Spread The Word

quote-a-desire-to-resist-oppression-is-implanted-in-the-nature-of-man-tacitus-181995
A reader sends this cri de coeur:

Spread the word.
Do the one thing that the ruling class and their sycophants can not survive.
Withdraw consent.
All you have to do is believe they represent illegitimate power.
Not much to it really.
Change in thinking, add a bit of reason, a minor grasp of the intent of our system of rule of law, and it becomes preference and culture.
Quietly mention it to everyone in the sphere of your life.
The truth becomes self apparent to those who have open minds.
Change one mind, you change the world.

Politically, crisis of legitimacy is political assassination of those who hold power through illegitimate means.
The elites can not survive a plurality who withdraws consent.

The folks in the liberty movement who advocate the movement of the 3 percent are far more prescient than they may know.
Where consent of the people is politically critical for the elites to hold onto power.
A cascade of preference among the governed, just regular people like us, who withdraw consent, is the most dangerous political force possible the ruling class faces.
Nothing represents as existential a threat to power, continuation of that power, the entire system of tyranny and corruption, the elitists have created, as loosing legitimacy in the minds of we the people.
Not our arms, our rule of law, revolution, political assassination via the vehicle of impeachment, nothing has the power of secession of political thought among the governed as withdrawal of consent to legitimacy of what our republic has been turned into by the ruling classes.
It is not only those who come up for election, but the people who really run things who don’t ever come up for re-election who require consent of the people for the elected in order to have the power to rule over us.

Hence it is not only the elected we deny consent thus legitimacy, it is the insidious rule of the unelected permanent bureaucracy.

It only requires an act of withdrawal of support for the status quo among consenting adults to achieve change in the thinking of the body of the people.
Once a plurality begins to believe, not only what is possible, but in itself as a force that is righteous, it begins to take on a political emphasis. It self perpetuates. It snowballs. It is culture up stream of politics. It is self perpetuating because by the very human nature of it’s simplicity, this plurality occupies and holds the legitimacy of moral high ground. It is this high ground which gives the advantage of power both political and cultural that supersedes all forms of governance.

Here is the thing.
Millions are looking for a sign, something that is self actualizing, the truth of who and what we are, in this atmosphere of universal deceit, treasonous dissimulation, and corporate system of corruption the elites create and perpetuate.

It is the elites sowing of disorder, doubt, Potemkin fantasy, the shell game system of big lies, crisis as means for manipulating and socially engineering, scandal as camouflage, purposefully deceiving continuously, overwhelming the body of the people, to wear them down, discourage them, disenfranchise them, manipulate them, make some subservient, creating classes of useful dupes, using fear as a lever to manipulate and instill false narratives, obfuscating the truth, creating but a fig leaf of legitimacy, to distract people from the truth it is they themselves who hold all the power. Truth it is the people who grant power. Not the other way around.

And all you have to do is believe.
And if you can, so can others.
It is the people’s sacred prerogative to distinguish what is legitimate and what is not.
There is comfort and security in believing as others, and knowing the truth.

Consent.
Such a simple thing when the lies and obfuscations are stripped away.
Consent is yours as sure as your soul.
Withdrawal of consent costs nothing.
But it gains everything.
It requires no political party or entity.
You don’t vote for it.
It isn’t granted.
You don’t need permission to use it.
It requires not official sanction.
Indeed, what higher sanction than the natural born law of self determination, free thought, and will.

In that free will lies the beauty and the power of consent. Of the power a plurality possesses naturally, power to change the world. A plurality can not be denied. It’s mere existence would require extermination to do so. It can not be bargained with, because what, is it to bargain to relinquish it’s legitimacy to something illegitimate in the first place? It needs nor requires leadership, for it is the body of the people through it’s awareness, of it’s inherent legitimacy in numbers and thought that leaders are contradictory to the truth we are all born as freemen, and as freeman, we do not require to be led in our beliefs, principles and morals. Is this not the essence of what a freeman is to begin with?

Just imagine if you will the power of a plurality, it’s self awareness, it’s primal right to arm itself not only with truth of sovereignty, but with it’s natural right to possessing arms to defend itself.
It is a tyrants worst nightmare.
It is the stuff that changes the world.

A plurality did just that.
It was 3% of a population of 2.5 million, a plurality of 750,000, who accomplished an unknown feat in 5000 years of humanities history.
It destroyed a great and elitist tyranny and the ruling class power behind it.

Three percent did this. Three quarters of a million American’s fought the most kick-ass, successful revolution in all of history. And not only did this plurality win, against all accepted odds, against an empire that singularly ruled more of the world than any tyranny before or after, it went on to design and create for the very first time in all of history a nation where liberty and intent of the idea of rule of law placed all power of a government upon the simple concept of consent of the people.
A place where more people lived in liberty, than all the people combined in all of history, including those who have lived in liberty in America to this day.

Some contend the republic was flawed from the start. As soon as it began it ceased to be a republic. Well you know what, if so, then it was illegitimate only because people who abused others liberty acted illegitimately. What is the crux of what happened because of a plurality is Liberty lived. And I care not what but that today I am a freeman because of a plurality. I do not give consent to the illegitimate. It is My preference to determine my life, what I believe in, whom/what I give My consent to. Killing me because I refuse consent means I lived, and die a freeman. That is Liberty. That is preference. It is upstream of everything but my faith in God.

What about The III%?

Can the regime of those running things, in order to hold onto power, kill nine and a half million people who withdraw their consent?
Can they kill 3% of the people?
Lets be conservative.
Lets take 3% of the 3 percent:

9,500,000
– 3%
= 285,000

A bit over a quarter of a million American’s, who lets say, are die hard never give up, fight to the last bullet, tooth and nail, to the last man, “give me Liberty or give me death” patriots.

Would a legitimate constitutional government murder 285 thousand American souls because they withdrew consent?

Would a plurality withdraw consent of their government in the face of genocide on American soil due to actions of elected representatives?

Who would be legitimate?

What do you think?

And here we are today.
A plurality is growing, in the face of tyranny again.
It is out there.
It is waiting for you.
It will find you if you let it.
Can you sense it?
Then you are the plurality.

We are a nation today of approx. 315,469,000 people.
315 million Americans.
3% of this population figures out to a plurality of 9,464,070 sovereign Americans.
That is, nine million, four hundred sixty four thousand, seventy people.

No wonder those out to fundamentally destroy America, and those who enable and assist their bidding, are afraid of our arms, the tea party, the liberty movement, anyone who is not cowed or afraid of the monopoly of force or the illegitimate power of the present form of our government.
They are afraid of what the plurality will do to them for what they are doing to the plurality.

They are right to be afraid of the existential threat an aroused plurality represents to their power to rule over us. They are cunning in their pogrom of painting those who constitute the plurality of the people as domestic terrorists and enemies of the state. It is indicative of the extra-constitutional use of lawless diktat and regulatory fiat, that where legitimacy is paramount and systemic as a primal function of our government, there is no need or use of diktat or fiat. Legitimacy is a natural state.

