you in this culture, now, is only the beginning intimation of how wrong they are. It is the sound of savages scrambling around the lip of the government cannibal-pot, into which all values must eventually be collected by force and from which they will be dispensed under heavy guard. If you are capable of one moment’s sense and are not a goddamned deliberate liar — like an ex-president — then you can see where this is all going.

There is only one more thing to say, here: every sane person had better hope and pray against violence. This goes for you, Mike, and everyone like you. I understand your efforts and I know why you prepare. This thing could blow-out at any seam, at any moment, and it is only prudent to be ready if that happens.

I, for one, would have far, far greater esteem for anyone ready — like me — to present themselves for imprisonment in order to demonstrate to the whole world just what this regime appears to be ready to destroy. No honest person could ever mistake the moral probity of a move like that, and even if it failed, the issue would be unmistakably clear to all — this battle with a force dedicated to destroying freedom (the word that fell from The Lying Bastard’s lips, last Friday) — and the final and terrible resort to violence would yet be available.

I beg you all to keep cool in this matter.

>More On 4/19 RTC

>Associated Press as linked on Drudge — make sure to watch the video.

Time magazine.

Codrea here and here.

MBV here and here.

Russia Today here.

USA Today.

Other coverage.

Back on the road.

>5 by 5

>All safe.

All happy (on our side, that is).

All went above expectations.

Windburned, sunburned, exhausted.

Successful.

Safe travels to all participants.

More asap.

In the interim, go to Google and search “guns potomac”.

More linkage.

>Thanks, Mr. President!

>On Friday, former President Bill Clinton gave this speech at a seminar entitled “The Tragedy of Oklahoma City 15 Years Later and the Lessons for Today” held by the Center for American Action Progress Fund.

At the bottom of page 10 and top of page 11 of the 12-page transcript of the FPOTUS remarks, there are these paragraphs:

***
…But I think that all you have to do is to read the paper every day to see how many there are who are deeply, deeply troubled. We know, now, that there are people involved in groups — these ‘hatriot’ groups, the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, the others — 99 percent of them will never do anything they shouldn’t do. But there are people who advocate violence and anticipate violence.

One of these guys the other day said that all politics is just a prelude to the ultimate and inevitable civil war. You know, I’m a southerner. I know what happened. We were still paying for that 100 years later when I was a kid growing up, in ways large and small. It doesn’t take many people to take something like that seriously. So I don’t want the whole story of this retrospective just to be about this, and to try to turn everything into politics…
***

Read the rest, especially Clinton’s remarks about the Whiskey Rebellion.

Thanks for the plug, Mr. President.

We’ll see the rest of you Monday on the banks of the Potomac.