Developed From Comments: What Is This ‘Constitution’ Of Which You Speak?

Screen Shot 2016-02-28 at 11.45.35 AM

In reply to a question in comments on this post, consider the following:

The preceding gent stated:

“I think the writer is losing sight of the fact that conservative values and fealty to our divinely inspired constitution are non negotiable, and are worth fighting (and killing) for.”

I replied:

“Should that murderous loyalty be to the ideals supposedly protected by the USC/BoR, or to the flawed expressions therein?”

Another (hopefully clearer) way to ask my question would be:

“Is the Constitution/BoR worth killing over, or is it the ideals supposedly protected by that document that are worthy of taking others’ lives?”

My premise for the question is that the USC/BoR does not and has not stood by itself for 200+ years.

What we refer to as “the USC/BoR” is not just the words of the document themselves, but also all of the words of all of the ratified amendments, plus all of the accreted ‘interpretations’ of all of those words by Federal courts (not just SCOTUS, but circuit courts of appeal and even district courts) for 200+ years.

That interpretative process has created the following monster:

all words of USC/BoR

+

all words of every ratified amendment

+

all published words of every court that has ruled on all USC/BoR/amendments since ratification of each

=

“the body of US constitutional law”

Now, restating my question with that info, it reads:

“Is the body of US constitutional law worth killing over, or is it the ideals supposedly protected by that institution that are worthy of taking others’ lives?”

I would argue that the body of US constitutional law, as a whole, is not worth a duck’s fart, in that along with ‘the good stuff’, it includes statements such as:

– the Feds can require private citizens to purchase health insurance
– any level of government can seize private property for virtually any purpose so long as there is some nominal adjudication process
– administrative agencies headed by appointed officials can promulgate rules that have the force of law
– laws forbidding a woman from directing a doctor to murder her baby are unconstitutional
– warrantless surveillance/seizure is acceptable in far more circumstances than a layman would believe reading the words of the 4A standing alone
– anti-sodomy laws are impermissible
– the $ taken by force by the Feds under the name of ‘social security’ ceases to belong to its original earner
– public displays of Christian symbols are forbidden on government land
– notwithstanding the ‘shall not be infringed’ language of the 2A, government at all levels can infringe upon RKBA in multiple ways as long as there are enough hoplophobes amongst the reviewing panels of judges for a particular controversy

and so forth.

This point is missed by most Constitutionalists, who without sufficient thought accept the body of US constitutional law as being worthy of bloodshed.

More importantly, those same well-meaning folks also fail to see that, as long as “The Constitution” is defined as the prize, it is very easy for supporters of the past 80 years of collectivist judicial activism to claim that they are defending the Constitution (as it is understood in reality by >50%+ of the American people) from evil white men who want to turn the clock back.

Let me repeat:

The people who will in the near future come to kill/imprison freedom-loving folks will say and believe that they are the ones defending the Constitution and the legitimate USG from those who would violently overthrow those democratic, 100% legal American institutions.

It is a huge problem that I have not seen anyone in FREEFOR address explicitly:

Is the USC/BoR/amendments/caselaw edifice worthy of our efforts?

Your person.

Your people.

Your property.

Your principles.

Those are worth defending to the final extreme.

Not the verbal vomiting-forths of elitist lawyers for the past 200+ years.

225 responses to “Developed From Comments: What Is This ‘Constitution’ Of Which You Speak?

  1. Your person.

    Your people.

    Your property.

    Your principles.

    Those are worth defending to the final extreme.

    Yup, that’s IT.

    • To be sure, this would be one solution. There is another solution that I kindly would invite you to consider.
      John Adams, one of our Founding Fathers, once stated truthfully: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Greed, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for any other.”
      Read that last statement of his again: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
      This statement had implications. That is to say, it contained certain conditions. Thus, for instance, when patriot Americans would want our government today to return to the constitutional republic which it once was, they must face the fact that it simply could not be done until a time when the American people would return to being “a moral and religious people.” Will you not see this?
      Yet there is no spiritual will on the part of the vast majority of Americans to return to God; to return to being a Christian nation once more. Indeed, there is a marked revulsion and a studied hatred to the whole idea. Consequently, as of this day, our original constitutional republic “is wholly inadequate to the” governing of the current citizenry because they emphatically and willfully insist on being an immoral and irreligious people.
      Therefore, the solution to fixing this country would not be found, for instance, in removing the entire government by force by an armed band of patriot Americans who would march on the national and all of the states’ capitals, and would eject the government by force, for the next day the majority of citizens simply would reelect a government just as lawless as what was removed; for “as the people are, so will the government be.”
      Either that, or if tomorrow the patriot Americans would take over every branch of government high and low across this nation, it would soon have to abandon the Constitution, and to declare martial law; for the numerous political left will not live under such a government, but will riot violently until the constitutional government of the patriots would leave office.
      Hence the solution will be, either to remain a constitution-less, lawless society and government, or to follow the Almighty’s truly constructive solution to the problem, and become “a moral and religious people” through nation-wide repentance and faith, with the moral transformation that results from it, as the Ninevites did (see the biblical book of Jonah chapter 3).
      May Americans wisely and constructively choose the latter, and be blessed by God for it!

      With kind regards,

      Gene Urtel – The Rivertown Press

      • Gene, thank you for stating it so clearly. That is the exact conundrum and dilemma for ANY proposal to rectify the problem.

        The constitutionalists can reform the documents but there is presently no majority population capable of living the principles.

        The anarchists won’t adhere to any “principles” beyond their own will and a few ground rules to which the failure to adhere usually ends with “aggressors are shot in the face.” Whereupon some group or other with capable leadership will bring some sort of order from chaos, benign or likely not.

        Mankind’s carnal, willful, fallen nature will be ruled or will run ever more to destruction. Whether that rulership is of Man or God, it will be.

        I would rather be ruled by the laws of God, or Nature if you prefer, than by those at the whim of evil men. Men seek their own advantage… God seeks our liberation from sin and our happiness. His laws for living are not to bind us but to spare us pain and unhappiness.

        “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.”

        When has infidelity, adultery, lying, blame, recriminations and divorce ever produced anything but misery? Straight or “gay?” When has “gay” “marriage” ever produced a child or the continuity of a coherent society?

        “Thou shalt not steal.”

        Just too obvious.

        “Thou shalt not commit murder.”

        Got a problem with that? Really?

        And so on. And then we come to the three greatest pieces of advice ever given:

        Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God with all thy heart and with all thy might.

        Love your neighbor as thyself, and

        Do unto others as you would be done unto.

        In our current dire straits, and just so you all won’t think me a total wuss, that last one has a corollary. If your enemy is irredeemably bent on your destruction, the natural law of self defense allows you to,

        Do it to them before they do it to you. (See David v. Goliath, Joshua v. Jericho, Jesus Christ v. Satan. If that last one seems out of place, you haven’t a clue as to the spiritual nature of our age old war with tyranny.)

        Our Enemy is.

        Get busy.

        (See David v. Goliath, Joshua v. Jericho, Jesus Christ v. Satan. If that last one seems out of place, you haven’t a clue as to the spiritual nature of our age old war with tyranny.)

      • Given a continent filled with immoral, mutually-hating peoples of different cultures, how can one political system (especially one built by and for white Protestant males of the 18th century) be expected to work?

        • Skipped right over this:

          “The constitutionalists can reform the documents but there is presently no majority population capable of living the principles.”