So…
I call our government illegitimate.
I say I withdraw my consent.
I believe those in power have no power because they never had any power to do what they are doing to my country to begin with.
I contend that without my consent, I am the plurality.
I am the plurality because I believe I am not alone.
That there is at least 9 million kindred Freemen just like me.
That right there is the real truth to power.

resist

you are not alone, brothers and sisters
be the plurality
spread the word

92 responses to “Spread The Word

  1. Sons of Liberty
    No 14

    August 22, 1995

    When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands…
    …That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.… it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide for new Guards for their future Security…
    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

    Frequently we speak of dissolution of the government, in one form or another. How often, however, do we consider what, exactly, this means?
    Governments can be dissolved by a number of means. What used to be the most common was forceful encroachment by a conquering army. The effect was dissolution of the government and subsequent dissolution of the society, for every nation is composed of both government and society. Generally, under these circumstances, society was disrupted and scattered to the winds. This form of dissolution has not existed for quite some time.
    Another form is when an enemy force dissolves government, and replaces that government with a government of their own choosing. The result, in this instance, is dissolution of government by non-violent means, and subsequent dissolution of the society, which is replaced, through a slow transitional process, by a society unlike the one that was first the source of the original government. We must not assume, in this circumstance, that the dissolution of government will, necessarily, take a forceful effort. The likelihood, in modern times, is that the dissolution of government, and subsequent dissolution of society will go unnoticed until history is revised and the transition is lost from existence, without a notice of its demise. Unless, of course, the efforts to dissolve the government and society is recognized in sufficient time to cast out the encroachers and restore both the society and the government.
    If the form of government within a nation has any form of representative capacity, the means by which dissolution may occur will take one of three forms. First, the executive may begin to arbitrarily impose his will on the elected representatives and the people. Slowly the rule of law deviates from its original intent, and slowly the dissolution process occurs.
    Second, by delivery of the people to the influence of a foreign power. Eventually, the legislative body finds themselves subjected to a set of rules not of their making, but to which they must adhere, which, again, results in the demise of the government, as was originally intended, and the society as it becomes subject to that foreign power.
    Third, when the trust bestowed upon the legislative is betrayed, by whatever means, these same results of dissolution will occur. That trust, generally in the form of a constitution, forms a set of rules by which the government is empowered, with the belief that it will abide by such contract. Faith is necessary because there is a need to pass power to government so that it can conduct its business. When that power is directed in violation of the trust, ultimately it will be used to dissolve the society. The question here is, is the government dissolved as well? That answer shall be forthcoming.
    Governments, of the nature of legislative authority, are created by, and subject to the will of the people. They are creatures of the will of the people, and their purpose for existence is only to administer the rights of the people, to the extent delegated, for the preservation of property and the protection of the rights of the people. THERE IS NO OTHER PURPOSE FOR GOVERNMENT WHOSE AUTHORITY IS OF THE PEOPLE, THAN THE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE’S RIGHTS AND PROPERTY.
    Once it is recognized that government has begun to deviate from its intended purpose, and the delivery to a foreign power is apparent, the people are more likely to presume that there is nothing that can be done to change that course. Many will accept that those chosen to legislate and administer are far wiser than they, and willingly subject themselves to the change that results in the conversion and dissolution. Within any society, it is far easier, especially so long as there is sufficient bread on the table, to allow the trend to continue, accepting that this is the evolution of government as it should be. Little do they recognize that what they are experiencing is tyranny in the same form that has imposed itself upon people throughout history. The despotic nature of government will advise them that they are freemen while they are, at the same time, wrapping the chains of slavery gently around their lives. This is a form of mockery that is little understood by most. What is understood even less is that they not only have the right to get out of it, but to prevent it.
    The protection of property being the most significant cause for government, the power given to government must be limited to preclude any theft of property. When government, in an artful and crafty manner, begins the slow and meticulous theft of the property of the people, it has violated the sacred trust granted to it at its inception.
    Government, then, when it does begin this process of conversion (dissolution of the intended government), has breached the trust of the people. The people, however, have not lost their right to the fundamental liberties, for the preservation of which the government was first formed, instead they have a responsibility to revise that form of government, to correct the errors and to rewrite the contract to provide for the protection of the property and the rights of the people to be secured.
    What occurs that allows this action to be taken? Surely a resort to force of arms against those who have been granted the authority to use force of arms in the preservation of property is not an easily undertaken measure. What would rouse the people to return government to the place and to the ends that it was first erected?
    Rebellion is the term that applies to those who seek to dissolve government, and society, from within. The determination of who the rebels, the usurpers, truly are is the question that must first be asked. If the government has drifted from the course first intended, and, after due notice, continues to deviate even further therefrom, and in that process imposes force of arms against the very people it was created to protect — then that government, and all within it, have become the rebels, they are the ones that have sought to undo that which was first intended, and they are the ones that have resorted to armed force to impose their will upon the people. It is they who are guilty of rebellion. It is they who have created a state of war.
    Who is it that would suggest to the populace that any who would denounce the actions of government, under the circumstances presented, are being the rebels? Those very people who had been selected as our representatives for the purpose of protection of property would proclaim that those who have found the need to protect their own fortunes are the usurpers, the rebels. They would denounce them and accuse them of crimes against the state and against the people themselves. They would argue that these rebels must be subdued, yet they are the pirates, the robbers and the thieves.
    If the innocent, honest man must quietly quit all he has for the sake of peace — to those that would impose violence upon him for protecting his own property, what kind of peace will we be subjecting ourselves? Violence would be maintained only for the preservation of the robbers and oppressors.
    The end of government is the good of mankind, and what is best for mankind is that they not be subjected to this form of tyranny. The duty of government is to resist these evils, and protect the people from them. The exorbitant use of government’s power, when used for the destruction of that very government or the society, and not for the preservation of the property of their people, is the worst form of tyranny that can befall mankind, for it came of trust, and results in slavery.
    Most of the people will believe accusations against those that proclaim the evils of government in this regard. Those who first recognize the tyranny will be scorned. When only a few stir against this tyranny, they are looked upon as mischievous and as likely to seek their own ruin. Until such time as the design of the despots has become visible to a sufficient number, the greater numbers will be content to suffer rather than to right themselves by resistance to the tyranny. Who, then, assumes responsibility to correct the problem before the goal of dissolution of both government and society has been achieved?
    That determination is not one for earthly consideration. Simply, if the matter were cast before a court of the government, the ruling, without question, would be that those who support the dissolution are mistaken in their thoughts, and criminal in their nature. Under these circumstances, the course is set, and the goal will be achieved. The only recourse that can allow a just consideration of action is the ruler of the universe, who speaks to each individually, but sets no mandate from which we can seek guidance. The judgment will come, not in our lifetimes, but when the final determination as to our destiny is made. History will tell a story and the evidence of the actions must stand on the merit of the arguments presented and the actions taken. History is as likely to condemn those who sat idly by as to look favorably upon those who sought to retain the institutions for which they have cast their lot for the protection of their property. Each of us must make his own decision as to what course must be taken, but my feelings are that those who would usurp the faith and trust granted them are the worst criminals that can exist on the face of the earth, and should be treated accordingly — punishment for crimes committed not only serves as a deterrent, but is just reward for those that commit those crimes.
    Whoever uses force without right, who does so without true law, puts himself in a state of war against those against whom he so uses it — and in this circumstance all former conditions of consideration cease to exist, all ties are canceled, all rights cease and each retains the right to defend himself as he sees fit, and to resist the aggressor. And, he who resists, by the very nature of resistance, must be allowed to strike. Resistance when backed into a corner is as cowardly as it is unsuccessful.
    We all understand that an inferior cannot punish a superior, at least so long as he is the superior. When the state of war comes into existence, all former relations are canceled, and all respects and reverence for the superior ceases to exist. Since the original superior was the citizen who allowed the existence of government for the preservation of property, that condition returns, and it is the superior who now comes forward to subdue the inferior, the aggressor.
    What then may happen that the people may, of right, and of their own authority, take up arms and set upon the government? Nothing can ever justify this form of action, for then, truly, the aggressor would be the rebel. Not, at least, so long as the government remains the government. The people can never come by power over the government unless the government ceases to be a government and divests itself of its authority. Only when the people must revert to the state of private man, and bear the responsibility for the protection of his own property can they become free and superior.
    Each must judge for himself whether government continues to serve as government, or ceases to be that government to which his allegiance is owed. Each must resolve his own mind, his own heart and seek advice from heaven. The power that each person gave as his share of the authority of government can never be removed. It is the nature of community that requires that we all abide by that shared authority. Without that trust, that commitment, there can be no society, no commonwealth, no community, for that would be contrary to the original agreement, and a violation of the trust of our neighbors. The government can never revert to the people while the government lasts, not should it divest itself of that authority. It is assumed that government will last forever, for that is the purpose for which it was first created.
    When the miscarriages of those in authority have achieved a point so far removed from the original purpose, the government has forfeited its existence, and upon forfeiture, divests itself, and returns to each of us his share of the cumulative authority. Government reverts to society and the people have the right to act as the supreme, to continue to legislate as they see fit — to erect a new form, or to repair the old, assuring that what has been learned has also been corrected.
    Has that time come when government has ceased to be? Has it now cast upon us the responsibility of assumption of that original right of self government? Has it bestowed us with the need to make a determination as to what course our future shall be? Has government become the true rebel and representative of a foreign interest and power?

    on line at http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/sol14.htm

    • “Governments, of the nature of legislative authority, are created by, and subject to the will of the people.”

