Monthly Archives: August 2010



(click image to enlarge)

From xkcd.

>Two From Denninger

>Karl Denninger drops the hammer on two well-aimed shots:

Here Come The Shills (Social Security)

Bill Black Lays It Out (Again)

Read ’em and weep.

>When Baking Bread Becomes a Revolutionary Act

>GardenSERF explains.

Got food?

>A History Lesson

>From Alvie at The Cliffs, with a related warning here.

Read both, and think.

Which way are YOU facing?

>On Restoration

>There is continuing useful discussion over the utility of “restoring the Constitution” as a primary FreeFor objective. To advance that discussion, I’d offer the following:

A) From an email last week:

To me, there are three important reasons to use the phrase “restore the constitution”:

1) Lawfare Ambush KZ: I dare that SOB Holder to use the DOJ mechanism against anybody working or talking to restore the Constitution. I double-dog-dare that MF to do so.

2) PsyOps: When the .mil is sent by the NCA against their fellow citizens, I want each troopie to have to put their reticle on a fellow American standing for the same Constitution that the troopie is oathbound to protect and defend.

3) Paradigm Inflexibility: Many good and honorable people who will stand simply cannot bend their heads around a “return to the Articles” endstate at this time. They will evolve in their thinking, just as I have (hell, I was a freaking drug war prosecutor fifteen years ago — talk about evolution!), and I can’t ask them to both die and give up their core preconceptions right now.

The Old Republic is gone. Here’s what we need:

I won’t see that flag flown very often, if at all.

And it will take a decade or more to restore more than a handful of stars to the canton.

But it will fly.


B) Having noted those pragmatic reasons for the continuing use of the phrase, I’d ask folks to really think through the following questions:

1) When we use the RTC formula, what specifically is being ‘restored’? If we are talking about the literal language of the USC/BoR/subsequent amendments (the “as written” approach), what needs to be done about 220 years of Federal court opinions “interpreting” those words? And, having first defined what exactly is to be done with that body of common law (not to mention the judges who beget same), how does one go about doing that in the context of a Restoration conflict?

2) Some specific examples to illustrate the problem:

a) Korematsu vs. United States: Read both the Wiki entry and the actual US Supreme Court case (including the dissents).

Really makes you proud to be an American, doesn’t it? Moreover, consider how the language in the following excerpt from the majority opinion could be used against other modern-day Korematsus:

Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot — by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight — now say that, at that time, these actions were unjustified.

— 323 U. S. at 223-224

Remember that Korematsu remains good law today.

b) Roe vs Wade: Again, read both the Wiki and the actual case. Now, put yourself in the midst of the Restoration conflict. Regardless of where you come out on the morality of abortion itself, are you going to shed one drop of sweat (let alone blood) to “protect and defend” the Federalization of what historically was a state law issue? How about your troops? How exactly are you going to persuade them that they should kill and die for this elitist delusion?

c) Brown vs. Board of Education: Once again, read both the Wiki and the case. Now read Articles I-III of the US Constitution and tell me how local educational decisions (no matter how morally abhorrent) are a concern of any of the Federal government’s three branches. Think you’ll get anyone to follow you into automatic weapons fire over that one?

For more examples of judicial bastardy most foul by both SCOTUS and the rest of the Federal judiciary, please read

The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom, and

The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land.

C) My point in asking these questions is not to belittle in any way those who stand for Constitutional restoration. In fact, as every one of you should know, I stand by your side in that endeavor, both literally and figuratively.

But — and it is a big damned “But” — we need to engage a lot more intellect in defining, in detail, just what exactly is meant by “restoration”, as well as when those meanings shift. The best I can do at this point is the following concept-line:

– The RTC goal is easily understood and has practical short-term utility (see email excerpt above) in the preparation phase;

– During the conflict phase, the RTC message retains its easily-grasped utility and forces the Bad People’s lawfare minions in both the executive and judicial branches to contort themselves madly so as to claim that resistance to their tyranny is illegitimate; and

– During the post-conflict criminal trials, the pre-war Constitution will be the scales upon which prosecution and conviction decisions will be weighed.

That being said, I remain gravely concerned about the RTC goal as the proper framework on which to hang a life-and-death struggle for Freedom, especially given the pre-existing Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation, not to mention American Constitution 2.0.

Your thoughts — expressed logically and without personal rancor, please — are welcomed in comments below.

>"The Constitution Will Be Restored. The Only Question Is ‘How Rough Do We Have To Get?”"

From Restore The Constitution, as filmed at the RTC 8/14 rally in New Mexico.

What are you doing on October 30th?

>Sofa Makes An Important Announcement

>At Coordinated Illumination.



Watch the powerful video above, as found at Vanderleun’s shop.

Then, after wiping eyes, disengaging heart, and placing cultural memory on hold, ask yourself and answer the following questions honestly:

1) Is the life of the average American today more free from governmental oppression (domestic and/or foreign) as compared to the average American on

– V-E Day (8 May 1945)

– V-J Day (2 Sept 1945)

– The armistice date in the Korean conflict (27 July 1953)

– The date of the Paris Peace Accords (27 January 1973) or

– The date of the Gulf War I cease-fire (27 February 1991)?