          “The anarchists won’t adhere to any “principles” beyond their own will and a few ground rules to which the failure to adhere usually ends with “aggressors are shot in the face.” Whereupon some group or other with capable leadership will bring some sort of order from chaos, benign or likely not.”

          dincha? And this:

          And then we come to the three greatest pieces of advice ever given:

          Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God with all thy heart and with all thy might.

          Love your neighbor as thyself, and

          Do unto others as you would be done unto.

          In our current dire straits, and just so you all won’t think me a total wuss, that last one has a corollary. If your enemy is irredeemably bent on your destruction, the natural law of self defense allows you to,

          Do it to them before they do it to you. (See David v. Goliath, Joshua v. Jericho, Jesus Christ v. Satan. If that last one seems out of place, you haven’t a clue as to the spiritual nature of our age old war with tyranny.)

          Our Enemy is.

          Get busy.

          (See David v. Goliath, Joshua v. Jericho, Jesus Christ v. Satan. If that last one seems out of place, you haven’t a clue as to the spiritual nature of our age old war with tyranny.)

          WTWT

          • Meant to add that no form of Liberty can exist absent the above. None.

          • “The constitutionalists can reform the documents but there is presently no majority population capable of living the principles.”

            Then doesn’t that suggest something other than constitutionalism?

          • So is Monsanto a family farm? Or in other words, after the Left hand of the Elite is cut off, how much will we let them grab with their Right hand – which can easily gobble up the entire country while they grow back their Left hand. The Private has always been more powerful in modern times. It funded the Revolutions. The Left has always just been their jab. That patriots wont recognize this simply insures their defeat. And they wont recognize it because they want to be it. They identify with the Monsantos and Rothschilds – therefore they will quite naturally be ruled by them, either openly or secretly.

    • Yes, all public lands must be put up for sale immediately. Everything must be private. We will be ruled by Corporations – and that’s fine because they’re private citizens. Monsanto is a family farm. Foreign Corporations too? Why not? What would it matter at that point? Corporations have no loyalty to any land, location, or nation.

      Libertarians are the biggest fools who ever lived. They’d give away their nation in a New York second. The smart ones are conscious traitors, but most aren’t smart enough to be.

      • jessejames87

        Hahahahaha, here I was struggling to wade through all this prose and lofty abstract thought. Then I found this little gem. Dude, you are so far behind the curve you’ve been lapped. Yet here you sit, all smug, thinking you’re way out front. I really can’t quite think of an appropriate hyperbole to show exactly how far out of your depth you are. And here I had people telling me GenX and Millenials weren’t 99.9999% retards.

        On a side not Lugh, I don’t know you. So while the stinging remark stands, stick around and learn. Nobody agrees on everything here, but I’ve found there to be some legitimately intelligent people using compelling, fact-driven arguments most of the time. Maybe you have some of your own you’d care to share. I’ve found little tolerance here for weak-sauce (am I still hip?) assertions and shallow intellectual thought. I wouldn’t have it any other way. You?

      • Corporations are products of the State.

        The deal is that they collect taxes … and, in return, they enjoy certain advantages.

        Typical advantages might be immunity from prosecution; the introduction of beneficial regulation, and so forth.

        A Corporation could not exist in a free market.

      • As Klein will tell you, Corporations are not Artificial Intelligence. They are not some all powerful out of control Frankenstein monster. They are owned and ran by individuals.
        You keep jabbing at libertarians but have demonstrated no basic comprehension of libertarian doctrine.
        In a libertarian system corporations will have limited protection on a legal basis but they would have no avenue to control government. They would not be able to purchase government power (which they enjoy today) because the government itself will have very little power to sell.
        Politicians are corrupted because they have a product to sell. If you diminish the value of their product to its lowest level possible then the value of the politician is logically nil.

        • Though in fairness it should be mentioned that “shielded liability” is indeed a age-old scam that was initiated by the usual gangs of oligarch looters to unfairly protect their wealth, while protecting nobody else’s. Lugh calls that “Capitalism,” which is a semantic issue and so not very important. The problem is that he has the conceptual range of a child who knows nothing but the fairy tales he’s read, and so can’t grasp the alternate, wholly ethical, meaning.

          “There’s nothing but individuals out there.” Corporations as shielded units were created and serve to distract from that foundational truth. Personally, I’d be very hesitant to guess what things might look like when consent is honored. Lotta weirdos out there in a lot of ways; no telling what they may come up with. Point is, as long as they don’t intend to impose it on others, it doesn’t really matter. My life will look like how I choose, and so will yours and each and everyone else’s. The lives of those who choose to live as thugs will cease to exist. Win, win.

  2. There it is. We had the original USC/BoR, which was almost immediately betrayed in secret proceedings of the Convention in Philadelphia of 1787, and which has been screwed with as described above for two centuries. Before that we had the original Articles of Confederation, which would be far preferable now. As for killing in self-defense? Also as described above, given the current circumstances.

    • Gary Hunt opf

      I agree with Nels, that until 1861, when West Virginia was made a state, in direct violation (I know, they made an excuse, a few years later) of Art. IV, Sec 3. Prior to that, Court decisions rested on direct reference to the Constitution.
      By 1872, when Yale introduced “case law” method, we see an established means of building on previous decisions, rather than the Constitution.
      The result is, now we really have three constitutions. The question is, who will fight for which of the three?
      “The Three Constitutions – Which One do You Defend”
      http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=835

  3. The constitution lasted almost 70 years. It was pretty good. What has come since has been pretty bad.

    • The announcement by Chief Justice Marshall that the Supreme Court was first among equals re constitutional questions in the USC’s executive/judicial/legislative structure (not stated anywhere in the text of the USC) came in 1803.

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

      http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/democracy/landmark_marbury.html

      https://waltercoffey.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/the-importance-of-marbury-v-madison/

      http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4554150/significance-marbury-v-madison

    • Get rid of the “General welfare” clause, the “necessary and proper” clause, and the Interstate commerce clause, and you have a fine document…

      • And all of the Federal case law?

        • Most of that would not exist, absent the clauses Pyrrhus mentioned and the many ill advised Amendments, not to mention the imperial Sc(r)otus.

          Certainly, no constitutionalist I have read means to re-establish verbatim what we have now. Most recognize the flaws and have proposed means to eliminate them. No written agreement has any force other than the fealty, honesty and courage to enforce of its adherents.

          Do you envision a society with no written rules or code? Agreement by aural tradition? How is that not a recipe for subornation, refusal, denial, argument? How does that spare us disintegration or allow us to defend against those “other” who don’t recognize our new found mores, see us as weak and lacking cohesion, a national anarcho debating club?

          You know, like this here, now?

          • Jon:

            You are talking end state.

            I am talking about a cold-blooded assessment of where we are now.

            Endstate is a new rules set, taking what has worked from the past and fixing what has not.

            Having answered your question, where do you see the human terrain and its support for FREEFOR today, and why?

            • CA<

              Is the USC/BoR/amendments/caselaw edifice worthy of our efforts?

              Everyone always thinks this must apply to the entire North Amerikan landmass occupied by the present kakocrats who use the Constitution as the touchstone for unlimited government. The doc was designed from the beginning to enshrine unlimited central government.

              If in the coming Endarkenment all the Orcs are defeated, you don't replace the old with a new set of rulers, you bust up the geo-conclaves.

              If SFC Barry wants to create a curious amalgam of Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings neo-monarchists feudal fiefdoms, great. Leave me out of it.

              Outlawpatriot and his fanbase want a Constitutional "republic", great. Leave me out of it.

              Slavery is ugly no matter what pretty colors, banners and bad music you append to it.