      This is collectivist-speak. There is no such thing as a “will of the people”, because “the people” do not think or act. There is only the will of individuals, each will either contending against or cooperating with others. Only individuals think and act.

      If “the people” consists of 25% communists, 25% fascists, 25% minarchists and 25% anarchists, then what is the “will of the people”? This old collectivist chestnut makes no sense if you think about it for half a minute.

      Governments never were created by any so-called will of the people. They are gangs formed for plunder, or protection rackets formed for the joy of ruling others, or both.

      • Observing a thinker is a breath of fresh air.

      • The creation is the collective will of the people. The Constitution was ratified, and a government then came into being. That Constitution is a contract, or a compact,m whichever you prefer. What Sons of Liberty #14 is about is what happens when the government fails to abide by that agreement?
        Here is what the North Carolina Supreme Court said, based upon their Constitution, in 1787, while our federal Constitution was being written:
        Bayard v. Singleton (1 N.C. 42):
        “But that it was clear that no act they [the legislature] could pass could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, because if they could do this, they would at the same instant of time destroy their own existence as a legislature and dissolve the government thereby established.”
        So, regardless of consent, now, since as you point out, the majority may not agree (just like back then), those who withdraw their consent because of a violation of the contract, have every right to assume that the government has ceased. put them in a state of nature.
        This is also addressed in the Declaration of Independence, wherein it says:
        “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security. “

        • Explain please how some effing stooge in 1789 or 1791 could bind me to ANYTHING, given my genetic material was in the outer reaches of Poland and Wales at the time?

          • Simply, Acquiescence. You have accepted it, from birth until now. Until you are willing, along with sufficient number of others, to effect change, you have it as you were born into it. And, I would surmise that you have benefited, substantial, because of it.
            You seem to believe like Spooner, though he never offered an alternative. What should we do, have a vote every year of those who have turned, say 21 (and still have no idea what life is about), and if they vote it down, then all of those older than them have to go with the juvenile decision?
            I keep waiting for a reasonable alternative, though I have yet to see anything that even begins to make sense. So, I will defend my Constitution, up through the 12th Amendment, with all that I have got. I also believe that the original 13th Amendment was ratified, so I am willing to back it, also.
            I don’t want a revolution, I want a restoration.

            • Your Constitution, designed expressly to restrain government and thus tyranny, has failed.

              Utterly and completely.

              Are you not arguing to “do it again – but HARDER this time!”?

              • If you try to build a rather novel house, and it doesn’t work out, though you find that the basic principle seems good, do you refuse to build another, based upon the original principle and adapting corrections based upon the failure of the first?
                The failure is identifiable. However, even with an Amendment process, it cannot be changed — for a number of reasons.
                Tow of them are:
                There is no way to punish those who violate their trust. The Constitution allows only their own house to punish them.
                There is no provision that requires that any enactment be constitutional to pass into law.
                The ambiguity as to whether a Treaty can accomplish what would otherwise require an Amendment has not been resolved, though it has been assumed that the treaty can.
                The “Fourth Branch of Government” was not created by the Constitution, though it was created by the Congress and given to the Executive Branch.
                Look in the Administrative Agencies part of http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/hh04.htm
                One method of Restoration is detailed in http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/library/The%20Plan%20for%20Restoration%20of%20Constitutional%20Government.pdf . It goes through ten steps to Restore the Constitution and make the necessary changes.

              • outlawpatriot

                Uh, CA, couple of things.

                First, it’s our Constitution. Second, there are no such things as parchment barriers. Therefore a particular document has no means of promoting or denying anything. Further, no document can. Only the people who accept and honor the document control how it is to be interpreted and implemented.

                Allow me a couple of observations if you will. I’ve known you for a while now and frankly you don’t strike me as someone who has been particularly oppressed by our constitutional republic even in the feeble condition that WE have let it become.
                Also, more than a few times now I get the impression that you assume the job of devil’s advocate.

                • Don’t know what you mean by the last graf. I have had my productivity stolen, my personal effects and communications seized, my personal freedom to move about the country infringed, and my right to keep/bear arms infringed.

                  Not to mention the effing federal security police file on my ass that grows bigger with every single damned one and zero I emit in this place.

                  So if it’s “standing” I must demonstrate to you or anyone else, you can check that box.

                  OP, you are the guy – both as an individual and a symbol of the righteous constitutionalist -whom I have in mind when I say I will stand, fight, and die next to you in the coming excitement. What I WON’T do is suspend reason and ignore 224 years of evidence that the USC/BOR has utterly failed in its proferred function as a bar against central govt tyranny.

                  It’s a compromise document composed by a committee and accreted by statists in the ensuing two plus centuries.

                  That’s all. It is NOT holy writ.

                  Freedom-loving men and women can and must do better.

                  • outlawpatriot

                    Well, thanks for that.

                    Understand that I do hear and understand you.

                    I just cannot abandon my heritage. I do not believe it to be founded with devious motives. I believe it hijacked over the decades. I fully recognize that corrections must be made. But those corrections must remain within the context of our founding.

                    At the end of the day however we just continue to thrash about. A war has to be won first.

                    • Amen, brother. We win first, then we thumb wrestle (those who both survive and have thumbs :-() re the new bosses’ structure.

                    • We win first, then we win again, then we win a third time, then we continue to win each and every single day over anyone who attempts to create a new bosses’ structure. The idea of government as a hedge, a set of weak predators who occupy the predator ecological niche and displace strong predators, like gut bacteria do inside the human gut, doesn’t work.

                      Currently, the human predator vs. human prey ecology cycles through max predator count every 200-something years. Darwinism is a law of physics, it can’t be escaped. Eternal vigilance is required to imprison each day’s new set of humans who decide to be Bad People. Liberty means the count of criminals is shrunk as far as our technology and budget allows; liberty means that crime doesn’t pay.

                • Outlaw,
                  There are ways to test whether the Constitution is still in effect. One of them is before the Supreme Court, right now (http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-5008.htm)
                  What is waiting to be heard is an Habeas Corpus. The entire story has been a bit of an ordeal that has been going on for nearly two years. The current Petition for Rehearing (referenced in the above link) is here:
                  http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/images/HCDocs/Petition_for_Rehearing.pdf
                  An explanation of the ordeal is here:
                  http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/HC00.htm

                  • outlawpatriot

                    Sorry Gary, you just lost me. Ain’t nothin’ gettin’ fixed within the system as it it is presently run. It has been usurped and resembles nothing that the Founders intended.

                  • “There are ways to test whether the Constitution is still in effect.”

                    I don’t get it, Gary. How would a decision consistent with the Constitution help with that test? Would it “cancel out” all the other ones, or what?

                    • Jim,
                      I began working on the current Habeas Corpus nearly two years ago. I needn’t give the background, though it is explained in some of what I have written on the subject. As I studied it, I found that it had a foundation in history that was the means to challenge both jurisdiction and constitutionality of laws. It is so far away from what we have been taught that my research, which is substantially included in “Habeas Corpus – Guardian of Liberty” (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/hh06.htm), I constantly found myself muttering “no shit”, as I progressed through that research — primarily Supreme Court decisions up until 1890, when the last Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum was heard by them. It is truly the “Guardian of Personal Liberty”.
                      If the Habeas Corpus is granted, it will change, drastically, your relationship with the federal government, including taxation (for the record, I last paid income tax in 1984).
                      If you are really interested, I would suggest that you read what I have posted, o far, at http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/HC00.htm

                  • You seem to be afraid of full blown freedom, preferring the nanny state version.