2) Notwithstanding the undeniable contributions of American veterans, will the young people shown in the video live with more freedom from government interference than their parents and grandparents?

3) How many of the tough, experienced, brave, and patriotic veterans of every conflict from WW2 through Korea through Vietnam through the last 20 years of desert adventures can be relied upon to fight in the upcoming fracas, within the confines of their abilities ?

4) How many of those brave men are today actively sharing what they know about the operational arts with those who can benefit from their instruction?

5) How much longer are right-thinking Americans going to substitute illusion, mythology, symbolism, and “feeling” for hard-hearted analysis, planning, and execution to actually re-establish freedom in this country?

>D2: A Note To Preppers

>Robb hits the point with precision.

>But The Election Will Fix…Something

>First read this article from the former DoJ lawyer who left his job as a FedGov voting rights attorney over the New Black Panthers abomination.

Then read Rachel Peepers’ take on the resulting potential disenfranchisement of .mil folks from NY, Delaware, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Washington.

Any questions?

>The ‘Crime’ Of ‘Lying To The FBI’

>Jim Bovard teaches about 18 USC 1001, which provides:

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

Do you understand now why you should never talk to the police?

Never ever?

>How Hyperinflation Will Happen


(Illustration from this article at Cato)

From ZeroHedge (h/t to More’s Lawyer), a clear explanation of potential Big Ugliness; sample:

…But hyperinflation is not an extension or amplification of inflation. Inflation and hyperinflation are two very distinct animals. They look the same—because in both cases, the currency loses its purchasing power—but they are not the same.

Inflation is when the economy overheats: It’s when an economy’s consumables (labor and commodities) are so in-demand because of economic growth, coupled with an expansionist credit environment, that the consumables rise in price. This forces all goods and services to rise in price as well, so that producers can keep up with costs. It is essentially a demand-driven phenomena.

Hyperinflation is the loss of faith in the currency. Prices rise in a hyperinflationary environment just like in an inflationary environment, but they rise not because people want more money for their labor or for commodities, but because people are trying to get out of the currency. It’s not that they want more money—they want less of the currency: So they will pay anything for a good which is not the currency…

Read it all.

Still socking it away for retirement?
Perhaps some more thinking is in order.

>RTC Drill, Little Five Points, Atlanta, 28 August

>More at Restore The Constitution.

What are your plans for October 30th?

>Restore The Constitution: WROL In NC

>RTC updates us on another “Without Rule Of Law” situation, this time involving videotaping of police in North Carolina.

Read it, and note the Facebook entry for the judicial perpetrator above.

UPDATE 28 AUG 2010 2240 EDT: Insty links to this Examiner article on the situation.

>Community Crisis Planning for Societal Collapse

>Read and think carefully about all of the issues raised in this lengthy article from SurvivalBlog.

Alternatives should be discussed below.

It’s one thing to say “F*#k that!”.

But how will you do things, as your AO goes the way of Bosnia, Haiti, or Somalia?

Or haven’t you yet thought through the consequence layers stemming from Fed/state/local governmental financial collapse?

Tempus fugit.

>The Lairds of Fairfax Grapple With Themselves

>David explains.

Count the NRA as one of the historic American institutions (along with broadcast and print media) rendering themselves more and more irrelevant each day.

Good riddance.

>EPA Stands Down On Lead Ammo

>David explains.

Not to worry — they still intend to “regulate” every (exhaled) breath you take.

Do you understand yet?

>The Case For Two Guns

>Read all of this article from Gabe Suarez and Warrior Talk News.

Then try it.

Or do you prefer to test the drone imagery capture and consequent reactions of State Security to that rifle slung over your shoulder, once things start getting truly sporty?

Smart guys die later.

Much later, if at all possible.

>Of What Use The November Elections?

>Malone Vandam honestly faces one of the Hard Questions, while Billy Beck reminds us of those who will be voting in November and those who govern.

Ponder deeply, please, Billy’s point of emphasis:

It cannot be referred to as a state of freedom when anyone must beg permission to produce under threat of force.

Do you understand?

Or do you seriously believe that the Boehners, McConnells, and Cantors of the world even understand the statement above?

>RTC Round 3: Very Interesting Timing


(illustration from Oleg Volk)

From RTC:

“If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a total ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components, including hunting and target-shooting rounds. The EPA must decide to accept or reject this petition by November 1, 2010, the day before the midterm elections.

Today, the EPA has opened to public comment the CBD petition. The comment period ends on October 31, 2010.”

Remember, we have some RTC rallies scheduled for October 30th. Will you be getting out for round 3?

Restore the Constitution Open Carry Rallies (round 3)

What: 3rd round of Restore the Constitution open carry rallies

When: October 30th, the Saturday before the elections

Where: Your hometown, in the most visible firearms carry legal location possible (In my case that will be Little Five Points, Atlanta)

Who: You and anyone else ready to get started on some “Second Amendment remedies”


1) To practice gathering together while armed

2) To show friends, foes, and neutrals alike what can be done and to what extent Second Amendment rights can be used and to know where they stand

3) To bring attention to the fact that the Constitution is being violated in multiple ways.

It’s one thing to debate online; it’s quite another to speak to the public or the media while carrying a weapon.