              There are certainly folks who simply want to be left alone and brook no rulers, only rules – rules of commerce and peace backed up by a profound belief in a Flinter like self defense (see the Lanague Federation).

              One reason why statists and collectivists absolutely need everyone under one idea and one umbrella of government supremacism is that the tiniest inkling of freedom on an individual basis is a very bad demonstration to the Helots laboring under their fantastical plantations based on initiated violence and wholesale theft.

              Spooner and Royce are right.

              I made the case here: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/09/william-buppert/the-constitution-the-god-that-failed/

              Many here are shooters yet the 1934 NFA, 1938 FFA, 1968 Us V. Miller, 1968 GCA, 1986 FOPA, 1989 Bushevik ban on cosmetically offensive weapons, NICS, Brady, AWB (on and on and on) – ALL constitutional and remain in place.

              The very word Constitutional has zero descriptive value.

              Bill Buppert

            • “You are talking end state.”

              Guess I am at that, but only by way of answering your query as to Fed case law.

              Human terrain now? see my comment above, response to Gene Urtel.

              Support for FreeFor?

              Barely nascent, precognitive, inchoate… but simmering in a cauldron of fear and loathing, filled with dread, ignorant and in a state of denial which is disintegrating as the old paradigm slips its moorings. In short, lacking focus and leadership which, as much as many of us loathe it from many past bad examples, will require charismatic white horse clarity to galvanize.

              • Here’s what I truly don’t understand:

                Premise #1: Man is inherently sinful due to his fallen nature

                Premise #2: The sinful use of power by men can be controlled by some document, be it the Decalogue or the American civic version of same

                If man is inherently sinful, I want as little to do with my fellow humans as possible (and vice versa), and whatever interaction that does occur must be solely upon consensual mutual agreement between the parties.

                Why must I support any grand edifice of power of man over fellow man/”governance”/tyranny?

                Why can’t I rely on a simple civil code (“keep your word, or pay for the damages arising from the breach”) and a simple criminal code (“these acts will get you killed, these acts will get you beaten, these acts will get you placed into the stocks, and these acts will get you banished”) with a simple court system for issues both civil and criminal that don’t get thrashed out between the parties?

                Why should I or anyone tolerate the multiple boots that stand on each of our throats today?

                Look again at the list:

                All words of USC/BoR

                +

                all words of every ratified amendment

                +

                all published words of every court that has ruled on all USC/BoR/amendments since ratification of each

                +

                all words of all currently-effective Federal statutes

                +

                all words of all currently-effective Federal regulations

                +

                all Federal case law thereon

                +

                all words of all currently-effective state statutes

                +

                all words of all currently-effective state regulations

                +

                all state case law thereon

                +

                all words of all currently-effective local statutes

                +

                all words of all currently-effective local regulations

                +

                all state case law thereon

                +

                all words of all currently-effective interstate statutes (e.g., PA NY/NJ, etc.)

                +

                all words of all currently-effective interstate regulations

                +

                all Federal and state case law thereon

                +

                all words of all currently-effective international treaties

                =

                the body of law bearing on each American citizen

                All created by men to exercise power over other men.

                Why should I accept one iota of that silliness?

                Why?

                • Who will enforce that simple code though Pete…You, you and your friends, a council of men…That is where it gets murky…

                • What is the difference between this:

                  “Why can’t I rely on a simple civil code (“keep your word, or pay for the damages arising from the breach”) and a simple criminal code (“these acts will get you killed, these acts will get you beaten, these acts will get you placed into the stocks, and these acts will get you banished”) with a simple court system for issues both civil and criminal that don’t get thrashed out between the parties?”

                  And a rational constitution of LIMITED governance as intended and proposed by sane men as a response to either bedlam or tyranny? They are both the proposals of men and by men must be carried out and ENFORCED. No difference except that of scale and I will accept the importance of that difference.

                  “Why should I or anyone tolerate the multiple boots that stand on each of our throats today?”

                  You shouldn’t.

                  No one I know of, hereabouts, with the exception of the erudite but loony Steve Barry, is proposing any such thing.

                  • But understand to get there involves scrapping the existing madness, which will be opposed unto death by its owners and beneficiaries…

                    • So?

                      That’s the good news…… 😉

                      You are as obdurate in dealing with my remarks as you must think I am with yours. Please read all my comments herein as a unit. Try to collate my position as I have tried to express it. I can’t keep answering the same question in varying guise. WADR, sincerely.

                • If we accept Jared Diamonds four stages of Human Society: Bands, Tribes, Chiefdoms, and Nations, you want to regress to Tribe apparently. In other words, easy prey. Cowboys vs Bradleys.

                  That guy from Appalachia who monitors the site for any reference to the Appalachian redoubt and then responds with such vitriol and venom (thus confirming the stereotype he rages against)? He may want to go back to bands or extended family/clan. Or to put it better, that’s what he already has and likes. They were there before America, he states. And he obviously feels no allegiance beyond that. Understandable perhaps, and they are among the most prepared in any case.

              • Barely nascent, precognitive, inchoate… but simmering in a cauldron of fear and loathing, filled with dread, ignorant and in a state of denial which is disintegrating as the old paradigm slips its moorings. In short, lacking focus and leadership which, as much as many of us loathe it from many past bad examples, will require charismatic white horse clarity to galvanize.<——THIS!!!!

                There is a teachable moment upon us, use it FreeFor, use it! I happened upon a neighbor the other day who I knew casually. He confessed that he is planning to "buy his wife a shotgun" for those times when he is not there. He asked who I was voting for and I told him "no one" because "no one cares". He said he was voting for Trump and after I pointed out that Mssr Trump is likely a shredder for the Dead Elephants he said "that is exactly why I'm voting for him, because it needs shredding".

                We are approaching class V rapids here kids, stow your gear and hang on.

                • Thanks, Tom, for pointing to that. One of the most crystalline things I’ve ever received.

                  Glad you get it, wish others would do as well.

  4. colddeadhandsdays

    We will be enslaved must we kill everyone of the son of a bitches that woods enslave us. This is a fact.

  5. Good clarification. Answer: No.
    I need to tighten up my speech habits.

  6. outlawpatriot

    Aaand, we’re off! 😀

    This will degenerate quickly.

    • LOL.

      But surely, sir, you do not accept the body of US constitutional law as defined in the piece as worthy of defense, do you?

      • First American Jurisprudence: “Any law that is passed which violates the Constitution is null and void, confers no rights, grants no power and is unenforceable as if it never existed, for it’s illegality dates not merely from when a court rules it as such, but from it’s date of inception.”
        But hay the Constitution and Bill of Rights are no longer taught in schools, let alone the discourse of our forefathers regarding such. When the University of Virginia was originally founded by Thomas Jefferson, every degree conferred regardless of the subject required a thesis regarding the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That ended after the war of Northern aggression and hence was the beginning of the death of both. Regarding your question … well I do not think we can vote ourselves out of this mess.
        And for those who seek remedial action outside of the courts and elections remember thus; A movement requires a political voice, support from an outside source. And one can not be a protester, a political voice without having a clean house. Operational folks such as intelligence, communications, safe houses and active folks in the field can not be known and must stay out of the view, the politics and protesting. As the public figures will be attacked and must be squeaky clean. Pick your poison but stay within your lane.

        • Worth repeating, and teaching to the unaware:

          First American Jurisprudence: “Any law that is passed which violates the Constitution is null and void, confers no rights, grants no power and is unenforceable as if it never existed, for it’s illegality dates not merely from when a court rules it as such, but from it’s date of inception.”