                    • Ghost,
                      I think that if you have read all that I have posted, you would see the error of your conclusion.
                      The Habeas Corpus is a late effort to see if the Framers did include a remedy for unconstitutional laws and lack of jurisdiction.
                      You might compare it to a pregnancy test. It is to test whether any of what the Framers gave us still remains.If it does, and if you understand what Habeas Corpus really does, most of the complaints in the many posts here would be irrelevant — the federal government could not act on us as they do.

                  • Cassandra (of Troy)

                    Gary Hunt/29Nov13@15:19,

                    There’s another case pending that’s (imo) equal to the one you cite in its potential for causing massive public consternation & thereby subsequently increase resistance to the Imperium.:

                    Bond Allows Federal Government to Use Treaties to Trump States Rights
                    http://townhall.com/columnists/cathyreisenwitz/2013/11/25/bond-allows-federal-government-to-use-treaties-to-trump-states-rights-n1752906

                    Interesting how cases/legislation that pro-2A advocates claimed would eventually impact the rest of the population are doing so more & more as time passes.

                    Cassandra (of Troy)

                    • Cassandra,
                      It will be interesting to see how “Bond” works out. I have my doubts, though I hope I am wrong. My Habeas Corpus moves one away from Administrative Agencies, and back under the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, clause 17, and, Article IV, Section 3, clause 2, provide for nearly unlimited authority to Congress, the Constitution notwithstanding. So, if one accepts the jurisdiction of an Administrative Agency, wither willingly, or not, that person my find that the Constitution does not afford protection.

              • No, It hasn’t. The failure isn’t in the document, it is in the people’s failure to insist that their elected representatives obey the law, and their allowing the Supreme Court to subvert the power to interpret that document. The form of government established by the Constitution requires that the peolpe take an active interest in how they are being governed. As long as that is too much trouble, no laws will work.

                • Sir:

                  The document provides only for impeachment and de-election as remedies for its violation.

                  That is a piss-poor, weak-as-a-sick-kitten set of remedies for breach.

                  Ever wonder why there is no provision for citizen grand jury indictment, trial, and public execution for breach?

                  It’s because the PTB, both in 1789 and every year since, want the appearnce of legitimacy without the substance thereof.

                  Think about it.

                  • Cassandra (of Troy)

                    Concerned American/30Nov13@07:35,

                    “It’s because……thereof.”

                    And unless I’m mistaken that’s satisfies the legal requirements for a charge of at least fraud & willful breach of contract w/, IMO, the Whiskey Rebellion being prima facie evidence for that contention. Wouldn’t it be fun to see someone w/ SERIOUSLY deep pockets & access to heavy legal firepower push such a case first thru the U.S. legal system & then thru the Intl one? If the stereotypes held true to form, you’d see both the Left & Right join together to file pro-govt amicus briefs. Imagine the public reaction to THAT, CA, Gush Bombast & Red Schultz pulling for the same team!
                    :~O

                    Cassandra (of Troy)

                • Where, in the Constitution, is a provision that allows us to challenge what Congress or the President does? Where does it provide a means for the people to judge constitutionality, instead of the court?
                  To the former, Article I, Section 9, clause 2.
                  http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/hh06.htm
                  To the latter, the true nature of a jury
                  http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/library/EssayontheTrialByJury.pdf

            • A woman is raped on the street by a stranger. Choosing the tactic of acquiescence to reduce the likely physical damage to herself, she doesn’t fight back. Afterwards, since she didn’t fight back, you claim she consented to the sex.

              Looks like Sharia law is already here, and we call it the Constitution.

              • You endeavoring to equate a Constitutions, and a complex government created by it, with an act of rape, a single act, two people, over almost before there is awareness of it, seems to be an argument of desperation.
                Now, why would you want to go and do that?

        • “The creation is the collective will of the people.”

          You know Gary, there is a policy on this blog discouraging collectivist claptrap.

          I know it is hard to give up beliefs you learned on your Mother’s knee, but how hard is it really to question the BS you learned in high school civics class? Like that old song “Kodachrome”: “When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school; It’s a wonder I can think at all”.

          I notice you refrained from answering my question. If you can’t tell me what the “will of the people” is in my example, then there is no such thing.

          “The Constitution was ratified, and a government then came into being.”

          You make it sound like a holy event. The reality was that the Founding Lawyers put together some semi-plausible lies and bamboozled a few people (a small subset of the entire population) into voting to give them power, and that shabby reality is supposed to bind us forever.

          “That Constitution is a contract…”

          Ah, the “social contract”, yet another collectivist load of BS. Here’s the best answer I have seen for that:
          http://mises.org/daily/5343/

          Don’t get me wrong. I don’t actually mind “restorationists” or “Constitutionalists” or whatever. Lots of people believe silly things, and I probably am no different. It only bothers me if your planned restoration sees fit to impose on people who don’t go along with your chosen fantasies. Leave anarchists alone (this means, don’t tax or regulate us), and we will get along fine – even help in the revolution. Don’t, and there will be war.

          • PJ,
            Well, let’s look at what happened and see if it (the Constitution) was the collective will of the people. Before we proceed, perhaps you should disengage yourself from what you mother’s knee provided.
            The Articles of Confederation barely worked during the war. Once the war was over, states who had reluctantly paid their share of debt incurred fighting the war, flat refused to pay any more of their share. Some states reverted to printing money, creating problems when someone from a neighboring state refused to accept the fiat money. There were many more problems, significantly so that the state governments agreed to a convention to see if a remedy could be found.
            Candidates gathered in Philadelphia (what many blindly refer to as “The Philadelphia Conspiracy”) and deviated from the original purpose of the convention. They did so because nobody there could find a means to revise the Articles and solve the numerous problems that were tearing apart relations between states, and often within states.
            After months of deliberation, a form of government was devised, taking some elements from historical models, rejecting others because of historical models, and devising some that had no precedence. Basically, a blank sheet of paper, a number of “Plain, Honest Men” (by Richard Beeman), and, a realization that for the first time in the history of man, a people could sit and design the government that they were to live under.
            Upon completion, the piece of paper, as it was nothing more than that, went to the Congress that sat under the Articles. That Congress chose to forward to the states, without comment, that piece of paper (or, properly, copies thereof).
            Then, each state determined how to establish their requisite convention to ratify, or refuse, the proposed Constitution. Of all of the states, only Pennsylvania managed to control the participation, excluding the frontier of western Pennsylvania by beginning their convention before word even worked its way west.
            The other states, some of them even lowering voting standards from what was normal (freeman status), allowed the selection of delegates, by their existing districts. Many of those delegates went to their respective conventions with instructions to refuse to ratify. Many of those who had such instructions, after weeks of debate, asked for recess so that they could return to their constituents and request removal of the mandate, which, most often, was granted. Subsequently, the requisite 9 states, based upon the “collective” will of the voters, ratified the Constitution, and the new government came into being. (“Ratification – The People Debate the Constitution – 1787-1789”, by Pauline Meir)
            Som now, let’s talk Verbicide. I can’t say gay and mean happy, now it means queer. I can’t say collective because it, too, has been stolen to mean socialist. So, do we allow ourselves to be denied the use of our language by them usurping definitions and contriving new ones? How would you describe such events as explained above? To me, they demonstrate the collective will of the people.
            Without going into great detail. though I have addressed it in some of my writings, social contract is the proper phrase to describe the relationship between a society of people and the government they choose to form. Unless, of course, you have a better phrase. So, that understood, let’s look at whether the Constitution creates rulers or governors. As I read the Constitution, the right to “rule” was extremely limited, and left to the states — to the extent that those within the state wanted to grant to their government, by their state constitution, the ability to rule. The ability to “rule”, in both instances, is based upon the “power and authority” granted by the respective constitutions.
            What happens when the government exceeds its authority? Well, in 1787, the North Carolina Supreme Court gave us an example, in Bayard v. Singleton, when they said:
            “But that it was clear that no act they [the legislature] could pass could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, because if they could do this, they would at the same instant of time destroy their own existence as a legislature and dissolve the government thereby established. ”
            So, let’s go a bit further. John Locke explained in “Dissolution of Government (Chapter 19, Second Treatise of Government), and then again in the Declaration of Independence, and, finally, in my article, “Sons of Liberty #14 (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/sol14.htm), what the people, under the “social contract” have a right to do. It is, in essence, withdrawal of consent. However, once consent is withdrawn, it is “in toto”. It cannot be selective. An example can be found in “Declaration of Dissolution of Government” (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=359), and, it is the “collective” act of those who choose that course.

  2. Been saying that myself for years now. Withdraw consent, and withhold YOUR money. If done en masse…

    • Semper Fi, 0321

      Myself also.
      But the masses won’t. They do what they’re told, and too fearful of change or stepping outside the box.
      Gotta have the mind of a rebel/criminal who doesn’t care. And the masses are sheep in fear of punishment, from peers, .gov or above.

    • Fuck en masse.
      Do it because it’s the right thing to do.

  3. Aside from all the legal jargon, you all are ignoring that famous saying of George Soros: “it is not who gets the most votes in an election but who counts the votes”. Elections are the given way of changing our government and those now in power control the election process. What action does that leave us?

    • outlawpatriot

      You must be new around here. That, or you’re being facetious.

      I hope it’s the latter.

  4. The Marines Corps and my WW2 veteran father taught me one thing. Never surrender.

    • It’s just too bad that so far, the Marines have been fighting on the wrong side in the War on Freedom.

      “War is a racket” – Major Gen Smedley Butler, USMC

      • Semper Fi, 0321

        I know Marines who won’t read that book. It’s about treason, questions patriotism. Bad.
        Not on the Lee Greenwood reading list either.

  5. Reblogged this on Cold Dead Hands Days and commented:
    I am spreading the word. Please do!

  6. When you withdraw your Consent to governance, then that ‘government’ IS illegitimate.

    Criminality turns upon the question of Consent.

    For instance, the same sexual act, when done non-consensually, becomes rape.

    When you take money from my wallet, without my consent, you become a thief.

    Well, you get the idea.

    So, if you do not Consent to Governance, then those who govern must resort to violence. When one man is compelled to do the bidding of another, under threat of violence, we call that slavery.

    • Mt Top Patriot

      What bogbeagle said: “When you withdraw your Consent to governance, then that ‘government’ IS illegitimate.”

      It’s so easy a caveman can do it!

      If it is one guy or 3% of America, it matters. At some point when enough people are on the same page, no matter what, they have to be reckoned with.
      The Tea Party is a perfect example. It wasn’t what the tea party does so much as it is a movement of people who withdrew their consent. The powers that be have taken very nasty, extreme political, social, measures to marginalize the movement, they have broken scores of laws in the course of their measures to marginalize the tea party and all within it. Violated every vote rigging and fraud law on the books. Raised gerrymandering to a mind blowing level. They have to. As sure as the sun rises. You hear people say what can I do against the leviathan? Well there you go, there is the answer. It’s the idea!

      The tea party, the essence of it is, as a movement of people, a plurality, they cause the elites to react to them. The tea party movement has so much power inherent in it’s body, again a plurality, the powers that be will do anything to destroy it politically and most important culturally.

      They are scared fucking shitless of it.

      Over night in political terms, this movement, a plurality, became a household name.
      It became part of our culture. A real honest to goodness down to earth movement of thought and culture.

      Over a million people showed up in DC. That is a plurality.

      Look how fiercely the efforts are undertaken to smear and besmirch good Americans from Ted Cruz to Sarah Palin.
      I suspect Andrew Brietbart was clandestinely assassinated because the man was ALL about withdrawing consent, and a tremendously powerful figure who could change the world because he understood culture and how to convey the idea nobody had to take shit from the motherfuckers running things. But furthermore, Andrew was plurality par excellence. He was fearless. The elites where terrified of him because Andrew had their number.
      People like that not only shine the sanitizing light of the truth on the enemies of liberty, he was a beacon of light, not a leader, but a catalyst for a plurality of people.
      It’s the idea.
      That right there is a very very dangerous thing.

      As Mosby and everyone else says, “hearts and minds kids”,
      It is like hips and heads, shoot where they are vulnerable.

  7. This is what I have done, along with defunding them, also. Great line: “(Liberty)…It is upstream of everything but my faith in God.”

    Going to re-blog this at ST&L.

    Good work, anonymous Reader. You’re right in knowing that you’re of the plurality. You’re also, as each of us are, Thoreau’s “majority of one.”

  8. I have beating this drum for nearly 20 years!
    The question begs, are there enough men and women willing to endure the hardship for the sake of laying groundwork for greater resistance?

    Time will tell.

    • “are there enough men and women willing to endure the hardship”

      Here’s some very good news…it’s the opposite of hardship. Hardship is what the Enemy is all about; that’s why they’re constantly appealing to it.

      As CA likes to note, “Fear is a liar.” Joel at joelsgulch.com: “The ultimate answer to Kings…is a belly laugh.”

      Out-good ’em. They’ll never see it coming cuz they don’t know what it looks like. Rebuild now.

    • The key word in that question is the word “enough”.
      Enough for what?
      To change the world? No.
      Will there ever be? Not in my lifetime, which will most likely be no more than 20 more years.
      But lifespan doesn’t change my ideal, I have to live right, and subjecting my principles to the blueprints of others is not in my dictionary.

      I have no choice in this matter, I HAVE to be a renegade, and have lived this way much of my life. I see no change on the horizon until everything collapses under the strain of fake money.

      We can’t change each other but we can change ourselves, if we want to, and that is the only place change will come from.

      It starts with you.

  9. Resistance begins in your mind.

    Withdrawing consent, denying the regime your recognition of their legitimacy, is the first step. Withdraw your consent and deny their legitimacy.

    • That sounds like a platitude.
      Take it to the next level, if you dare, because that is the only way things will start to happen.
      Changing your mind while sending them your money furthers their agenda and ignores your own.
      From your grandfathers genes, grow a pair, and a backbone, and live fully under the complete recognition that you are right and they are wrong, and that your principles will bow to none.
      Don’t just talk it, walk it.

    • Mt Top Patriot

      Right on Brother!
      What your saying Historian?:

      Resistance has to have a beginning.

      If increasing numbers of people share a preference to withdraw their consent at some point they have the numbers and power to enable them to displace what it is they withdrew consent from?

      Like how culture is upstream of politics, resistance is upstream of the regime. Isn’t that how to obtain the moral high ground?

      If you resist you are upstream of tyranny?

      That seems like a definite advantage tactically and strategically

      If you hold the moral high ground, then only an illegitimate government would act to take it from you?
      And that exposes where the illegitimacy exists.
      If you share mutual consent with others to keep the moral high ground,
      then you have the moral imperative and just cause to resist tyranny by any means?

  10. His math is of an order of magnitude…..3% of 2.5 million is 75,000, not 750,000. Makes it even more admirable and inspiring that such a minority accomplished what they did.

    • Mt Top Patriot

      Imagine that. 75,000 people did it. All because of an idea and a little bit of culture.
      Makes me ashamed to go out and be proud do what my forefathers did. We have the world wide web, instant communication at the tip of our fingers. Contact with however many hundreds of thousand or million fellow Americans we choose to interact with. Incredibly effective arms and equipment, an entire system of a legitimate form government already existing, and we as a nation and culture are afraid of a bunch of dishonest greedy clowns, what a few hundred mouth pieces spewing every sort of discontent and decisive propaganda.

      What is it, a few thousand dirt bags hold us all hostage?

      If anything, that proves a plurality, in this case it’s an organized crime syndicate for all intents and purposes, controls over 3 million people.

      If those ain’t fighting reasons I don’t know what is!