          Case law? Amendments? Problem solved when most understand the above and its implications:

          That No One is required to obey an immoral or un Constitutional “law.”

          Quite to the contrary.

          Thanks, LP.

      • outlawpatriot

        Peter, you of all people know exactly where I stand. 🙂

        I seem to remember you and me having breakfast in Atlanta once upon a time where you posed that very same question in a slightly different form. And my answer was? 😉

        I know why I’m fighting. I have both short and long term goals. Have for a while now. And I have no time for the jibber jabber of anarchists, conspiracy theorists, those that like circular debates, people that hate their country, et al. I wanna just get to the point where I can meet them on the field. 😉

        • I know.

          Others should know.

          People are ready when they are ready.

          There are a whole lotta folks who are just coming to the party.

          This dance is for them.

          • outlawpatriot

            They better like the fucking music.

            It ain’t negotiable. 😉

            • Here’s yer music, OP:music:

              I am the humble fiddler an’
              I beg you call the tune,
              To open to the future and
              Invoke the Tyrant’s doom.

              Take upon you your Aspect
              Of pure and righteous wrath,
              Raise up your Armored Attribute,
              The Warrior’s honored path.

              Throw down the foes of Liberty
              To sorrow as they must,
              To reap a bitter harvest as their
              Hate dies in the dust.

              Accept that, as with your Fathers,
              You’ll not see the Promised Land,
              But with them you share the Honor of
              Humanity’s Last Stand.

              Jon III

              Be happy to play it at your next gator roast and whiskey tastin’.

              • outlawpatriot

                Roger that. 🙂

                • Alan, as I’ve posted before… I shall again – with editing for brevity – when you and I agree, smart folks should be nervous. But I concur. My dear daughter – a “GRITS” – ‘girl raised in the south’; and my sons, taught values and mores and are closer to 1860 than 2016… (we say grace, and we say “ma’am”; and if you ain’t into that, we don’t give a damn…) are dear to me… as is so much else we’ve lost and are losing…
                  “If there’s to be a fight, let it be in my time, that my children shall know peace.” T. Paine
                  We all know there’s going to be a fight. Let’s win.
                  But more importantly… as this verbose verbiage has shown… we all have more in common than we differ… but we have to get there first… gentlemen…. for fuck’s sake…
                  Let’s get it on.

        • I think most have had enough of the parasitic federal tyrants. Anyone flying that shit-stained, innocent blood-soaked, fascist 50 star flag and trying to force the States to stay “united” are no better than lincoln, and will end up dead the just like ’em. u.s. flag wavers are dinosaurs who will add nicely to the fossil fuel supply. How ironic that a southerner would love the federal “union” so much.

          • outlawpatriot

            Just not rich and pretty enough I guess. 🙂

            Hey, you ever gonna introduce me to your sister? 🙂

            • Hey fuck you asshole. How about I pimp out your ugly wife to a gang of niggers? Old white haired punk bitch asshole. I hope the cubans down there eat you alive.

        • Alan,

          So, just what would you really do when actually confronted by an anarchist such as myself ?

          “I wanna just get to the point where I can meet them on the field”.

          AND….DO WHAT ? What would your tired, 68 year old, wanna-be tough guy self do ? Certainly Alan you have a plethora of “….anarchists, conspiracy theorists, people like me who hate the folks you call government, right there in Florida. So why wait Alan ? Why not deal with them like the rabid dogs you believe we are ?

          It never ceases to amaze me how you continually disregard my favorite axiom. You know it well but seem to forget that….”tracers work BOTH ways !”

          You aren’t the bad ass you think you are Alan.

          • outlawpatriot

            That’s it! That’s what I’m talkin’ about! Let’s get them tracers a flyin’! 😉

  7. The USC/BoR has been a great way to make people think they have to pay for something they are naturally born with. We don’t have rights given to us by men and paper. That’s fiction. If true, we are slaves. Think about it.

    • We don’t have rights at all. That is another piece of fiction. What we have is will – either the will to resist impositions, or submission. Those are the two choices.

      There is a lot of BS in the human world. Constitutions, rights, republic, representative government, will of the people, government by consent – it’s all nonsense, and cannot stand up to even cursory examination. There is a simpler, more accurate way of looking at it. There are producers and there are parasites. That’s it. All the fancy stirring words and legal structures are designed to hide that fact, and to make the plight of the producers more palatable to them.

      • I agree with you Paul about the rights. The rest of it as well (which I believe is similar thinking to Klein’s perspective. My wording can me misinterpreted.

  8. Frank Pinelander

    The more people understand this, and refuse to be steered by jingoist proclamations, the sooner a rational solution can be developed and pursued.

    All the drama that is “news”, is designed to create fear, panic and despair. All of which lock people into a reactive mindset.

    • Amen Brother… Would you mind sharing what your rational solution would be…I would enjoy hearing it…I know you would probably be villified for it here but if no one can provide a rational counter to it then those that have eyes will see the truth of it…

    • There is no rational solution.

      So the solution must be irrational.

      100-200 million including the cop scum.

      I know it’s hard to grasp. But, most will understand – one day.

      • It’s even harder to understand that we are going to be included in that 100 to 200 million or did you think that we are special…

  9. What part of The Rights of Man is hard to understand.

    • People have a hard time with the Rights part and the Man part so they really get confused when you combine them;)

      • You mean they have a hard time with having a set of balls and standing up and defying the sonofabitches? Is that what your saying Brother?

        I guess to then, what they are having mental difficulty understanding is a little group of sweet old ladies fought and won against both the tyrants running Mexico, and a drug cartel the fed thugs can’t beat, can’t understand those sweet little old peasant ladies won big?

        Isn’t that called cognitive dissonance?

        • I think it’s even worse than that they don’t even have a clue who to stand up too and for what….

    • Why, Doug, there are no such things as rights… /sarc.

      Paul Bonneau has said so just above.

      And God, Santa Clause and the Easter bunny are all in the same figmentary fantasy, so Divine inspiration is right out as well.

      • outlawpatriot

        🙂

        • Hey, the further the spirit advances in the thought and act of defiance to tyrants, the greater the increase of adversarial nature to eradicating that defiance and resistance becomes. It is an evolution of insurgency that is required, and that it comes in stages, at some point the equation changes, from one of being a subject to tyranny, to one of subjecting tyrants to the motive energy of being so free, freedom can not be resisted any longer.

      • Dude you kill me sometimes:-)

        Allow me to rephrase my comment about non existing ideas of primal freedom in an easy to grasp unmistakable format, Because Fuck You.

  10. THIS.

  11. colddeadhandsdays

    Yeah it’s FUBAR. The solution is to scrap everything but the original wording tighten up and clarify the wording and kill every motherfucker that has a problem with that. That’s a solution that’s realistic. Anything other than that slavery.

  12. CA some very good questions and points.

    The Constitution and Bill of Rights are flawed documents because they were made by flawed men, however aren’t all men flawed and thus anything men creates will be flawed?

    Madison was right when he said; “The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.”

    Our founding documents was developed with the understanding that because of the flaws and tendencies of men the best government was a small, limited, and divided government.

    So for over 200 years from almost the beginning of this republic the weaknesses of men has fueled an attack on our founding documents and principles.

    IMHO CA your duck fart list is one of things that are not in the constitution but have been either added unconstitutionally by interpretation made by flawed or even worst men with evil intentions. The enumerated powers given to our federal government are very small and limited, your duck fart list goes way beyond what was enumerated and is written in our constitution.