      • It doesn’t make sense, does it?

        Until you look closely at those who still hold the lamp. In a word, divided. The whole is broken down into sects. Each with it’s own thoughts and beliefs. Each considers itself as the only right thinking entity and considers others as inferior as to their thoughts and beliefs. Simply, no common language.

        We used to have one. It has fallen out of vogue. There are just too many “individuals”. The old values that formed the basis of commonality are gone.

        So here we are. Imagine where we’ll be.

        • Mt Top Patriot

          So your saying change your thinking and you change the world?

          • outlawpatriot

            Well, yeah. But it has to be among that dreaded and hated “collective”.

            • Oh, would you change the friggin’ record already? “Collectivism” does not mean “consisting of more than one person.”

              Why do you keep doing that, anyway? Don’t take this the wrong way, but the commies could really use a guy like you. And the pay’s great too, for another few months anyway.

              What, do you think individualists believe that sports are immoral?

  11. What if the very idea of “government”, a religion, is merely camoflage? So sadistic sociopaths can keep the people pacified as they threaten and rob them of 75% of their earnings? And revel in the “glory” of their brutality?

  12. Pingback: Larwyn’s Linx: Ten Thanksgivings Ago | Preppers Universe

  13. Pingback: Why Are the Bankers and Ex-Intel Types Running For Their Lives? | I am a Malaysian

  14. Government is a religion. In fact, it is our established religion.

    http://strike-the-root.com/apostate-from-government-religion

  15. I believe it was John Adams who said (maybe I’m paraphrasing from memory), that; “You can conquer a nation by the sword, or by debt.”

    So what do we think is going on here? The Cloward-Piven strategy? To spend America into bankruptcy, chaos and collapse, then, pronounce that they will ‘fix it’… isn’t that history and not speculation now?

    “Withdrawing consent” is laudable, but just words when it comes right down to it. The question then becomes, ok, we agree, but… How? How exactly, do you ‘withdraw consent’ from a government, in a way that both gets noticed, gives MUCH PAIN, and has a detrimental effect on the bureaucrats? Something that will provoke them into showing their true colors? Something that will make them turn into monsters?

    A tax strike… but not just a tax strike, a tax revolution. How do you do that?
    First, sound the alarm and announce The Plan to everybody, then get a website(yes, necessary now days), and collect petitioners and those who agree to join such a thing. Joining must give pain to both parties, joining must be in the realm of; Lives, Fortunes and Sacred Honor.

    During the Vietnam war, they, burned their draft cards… they withdrew consent for an unrighteous war. I fought, stupidly, but I ‘consented’ to an illegal and ultimately unrighteous conflict. Now, I see the Beast, and knew, that in the eyes of God, what I did was not just. In the eyes of America, when I came home, I was spit on and called ugly names… but, the burners, those burnt their draft cards, defined a generation… and we have suffered for it since. Because The Burners are now in charge.

    I say we turn the tables on them, and burn our 1040’s EN MASSE. But we do it right. Pick a day, give months to organize, sign people up with a feedback numbers for locations we choose ourselves, so that we will know WE ARE NOT ALONE. Do not make people fill in their names, just fake internet names are fine, OPSEC should be paramount. BUT, we all promise to SHOW UP at The BURNINGs. I pick April 14th or thereabouts, just because its the right time. If this is framed as the biggest anti ObamaCare ‘rally’ ever, then, we’ll see if we get anything but the 3%…

    We also promise, our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor, in DEFENSE of Liberty, and those who are targeted for arrest or conviction. Let them, the IRS, know, we will hunt them to their homes, and burn them as well. For every patriot they prosecute, ten IRS agents will go down in flames. Give them a offer they cannot refuse. Make it explicit in the event, The Burning.

    God gives blessing to those who enact justice. For justice is His desire. Where is justice in this fundamental transformation? Let the media howl in protest, and the politicians scream, and the bureaucrats squirm, for protest, scream and squirm they will, you can be assured of it.

    It will also cause something else… the utter collapse of confidence over seas, the dollar may fall, because, you, your taxes, stand behind the dollar. Be aware this could be the fight of your lives. Stand with your brothers in arms, to fend off the SWAT attacks, attack the prisons if provoked, hide from the drones using thermal blankets, there are ways of fighting a beast.

    AS was once famously said; It is not the size of the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog. It is God’s liberty, and justice, you fight for. We must understand that, if nothing else. To those who think they are righteous by the ‘separation’ of church and state, understand this… It is a trick of government, of tax breaks given to preachers to remain silent about partisan politics. This destroys the Righteous, because they become divided by party instead of conscience. Remember who the British were more afraid of than George Washington’s pathetic little army? That’s right, it was called; The Black Robe Regiment. The preachers who stirred the people to God’s Liberty and JUSTICE under arms. Where is our Black Robe regiment today? It was coopted for thirty pieces of tax free silver…

    God bless,
    Piper

    • FrozenPatriot

      Excellent insight and ideas. When do you launch the website? I’m ready to stack up behind their pre-dawn no-knock stack. I’m ready to, as you say, take the fight to them.

      • Well so far, its me and you… that’ll work out well.

        It seems no amount of nonviolent ideas, can sway the community from the desire for a real fight. So be it. Be careful what you wish for… once the elephant is seen, it sits on your soul and crushes all before it.
        I will stand with my brothers, no matter what.

        • Semper Fi, 0321

          Several yrs ago I had some friends talked into tax revolt, to stop paying their income tax and return a signed $0 1040 form. On tax day, they were at their accountants office, shitting razor blades that they would get their taxes done before midnight.
          Cowards all!

        • Mt Top Patriot

          Hear you Piper, like Jim says, “It starts with you”

          There is an easy way to send a message to “…the people who really run things who don’t ever come up for re-election…”:

          Look up addresses in the federal register, pick out a suitable public official, send a post card or a brief note in kindness explaining diplomatically that you withdraw consent of them and what they represent. Or inform them they work for a government that is no longer legitimate, explain that it no longer represents the foundations of rule of law and republican form of government.

          “Dear So and So,
          I hope this brief salutation from a fellow American you represent finds you well.
          I am writing in regards to my consent. I withdraw my consent for the establishment you work within, an establishment I pay directly to represent me as an American.
          I believe the organization you work within sadly does not represent the best interests of the rule of law and representative government of the people, it is system of special interest and cronyism, I therefore withdraw my consent for you and the current regime as it exists.
          It is no longer legitimate as a form of representative government.

          I therefore invite you with this missive in joining a plurality of law abiding Americans in constructive lawful peaceful redress of the fundamental illegitimate transformation of our Republic.

          Thank you and kind regards,
          A concerned fellow American.”

          Sending a message to the lowliest in the pecking order may be most effective. They may be most vulnerable and or open to the idea of consent. They have lesser vested interest in advancing the tyranny and corruption of others in more powerful positions. This is the level where rumors spread and abound in a bureaucracy.
          Tyranny can’t succeed if there are minions who doubt it’s legitimacy and take their own measures to withdraw consent, even if it is tacit.

          What other cultural and psychological effect on these people would sending them a personal correspondence??

          There is in fact a truth about unelected officials that they are indeed very much representatives that should and must be held accountable.
          We pay their damn salaries. We have no choice as far as diktat by OUR government is concerned.
          Well if it’s good for the goose, than it’s good for the gander.
          No more double standards.
          If we have to pay for moochers and traitors, might as well let em know they are accountable.
          This patriotically intrudes on the cozy abnormally lucrative isolated nests of unelected government bureaucrats right where they work. “Work” each of us here literally pay for. Therefore we have an vested interest
          Lets them know you know it.
          Creating doubt about the illegitimacy of a system of rule over us is the first steps of redress.
          Effect change in one mind and you have accomplished a ct of resistance. Changing many minds is the beginning of revolution.