    George Mason said he would rather cut his hand off than sign the constitution and because of his arguments against the constitution he created a wound between he and Madison that to best of my knowledge was never healed. But I am sure glad Mason didn’t cut off that hand and instead used that hand to give us a Bill of Rights, God help us if we lose it.

    We can talk about each of the rights in the Bill of rights but there was a valid argument made at the time of it creation that was argued against having the Bill of Rights because it could be understood to limit our natural rights, and folks IMHO that is what bought us the most important right in our Bill of Rights, the 9th amendment;

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Which in my opinion ties us back to something in another founding document;” life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness”!

    As Madison once wrote;” If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

    Our constitution is not perfect, never has been and never will be because we the people are not perfect, we never have been and never will be however if we the people were to today go back to the original intent of our founding documents so many of the wrongs we face today could be corrected.

    I for one believe the constitution and the Bill of Rights is worth dying for because if used properly it can be our shield against tyranny. We must all realize that the enemy is Tyranny and those who promote tyranny by misusing our constitution and Bill of Rights is just as evil as those who promote tyranny through other forms of government like what is promoted by fascists and communist’s.

    When tyranny becomes law
    Rebellion becomes duty

  13. I finally getcha, boss, if we’re going to invest lives, honor, and sacred trust, we have to have a clearly defined: Point of origin, ie; What it is EXACTLY that we are fighting for, and: What EXACTLY is the goal of our exertions and labor. Well, if it can’t be the Constitution/BoR/ and associated laws, rulings, etc., then it will have to be a clearly defined goal of something else, written of course, and its object being the re-establishment of the rule of law, liberty, justice, and freedom, as defined by us, to achieve those aims. We will have to have some kind of framework to operate within, in order for ourselves to stay focused, and for others outside our knowledge to be able to see and judge for themselves whether or not to adopt as their own. It would have to be clearly and plainly written, have the ability to be amended, and applicable to all who swear to it as adopted. Such a document(s) would of course, cause us to be separated from the country we are now in, or the abolishment of it. I say that last part especially because the Con.BoR, etc have all become entangled inextricably not only regarding our country, but with other countries as well. Rather than trying to repair the old, and very complicated mess it all has become, something new, and better is probably in order. One idea I have is to have zones inside the borders that have minimal laws, or none, for those who would still feel restrained. Taxes would still come from it, in the way of a use tax, so that infrastructure could be maintained, Some marshals would be roving around in it, to keep it from turning into a killing zone. But other wise, people there would be free to behave as whatever. Kind of a relief valve.

    • Yup. And whatever the common end goal is, it needs to be “back of the pickup truck” simple – a la the following draft talk to a bunch of scared, pissed-off folks trying to figure out what to do next (from a screenplay that will never be completed):

      “Listen up. These bastards think they get to control every damned bit of every damned thing that every damned one of us does or wants to do. Well, bullshit.

      It’s this simple:

      Nobody – and I mean NO-BODY – gets to mess with me, my family, my property, or my principles. Period. End of story.

      I don’t want to do any of that to anyone else, and I won’t tolerate anyone who does.

      Anyone who tries is gonna get the fight of their lives, and only one of us is gonna walk away. Guess who that’s gonna be?

      There’s a bunch of them up the road, and they’re planning right now how they can come over here and finish us off. Well, fuck them. Fuck them to death.

      I’m goin’ up there, along with anyone else who wants to come, and put an end to this shit, right now. No bullshit, no prisoners, no nuthin’.

      This shit ends now.”

      • Excellent post/clarification/questions you have here. And, you’re right; they’ll use the mutated laws to prosecute the winners when they re-establish the courts.

        Why does every one think there’s such a big fucking stink about who will nominate the next SC judges? Because they know that’s the interpretative side of things that rules.

        I think the “shit ends now” part is gonna be covered in the second half of this season’s The Walking Dead. Rick’s group is gradually learning what they need to do.

      • Would be good PatCon discussion…

      • outlawpatriot

        God, I love that kind of talk. 🙂

        Best to chuck the screenplay and start making it a reality. Fair warning though. Screenplays are easy. Real world is tough. 🙂

      • craigslistrr@gmail.com

        Nope.. Too damn vague,;)

    • Gary Hunt opf

      Perhaps a solution can be found in “The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government”
      http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/plan.htm

    • More parchment worship. In what universe is words on paper not able to be twisted into their antithesis?

      Anyway, if you admit taxes, you’ve just given away the whole ball of wax. It’s exactly large sums of money flowing to the capital that causes the problem.

      As to marshals for protection, that’s just another protection racket. People should protect themselves. Northfield, Minnesota should be our model (the end of the James gang).

    • Gary Hunt opf

      I haven’t read “Hoiogram”, though I have read Spooner.
      Though Spooner did good i some of his works, quite frankly, he sucks in “no treason”.
      Everybody has problems. A decent person will also propose solutions. Spooner fails, miserably, in that he has absolutely nothing to offer — except to get rid of the Constitution — with no suggestion as to a replacement.
      However, everybody seems to like to refer to his book of words, not action.

      • “Spooner fails, miserably, in that he has absolutely nothing to offer — except to get rid of the Constitution — with no suggestion as to a replacement.”

        Gary. Your recent reporting has been outstanding IMO. Realiable, very refreshing these days. So thanks.

        Your social/political philosophy is still a little wanting. You see, the whole point is that it’s not up to Spooner or anyone else to decide how you choose to live your life, what your “replacement” might be for the parchments you value.

        It doesn’t even matter what you value. All that matters is how you intend to achieve those values. If it’s willingly with others, defending your chosen values and theirs, then all is well. If you believe you’re gonna coerce them from others, then you’re on the same side as all the others who intend to do the same.

        That’s all. Sorry, it doesn’t matter how great your values are. All that matters is how you intend to acquire them. IOW if you have failed to achieve your values, assuming you wish to achieve them as a rational man, then the failure isn’t Spooners. If you wish to achieve them as a thug, which frankly would surprise me, then it doesn’t matter what your values are. It’s going to be a fail. That’s what the War is about, duh.

        “However, everybody seems to like to refer to his book of words, not action.”

        Not sure why you believe that. It’s false…”action” means the action that a person chooses, not the action you wish they would choose. Some people refer to books and ideas because they like to THINK before they decide what action to take.

        You don’t have to buy into anyone’s POV, though. Like anything else, it’s a choice. All that matters is how you intend to proceed, consenually or coercively.

        • Hahaha…second time I’ve ever done that. RELIABLE, not realiable! Pretty big difference, eh?

      • You missed the part about – “it is not fit to exist”. How is that so difficult to comprehend? Why would one remove a cancer, and replace with another?
        Where is the reason in that?

        • Gary Hunt opf

          Are you afraid to say “anarchy”? I don’t doubt that you are, because that is the only conceivable solution, if the Constitution is not fit to exist.
          So, perhaps you and Spooner suffer from the same delusion.
          For the Constitution NOT to exist,leaves open just what will exist. Absent a solution, that leaves a void, or an effort to try,once again, having no government.
          Trouble is, history’s absence of an example leaves the obvious conclusion, that it doesn’t work, even in primitive societies.

          • The thing I always say is Anarchy would work if no one had to compete for resources… And since that will never happen well then Anarchy is just another Utopian Dream that the weak minded are drawn too…

    • outlawpatriot

      And there it is. Spooner and Boston. A little later than I thought it would. Sheesh! 🙂

      • That’s why there’s division of labor. “Little later than I thought” could be a big problem in other contexts, huh?

        Little sooner than you think, even bigger.

  14. Well stated CA. Understood that your question(s) are rhetorical [I think most of your readers know the answer(s) too well] but articulated for Freefor to get to the heart of the matter.
    Your piece reminded of one of Mr. Spooner’s quotes (one of my favorites)
    “A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime; whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, or by millions calling themselves a government.”
    ― Lysander Spooner:

    Thanks for helping to prioritize the focus.

  15. “The people who will in the near future come to kill/imprison freedom-loving folks will say and believe that they are the ones defending the Constitution and the legitimate USG from those who would violently overthrow those democratic, 100% legal American institutions. ”

    Then we must secede, let them have “their Constitution, and form a country with our own.

    • Texas already has congressional approval to break up into as many as 5 states.
      Phase one: break up Texas – having one state with the “right” geographical and political make-up.
      Phase two: secede from the union.

  16. Your person.

    Your people.

    Your property.

    Your principles.

    Those are worth defending to the final extreme.
    Yes.
    Unfortunately, those tenets are indistinguishable from the motivations espoused by ISIS. Or, Godwin be damned, from a certain narrow-moustached dictator from Austria. And any number of other rogues and reprobates throughout history, and every barbarian tribe that ever put on war paint or sailed off on a raiding and pillaging holiday excursion.

    The only question above worth considering is what principles?
    If someone’s principles included, say, baby rape and polygamy with animals, good luck with your recruiting drive. Except among a certain obvious and rather unsavory demographic.

    But you actually threw the baby into the sausage machine when you conflated the Constitution and BoR with all the other amendments, plus all the collected legislative and jurisprudential horse droppings of 200+ years. (Which, for the record, would include things like the Fugitive Slave Act, the Dred Scot opinion, and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, just for easy examples of anything-but-the-Constitution/BoR shenanigans perpetrated under color of the Constitution.) It doesn’t take much effort to find out that most people think the current government has been off in the weeds for decades, if not centuries, claims and legal opinions to the contrary from their paid shills notwithstanding.

    The unspeakably horrible constitutional amendments of Progressivism alone, Amendments XVI, XVII, XVIII, and yes, even XIX, laid the entire framework for taking the republic off the rails, to precisely the present predicament we find ourselves in, for only the most obvious example.
    (It’s worth noting that without the XVIIth Amendment, with state legislatures appointing their senators, the late great Justice Scalia would have been the radical left end of the current Supreme Court, and without the XIXth Amendment, the Democrats would have lost every election since 1920, and in the last one carried only Delaware and the District of Columbia. Spit and fuss all you want, it’s true. That’s just two easy differences wrought by what the Founders delineated, versus what finger-banging the machinery afterwards has gotten us. We won’t even go into how severely government would have been curtailed forever had the XVIth Amendment been aborted in the first trimester of its gestation. Or speculate on what manner of absolute p*ssywhippedness would compel otherwise intelligent men to be chivvied by their wives and daughters into outlawing adult beverages, let alone passing the XIXth Amendment, which followed XVIII as hand-in-glove as flies following the south end of a northbound cow.)

    I have no problem with the original document (That would be seven articles and ten Amendments from the original shooting script). Pretty much everything else is open for discussion; some of it (certain Amendments, for example) is probably worth keeping, and a whole lot of it (32 yards of federal code; metric fucktons of administrative fiat regulation, particularly since 1900 or so, when the idea took hold; and a notable tonnage of precedential legal blather and banter from 1800 to yesterday, inclusive) probably ought to be used to jack up the meter on global warming, and get shoveled into a blast furnace’s gaping maw. If any of the maleficent fanboys and petty tyrant bureaucrats attached umbilically to some of the more onerous provisions and decisions got shoveled in at the same time, I would find it a matter of complete and utter indifference, if not good cause for unrestrained jubilance.

    The devil is clearly in the details, but long before you would try and chain anyone to the entire dystopian behemoth Leviathan has shat out its hindquarters since 1791, I’d be looking for a blowtorch to economize on what I’d tolerate, in pretty short order.

    The discussion is a worthy, if unwieldy one, but I think we can agree that the problem with Leviathan is finding the point at which the beast began to grow, and pruning it back to where it should have been perpetually constrained in the first place.

    And jettisoning the whole of what got us started, in favor of vague or explicit pure tribalism, is a recipe to return to the civilizational primordial soup from millennia prior to the Enlightenment. Mayhap some would wish to have been born in the Dark Ages. Well and good for them to wish; but if you’re looking to persuade or impel others to help de-construct the world to that epoch, count me out.

    Your only true friends at that point, if any can be found at all, will be named Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish, and Short.

    • Aesop:

      Never said jettison all of the ideas nor all of the words. The point of the piece is to get people to start thinking realistically about the breadth and depth of the structure currently crushing the collective sternum.

      Reality is actually worse than I noted in the piece, as follows:

      all words of USC/BoR

      +

      all words of every ratified amendment

      +

      all published words of every court that has ruled on all USC/BoR/amendments since ratification of each

      +

      all words of all currently-effective Federal statutes

      +

      all words of all currently-effective Federal regulations

      +

      all Federal case law thereon

      +

      all words of all currently-effective state statutes

      +

      all words of all currently-effective state regulations

      +

      all state case law thereon

      +

      all words of all currently-effective local statutes

      +

      all words of all currently-effective local regulations

      +

      all state case law thereon

      +

      all words of all currently-effective interstate statutes (e.g., PA NY/NJ, etc.)

      +

      all words of all currently-effective interstate regulations

      +

      all Federal and state case law thereon

      +

      all words of all currently-effective international treaties

      =

      the body of law bearing on each American citizen

      The idea that anyone can go back and start from the state of play on December 15, 1791 is just as impractical as someone trying to insist that Utopia will be achievable if we just got rid of all of the damned rules.

      The proper place to begin is at the beginning.

      What is worth taking the life of another human being?

      ‘Cuz ain’t none of this shytte gonna happen — for the Good Guys or the Bad Guys — without a whole lotta that.

      • “The idea that anyone can go back and start from the state of play on December 15, 1791 is just as impractical as someone trying to insist that Utopia will be achievable if we just got rid of all of the damned rules.”

        We can if we win the damned war.

        Which will require “…taking the life of another (many thousands of) human being(s)?”

        No one will have any chance to “get it right this time,” absent that. It’s simple self defense, on a grand scale. Our tormentors have made it so and they may reap as they have sown. The oft repeated “they will not stop” of their own accord comes to mind.

        • No, it isn’t as simple as “self-defense”, Jon. Right now for the large majority of ordinary folks, it is about the old white guys who want to take away everything the People’s Champions have fought for and obtained for the past 100 years.

          And until FREEFOR makes the real cause simple enough for ordinary folks to understand, there isn’t much chance at all of winning that war that some are wanting to fight now.

          You cannot go back to 1791 if you have been exterminated as enemies of the State and The People.

          Ask the Boyks.

          They just wanted to be left alone as well.

          • Gee, that was quick.

            What happened to “This shit ends right fuckin’ now!”

            What I meant by simple self defense may be better summed a my comment below:

            “The unfortunate thing in all of this is that we who value Liberty are very likely going to be forced to fight and kill for our very survival without regard to the finer points of this discussion.”

            “Processes and interactions, social and financial, which No One, not even the Gnomes of Zurich, can foresee or control, are proceeding apace without the slightest regard for our moral dilemmas.”