    • “How exactly, do you ‘withdraw consent’ from a government, in a way that both (1) gets noticed, (2) gives MUCH PAIN, and has a (3) detrimental effect on the bureaucrats?”
      =================

      Flawed premise.
      It’s not about them, it’s about you.
      They are stealing your shit and telling you what to do, and apparently you are OK with that.

      By the numbers:
      1) I don’t want them to notice and kill me.
      2) The only pain I care about is the lessening of the pain the gov’t tries to make me endure.
      3) I had an old platoon sgt tell me, “Givem enough rope to hang themselves.”, and that is what the politicians are doing by spending themselves into oblivion. In the meantime I am doing the one thing I was put on this planet to do – better myself and others as I see fit.

      I can’t fix the world nor do I want to but I can fix me and by doing so maybe my actions and thoughts will be noticed by others and they will try to straighten their own lives out. Or not.

  16. If there were really any numbers of ‘3%ers’ or ‘freefers’ they would retreat to a defensible position, be it Montana, New Hampshire, or where ever, settle in and start creating the kind of living they desire. I don’t think I will ever see such a thing happen. It would actually cost something.
    In the American Revolution most of the ‘elite’ were in favor of the Revolution. In modern America you can hardly find a dog catcher in favor. The Tea Party is a joke; they just want to preserve their Medicare, SS, and War funding for themselves.

  17. FrozenPatriot

    “Can the regime of those running things, in order to hold onto power, kill nine and a half million people who withdraw their consent? Can they kill 3% of the people? Lets be conservative. Lets take 3% of the 3 percent: 285,000. A bit over a quarter of a million American’s, who lets say, are die hard never give up, fight to the last bullet, tooth and nail, to the last man, “give me Liberty or give me death” patriots. Would a legitimate constitutional government murder 285 thousand American souls because they withdrew consent?”

    Of course they would!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAS9SRpEfD0‎

    …and who would care? The sheeple have been brainwashed to think “fringy kooky right-wing militia nutjobs” (myself proudly included) are a danger and that the world would be better off without them. Go for a walk in your neighborhood tonight around 7 or 8 and glance into the living rooms of your neighbors. They’re all wide-eyed and comatose, sitting shoulder-to-shoulder being programmed by the multi-spectrum drug filling the room from the idiot box. Addiction to the uninterrupted flow of mindless entertainment and brainwashing is disturbingly rife and it destroys virtues like ambition, creativity, morals, and curiosity. The movie Equilibrium easily comes to mind, and the resistance must similarly find a way to wake the masses.

  18. “The sheeple have been brainwashed…”

    Then why do you care what they think? Scores of millions of Americans would prefer every reader here, dead. Even sadder, some readers here would prefer some of the other readers, dead.

    Crazy maybe, but true. So what? Is there a person alive who has some other life to live, than his own? If so, then name him. If not, then live it.

    • FrozenPatriot

      “Then why do you care what they think?”

      Because, gun to their head, they write us off and freedom with us. This leaves my loved ones living under tyranny along side the ignoramuses that blindly allowed it in. I’m making the point that we have to wake them up so that we can all live our lives in liberty rather than creeping slavery, including my sound-asleep neighbors and my grand kids and their grand kids.

      • “I’m making the point that we have to wake them up so that we can all live our lives in liberty rather than creeping slavery,”

        Yes, I know. Hey, I’d like to wake ’em up too. SO WHAT??? Accept it—they’re not gonna wake up for a long, long time and your liberty DOES NOT rest on them. Besides the fact that you’re already free-willed, you also know that they’re not worth a hill o’ beans anyway.

        Read MTP below. Most people wanna say, “Alright, those are nice words but what should I do?” IOW his point flies right over…it’s not up to HIM to tell YOU what you ought to do. It’s up to YOU. That’s what responsibility IS.

        You wanna free life? Then LIVE a free life. And if someone tries to stop you, don’t let ’em. Sure that’s easier said than done, but what isn’t? The FACT is that each person is in this all alone, but there’s nothing in physics that stops free individuals from working together.

        Now me, I don’t want to leave this world without having at least one drink with Alan. Gotta have goals.

        • Mt Top Patriot

          You go Jim. Tell em Brother.
          Woo Hoo! that that is excellent, man, I like how you put it.
          “Then live a free life”, that’s it, that’s the essence of it right?

          Bravo!
          Bravo man!
          Bravo!

      • I agree with Jim. I wrote an article about this point:
        http://ncc-1776.org/tle2013/tle707-20130203-08.html

      • Hint: They aren’t asleep.
        They only seem asleep because they are not on your side.
        You’re behind the 8 ball and you better figure it out.

  19. “the MOVIE Equilibrium comes to mind…”. And therein lies the problem. You saw it. I didn’t. Stop giving money to the Hollywood Reds. Last movie I paid to see was LA Confidential. A good end point.

    • FrozenPatriot

      What makes you think any money exchanged hands? 🙂 I stopped sending my hard-earned money to Kalifornia years ago…

  20. Mt Top Patriot

    Ain’t anybody figured it out yet?

    Couldn’t be any plainer than if it hit you upside the head.

    Give the bastards the fucking finger.

    Call them what they are. Nothing but a bunch of thieving lying crooked son of a bitches.

    It’s the truth damn it!

    Whats with all the jaw boning and bitching about how things are, if ya ain’t got the balls to tell the elites they are a nothing but fucking clowns who ain’t worth a bucket of warm spit if they didn’t have a crooked system to rob us blind and hold their hand when they get caught.

    What is everybody afraid of here?

    They gonna come and shoot your naked arse at 3am?

    Oh woopty fucking doo!

    They will do that if we all don’t get off our lazy arses and get everyone we know to tell the motherfuckers running things to go fuck themselves.

    They can not survive a million people who tell them to fuck off.

    Hell they can’t put up with one guy with cancer on FOX news who tells the truth of how he lost his insurance because of that commie fucking abortion of a shakedown called obamacare.

    What is fucking wrong with all you guys?

    Are you blind?

    We got the assholes right where we need them and most of you are sniveling and whining!

    Christ on a crutch!

    LETS WIN!

  21. I see a wide diversity of comments and opinions here; which is as it should be to determine a consensus or rational cross section for action. I have been at war with IRS and MO TAXATION for over twenty years. I will not concede. We are told in and out of court that we are held responsible because we received one benefit or another. They must be made aware that their family members along with them will be held responsible and punished because they received the benefit of the criminals actions in corporate government. What comes around goes around and has to be passed along to them. Retoric is fine for these armed uniformed goons policing our every move, but, not for those of us who seek results of a positive nature. You can bet your bottom dollar there are some of these slick suckers right here on this site quitely honing the issue to suit their agenda. Be careful and be certain of what result you want to achieve for the price will be dear. I support this agenda whole-heartedly if and when it comes about.

    • Their dementia is beyond the capacity of words.
      Disembowelment will get their attention, and hold it.
      Understand, they must die, all of them.

    • “I support this agenda whole-heartedly if and when it comes about”

      The whole point is, that so long as you’re willing to BE free, the whole agenda is in your hands. For me, it “came about” years ago, when I decided my personal income info was no longer THEIR business. Therefore, April 15 comes and goes every year, without fanfare.

      Come to think of it though, maybe there SHOULD be some fanfare. Call it Consent Withdrawal Day.

      Instead of being afraid that they’ll come get you, imagine how proud you’ll be of yourself that you haven’t contributed financially to this country’s destruction. Of course, the first key to that equation is either correcting your W-2 to reflect about 12 exemptions, or telling your employer that you’d prefer working as an independent contractor.

      Either you consent, or you don’t. How much “coming about” will it take?

      • “Will it be all unionistas, muslims, educators or pols or will it be on an individual basis ?”

        Wow, did they invent a round that offers that choice?

        Look, you’ve got the answer—“Either you consent, or you don’t.” Everything else is just a way of pretending that the responsibility lies somewhere else. Here’s the formal version, from ghostsniper above…
        ——————————————
        We can’t change each other but we can change ourselves, if we want to, and that is the only place change will come from.

        It starts with you.

        • Mt Top Patriot

          There is an easy way to send a message to “…the people who really run things who don’t ever come up for re-election…”:

          Look up addresses in the federal register, pick out a suitable public official, send a post card or a brief note in kindness explaining diplomatically that you withdraw consent of them and what they represent. Or inform them they work for a government that is no longer legitimate, explain that it no longer represents the foundations of rule of law and republican form of government.

          “Dear So and So,
          I hope this brief salutation from a fellow American you represent finds you well.
          I am writing in regards to my consent. I withdraw my consent for the establishment you work within, an establishment I pay directly to represent me as an American.
          I believe the orginiation you work within sadly does not represent the best interests of the rule of law and representative government you work within, I therefore withdraw my consent for you and the current regime as it exists.
          It is no longer legitimate as a form of representative government.

          I hope my missive assists you in joining 3% of the population in constructive redress of the fundamental illegitimate transformation of our Republic.

          Thank you and kind regards,
          A fellow American.”

          Sending a message to the lowliest in the pecking order may be most effective. They may be most vulnerable and or open to the idea of consent. They have lesser vested interest in advancing the tyranny and corruption of others in more powerful positions. This is the level where rumors spread and abound in a bureaucracy.
          Tyranny can’t succeed if there are minions who doubt it’s legitimacy and take their own measures to withdraw consent, even if it is tacit.

          What other cultural and psychological effect on these people would sending them a personal correspondence??

          There is in fact a truth about unelected officials that they are indeed very much representatives that should and must be held accountable.
          We pay their damn salaries. We have no choice as far as diktat by OUR government is concerned.
          Well if it’s good for the goose, than it’s good for the gander.
          No more double standards.
          If we have to pay for moochers and traitors, might as well let em know they are accountable.
          This patriotically intrudes on the cozy abnormally lucrative isolated nests of unelected government bureaucrats right where they work. “Work” each of us here literally pay for. Therefore we have an vested interest
          Lets them know you know it.
          Creating doubt about the illegitimacy of a system of rule over us is the first steps of redress.
          Effect change in one mind and you have accomplished a ct of resistance. Changing many minds is the beginning of revolution.

        • Mt Top Patriot

          Like you say Jim, “It starts with you”

          There is an easy way to send a message to “…the people who really run things who don’t ever come up for re-election…”:

          Get a handful of blank postcards or envelopes, stamps, and a few words.

          Look up addresses in the federal register, pick out a suitable public official, send a post card or a brief note in kindness explaining diplomatically that you withdraw consent of them and what they represent. Or inform them they work for a government that is no longer legitimate, explain that it no longer represents the foundations of rule of law and republican form of government.

          “Dear So and So,
          I hope this brief salutation from a fellow American you represent finds you well.
          I am writing in regards to my consent. I withdraw my consent for the establishment you work within, an establishment I pay directly to represent me as an American.
          I believe the orginiation you work within sadly does not represent the best interests of the rule of law and representative government you work within, I therefore withdraw my consent for you and the current regime as it exists.
          It is no longer legitimate as a form of representative government.

          I hope my missive assists you in joining 3% of the population in constructive redress of the fundamental illegitimate transformation of our Republic.

          Thank you and kind regards,
          A fellow American.”

          Sending a message to the lowliest in the pecking order may be most effective. They may be most vulnerable and or open to the idea of consent. They have lesser vested interest in advancing the tyranny and corruption of others in more powerful positions. This is the level where rumors spread and abound in a bureaucracy.
          Tyranny can’t succeed if there are minions who doubt it’s legitimacy and take their own measures to withdraw consent, even if it is tacit.

          What other cultural and psychological effect on these people would sending them a personal correspondence??

          There is in fact a truth about unelected officials that they are indeed very much representatives that should and must be held accountable.
          We pay their damn salaries. We have no choice as far as diktat by OUR government is concerned.
          Well if it’s good for the goose, than it’s good for the gander.
          No more double standards.
          If we have to pay for moochers and traitors, might as well let em know they are accountable.
          This patriotically intrudes on the cozy abnormally lucrative isolated nests of unelected government bureaucrats right where they work. “Work” each of us here literally pay for. Therefore we have an vested interest
          Lets them know you know it.
          Creating doubt about the illegitimacy of a system of rule over us is the first steps of redress.
          Effect change in one mind and you have accomplished a act of resistance. Changing many minds is the beginning of revolution.

        • Mt Top Patriot

          “It starts with you”
          Sure does.

          There is an easy way to send a message to “…the people who really run things who don’t ever come up for re-election…”:

          Handful of postcards or envelopes, stamps, and a few chosen words.

          Look up addresses in the federal register, pick out a suitable public official, send a post card or a brief note in kindness explaining diplomatically that you withdraw consent of them and what they represent. Or inform them they work for a government that is no longer legitimate, explain that it no longer represents the foundations of rule of law and republican form of government.

          “Dear So and So,
          I hope this brief salutation from a fellow American you represent finds you well.
          I am writing in regards to my consent. I withdraw my consent for the establishment you work within, an establishment I pay directly to represent me as an American.
          I believe the orginiation you work within sadly does not represent the best interests of the rule of law and representative government you work within, I therefore withdraw my consent for you and the current regime as it exists.
          It is no longer legitimate as a form of representative government.

          I hope my missive assists you in joining 3% of the population in constructive redress of the fundamental illegitimate transformation of our Republic.

          Thank you and kind regards,
          A fellow American.”

          Sending a message to the lowliest in the pecking order may be most effective. They may be most vulnerable and or open to the idea of consent. They have lesser vested interest in advancing the tyranny and corruption of others in more powerful positions. This is the level where rumors spread and abound in a bureaucracy.
          Tyranny can’t succeed if there are minions who doubt it’s legitimacy and take their own measures to withdraw consent, even if it is tacit.

          What other cultural and psychological effect on these people would sending them a personal correspondence??

          There is in fact a truth about unelected officials that they are indeed very much representatives that should and must be held accountable.
          We pay their damn salaries. We have no choice as far as diktat by OUR government is concerned.
          Well if it’s good for the goose, than it’s good for the gander.
          No more double standards.
          If we have to pay for moochers and traitors, might as well let em know they are accountable.
          This patriotically intrudes on the cozy abnormally lucrative isolated nests of unelected government bureaucrats right where they work. “Work” each of us here literally pay for. Therefore we have an vested interest
          Lets them know you know it.
          Creating doubt about the illegitimacy of a system of rule over us is the first steps of redress.
          Effect change in one mind and you have accomplished a act of resistance. Changing many minds is the beginning of revolution.

  22. Pingback: Spread The Word | Western Rifle Shooters Association | Carl Stevenson's Blog

  23. High sounding words, patriotic speachifying, random jibberish about how bad we are getting screwed..
    What this boils down to.. regardless of when or what is done, is how far and to what depth are we willing to go to rid ourselves of the traitors and the social disease they created that caused this, aside from our own laziness and preoccupation with nonsense. What people will be chosen as enemy and who will be allowed to pass ? Will it be all unionistas, muslims, educators or pols or will it be on an individual basis ? Without knowing who will be held accountable for what and why beforehand is counterproductive.. if we don’t rid ourselves of the traitors they will rear their ugly asses up again on our kids.. at least that’s my pov.
    If you consider it in a clinical way these bastards have done to us with educators what Pol Pot did with bullets.
    Most people today have no idea what has happened to them or why yet they understand something is wrong but as you go younger that haven’t a clue. There is no doubt that anyone over 50 is a walking dead man. They will not blink an eye, so that leaves us some choices to make.. we must decide

    Yank lll

  24. Pingback: » November 30, 2013

  25. Pingback: Oprah the Racist, Insane Paul Krugman, Obamacare & Guns, In God we trust, More | IOWADAWG'S BLAWG

  26. Pingback: B2 Journal | Spread the Word

  27. Hang together or we hang alone. Libertarianism is a dead end. Culture means getting people on the same page. Acculturated people can form militias and armies that easily defeat solitary, angry individuals.