            Not to void, or avoid, this discussion but I’ve answered your every question to the best of my knowledge, belief and ability. But that, above, is the reality.

            • It’s important to understand what must happen after the self-defense.

              Do rational people actually believe that a return to December, 1791 (with or without the acceptance and accommodation of chattel slavery, BTW?) would be feasible by any stretch of the imagination?

              Across the entirety of the former USA?

              Based on what?

      • The entire Revolution was fought with nothing more to hang one’s hopes on than the DoI.
        For me,that’ll do for now. Especially as one could substitute the current FEDGOV for King George III line by line and no one would notice, nor could quibble with the language.

        Before we get to figuring out how to configure Liberty 2.0, the best use of time and energy between now and that day likely has more to do with Continental Army 2.0 than with establishing the particulars of our new guardians of liberty.

        If one doesn’t win a revolution, the rest doesn’t matter.

        • Kudos, redux.

          “If one doesn’t win a revolution, the rest doesn’t matter.”

          Believe I intimated such several times, herein.

    • Aesop,

      Thank you for writing that.

      Beautifully written and saying all that I might have said were I patient and able, and thoroughly more besides.

      Well done.

      • I would have to second that statement 06…Kudos Aesop…

      • outlawpatriot

        Yep. Really good. Pretty much how I view it. It’s a machine. It ain’t functioning right. It needs corrections. Many of the corrections necessary are painfully obvious. But to make them you gotta win a war first. 🙂

        • Outlaw “Patriot”,

          You write remarks out of both sides of your “mouth”. You claim how you hate those who profess anarchy; anarchy being the highest form of Liberty & Freedom. However, those who despise anarchy and it’s accompanying anarchists most certainly are .gov drones, statists and collectivists, such as yourself. Yet, here you are, wanting to “win a war” against .gov. Which is it with you ? Or are you just pandering to this current crowd ?

          “It needs corrections. Many of the corrections are painfully obvious”. What corrections ? Painfully obvious to whom ? Dispense with the rhetoric. Be specific.

          There you go again with your “plainfully obvious” blustering and bloviating from your rocking chair. You can’t keep your stories or your beliefs straight.

          You may want to consider an extra swig of Geritol each night. It may help you with that dementia.

          • op is suffering from dementia and chronic “head up your ass syndrome”.
            Fucking idiot lives in Palm Beach county surrounded by foreigners, and his home is NOT in a walled millionaires high-rise along the ocean. Him and his family will be quickly consumed by the diversity once the lights go out… 60.1% white- LOL and those are mostly feeble old senior white haired fools like him.

            White (non-Hispanic) (73.5% when including White Hispanics): 60.1% (10.8% German, 10.2% Irish, 9.4% Italian, 7.4% English, 4.7% Polish, 4.7% Russian, 2.4% French, 1.6% Scottish, 1.1% Scotch-Irish, 1.0% Dutch, 1.0% Hungarian, 0.8% Swedish, 0.7% Greek, 0.6% Norwegian, 0.6% French Canadian)[40]
            Black (non-Hispanic) (17.3% when including Black Hispanics): 16.8% (7.2% West Indian/Afro-Caribbean American [4.6% Haitian, 1.8% Jamaican, 0.2% Bahamian, 0.2% Other or Unspecified West Indian, 0.2% Trinidadian and Tobagonian, 0.1% British West Indian,] 0.8% Subsaharan African)[40][42]
            Hispanic or Latino of any race: 19.0% (3.7% Mexican, 3.3% Cuban, 3.0% Puerto Rican, 1.7% Colombian, 1.5% Guatemalan, 0.8% Dominican, 0.6% Honduran, 0.6% Peruvian, 0.5% Salvadoran)[41][43]
            Asian: 2.4% (0.7% Asian Indian, 0.4% Chinese, 0.4% Other Asian, 0.3% Filipino, 0.3% Vietnamese, 0.1% Korean, 0.1% Japanese)[40][41]
            Two or more races: 2.3%
            American Indian and Alaska Native: 0.5%
            Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 0.1%[40][41]
            Other Races: 4.0% (0.5% Arab)[40]

  17. The flaws exploited by our enemies were there at the beginning. How long it might have “worked” does not matter one whit, IT DOES NOT WORK, and none of the changes made have made it work any better. Any system based on the old system will share it’s flaws and is thus also doomed to fail.

    We hold these truths to be self evident, than men are endowed by their creator (whether God or Nature mattereth not) with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. We hold that men retain all powers and privileges needed to retain these rights, self defense against the state and other actors, due process from our peers, and to peacefully or violently remove offenders and abusers from office.

    Good start?

    • More like it (even if it depends on the language of rights). It might be modified to eliminate that this way:

      We hold these truths to be self evident, than men are endowed by their creator (whether God or Nature mattereth not) with their lives and the products of their efforts. We hold that men retain all powers and privileges needed to retain them: self defense against the state and other actors, due process from our peers, and to peacefully or violently remove offenders and abusers from office.

  18. FINALLY!!! Yes someone gets it!!! The intent is what we should be fighting for, the original intent of/by FREE HUMAN BEINGS (the framers) for FREE HUMAN BEINGS (us) put down on a piece of parchment so all would know. A piece of paper DOES NOT define me, nor does it give me anything. The fact I was BORN a FREE HUMAN MAN, CREATED by GOD, not by a government to live my life as I inherently know within my soul to do. And I ask no mans permission to do so!!!!

    • Only God is absolutely free. You are contingent, an “accident” to use Thomist language. In other words, you need not have been. From that proceeds all else: you don’t own yourself, your body, or anything else in absolute terms – the absolute terms you love so much to apply to yourself. As a limited being, you have to get along with other limited beings in a social organization of some kind be it Band or Clan, Tribe, Chiefdom, or Nation.

      If you love personal freedom, the simplest organization is the one for you, namely the band or clan of hunter gatherers. Obviously you then have to obey certain taboos and of course are very directly under the dictate of Mother Nature. But yes, as one gains freedom from Nature, one becomes increasingly a slave of society, more and more at each state. This was also the point of the Unabomber’s Manifesto btw. But he certainly wasn’t the first to recognize it – many have.

      • Well, just because we are temporary beings, does not imply we don’t own ourselves.

        Clearly, to live in society we need to curb our actions to a certain degree. It’s up to the individual how much, by choosing the society. That does not make a person a “slave of society”, because societies do not think nor do they have any will. One can only be a slave of an individual.

        Also, the principle of subsidiarity means there actually is a choice about what society a person will make his compromises with, rather than some homogenized mess imposed from a central government. As long as the trade is voluntary, there is nothing wrong with it. I would pretty easily give up the ability to bay at the moon, to be able to live in society. I wouldn’t give up my guns though.

  19. When manmade LAWs multiplied and PURPOSEDLY superseded GOD’s LAWS, and HIS instructions, is when we heinously erred far off tract.
    It was our undoing as a NATION! Adopting governmental oversight of manmade LAWS allowed the GOD given freedoms and liberty (we so love to claim “rights” to), to be replaced with governmental controls over our GOD given RIGHTS.
    We all see where that has gotten us….enslaved and victims and unrepresented!
    This country loves to falsely state that its Laws are from that Torah Biblical source, but that is horsefodder!
    The first 5 chapters of the Septuagint (Torah) gave us ALL the Laws and it came with Instructions, that we needed. These were the original TRIBAL Laws for MAN.
    Lets go back to that FOUNDATION which our CREATOR gave us and the source of our TRUE Forefathers!

    • The New Dispensation, the New Covenant, established by the life, death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ means living under Grace, not Law which was fulfilled by Christ.

      That said, God’s original instructions for living a good (God ly ) life can never be superseded by man made law, not with a happy outcome.

      It’s that flawed thing, every time.

      But, since we don’t wish to force anyone to believe, indeed cannot enforce salvation, men will resort to some form of organization, the best of which will resemble the Founders intent and will necessarily rely for its efficacy and operation on the dedication of “a moral people only.”

      Absent that, bupkiss.

    • [Gal 3:10 KJV] 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

      [Heb 7:19 KJV] 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

      Always remember that the primary intent of the Law was not for it to be kept, but for it to be, as Paul says in Gal 3:24, our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. In Hebrews also, that all these things (Torah) were a shadow of things to come.

      That does not make the Law of no use for human interaction. Rather, the commandments (being the 10) set forth prohibitions which agree with and sanction, if you will, what we consider to be “rights”.

      – Thou shalt not kill > individual right to life
      – Thou shalt not steal > private ownership of property
      – Thou shalt not bear false witness > right to due process

      I consider it a severe danger to assume that we are smarter/better/more educated/more moral/etc than those that came before us. That doesn’t exclude the possibility that such may be true – just that it is dangerous to make assumptions.

      [Rom 12:3 KJV] 3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

  20. The Constitution that so many say they are willing to defend is not the document that was established 200 plus years ago. You are absolutely correct, what we have today isn’t worth the breath to repeat it. However, the intent of the original document is what is worth fighting for and if need be to kill for. There will come a time when we will be tested. We will be confronted by the very same government that was suppose to defend us from tyranny. The question that needs to be answered is, who will stand in the path of tyranny and fight for their freedom in order to re-establish the government that the founding fathers intended it to be.

  21. Soopreme Court “case law” killed the Constitution. Amendments like the 17th killed the Republic.
    There is so much garbage masquerading as Constitutional Law it will never be repealed or reformed short of “Starting Over”.
    Same for the Debt and Unfunded Liabilities of the Bankrupt Feral Gov…..
    PS:
    Venezuela currently will look like a “walk in the park” compared to what this way comes……..no hyperbole.

  22. The American Revolution was stolen from the FOUNDING FATHERS by the FOUNDING LAWYERS. The entire ConCon was a fraud, and was totally un-authroized by the Articles. The purpose was supposed to have been to amend, not eliminate, the Articles of Confederation. The CON was, held in secret, and was jammed down the throats of the people of the day, using methods very much like O’BamaCare, by the likes of that evil BASTARD, A. Hamilton (such a shame the duel wasn’t held beforehand) and friends.

    Very few of the Signers of the Declaration attended: Jefferson, Adams, S., Patrick Henry REFUSED to attend. It has been described as a Coupe d’état by many scholars – correctly so. The people of only ONE STATE were “allowed” to vote on ratification – RI. It failed by approximately 9-1!!! They were ultimately “ushered into the collective” at bayonet point.

    If any doubt these fact, please read HOLOGRAN OF LIBERTY by Kenneth Royce, aka, Boston Tea Party (also author of MOLON LABE’ and BOSTON’S GUN BIBLE); yup, that guy. You will never look upon that document the same way again, ever. Here’s the link: http://www.amazon.com/Hologram-Liberty-Constitutions-Shocking-Government/dp/1888766131/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403412682&sr=1-1&keywords=hologram+of+liberty

    All of this being said, may I heartily concur with the theme of the author of this post. Individual Liberty, and ONLY Individual Liberty is worth fighting and dying for. Individual Liberty cannot exist in the same space as GOVERNMENT. The latter cannot exist without constant theft, parasitism, and criminal activity to sustain itself. There is no right way to do a wrong thing. Evil is Evil; “A” is “A”, Ayn Rand.

    The Con-stitution was intended from the start to enslave. It has succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of the founding lawyers. It will not save or protect anyone but those who rule. Woe be unto those who attribute this piece of trash to any Divinity. Difficult as it is, one must eventually realize that the American Public has been deceived. Get over it – quickly. Each individual must find his own way out of the matrix.

    It’s long past time to develop new protections to safeguard Individual Liberty. There are but 2, and only 2 ways to exchange goods and services: 1. By Persuasion and mutual agreement; 2. By force or threat of force. The latter is always morally and practically wrong. Think, “Confederation”, Tribe, Voluntarism vs Coercion. The new frontier is developing systems to accomplish number one.

  23. “Anyway, if you admit taxes, you’ve just given away the whole ball of wax.”

    There it is. That’s all any of it has been about, from the day the Constitution was snookered in, to this very day when the looters and moochers are living large off’n what you earn.

    Crime? What, someone doesn’t know what to do with a thief or a rapist? They wouldn’t even exist in a free world…once something doesn’t work, people stop trying it. It’s encouraged now because some people make BIG money from it and they get to feel “civil” about it.

    Protect the innocent? Does that even deserve a response?

    There’s no justification and everyone knows it deep inside. It’s the RESPONSIBILITY that everyone fears and that’s all it is…plain fear.

    “Someone else should do it; someone else will do it.” But they aren’t, nor should they. Whose life is it, anyway?

    There is ONE fundamental choice in ANY social interaction, from two people to two billion—consent or thuggery. Period. You deal with others by mutual agreement and beneficial trade, or you deal with others as plain thugs, ruler and ruled.

    The way to get through this is to make a choice and then defend that choice. Period. There’s nothing else to do. There’s nothing else that CAN be done. Reality rules.

    “Am I going to be a rational human who deals with others by agreement to our mutual benefit, or am I going to be a punk and try to rule over them?” Simple question, simple choice.

    When the dust settles, there will be no question as to which side won. It brings us back to the beginning—you’ll know it’s over when there’s no such thing as a property tax.

    Your property is yours. Who owns you?

    WHO OWNS YOU?

    “But…” “But…” You know what “but” means in this context? It means, “I know you’re right and I just don’t have the courage to admit it.”

    Choose, then declare. That’s the principle and the details will follow. Alan’s the tough guy around here; I nominate him to be first.

    • The fear that currently exists when it comes to dealing with bad people such as thieves and rapists all comes down to our own fear of prosecution from the system we are forced to live within when doing so. Most people can’t see any other way to deal with these problems, and it’s all by design of our government. We are slaves to this reality. To me, it sucks beyond comprehension, and to those who can’t see it, they obviously have not even a clue to the actual possibility.

  24. The unfortunate thing in all of this is that we who value Liberty are very likely going to be forced to fight and kill for our very survival without regard to the finer points of this discussion.

    Processes and interactions, social and financial, which No One, not even the Gnomes of Zurich, can foresee or control, are proceeding apace without the slightest regard for our moral dilemmas.

  25. To determine the status of the people, a test would have to be fabricated and administered.
    Anno Domini or Common Era inquisition.
    Results would have life or death consequences.
    Who would compose such a test?
    Who would administer and grade such a test?
    Who would carry out the death sentence imposed?
    With great power,comes great responsibility.
    Is re-education of the brainwashed masses viable?
    Many of the recipient class are not candidates for assimilation.
    Most of the elite political class will need extermination.
    The executioner will be a special type of individual who either has confidence in the system and his role, or is a raging psychopath.
    “There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell,but the mere pleasure of God.” Jonathan Edwards.

    • “There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell,but the mere pleasure of God.” Jonathan Edwards.

      Not to belittle the esteemed Mr. Edwards but, in our situation {and I suspect most others} that should read:

      “There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of Hell, but the fecklessness, cowardice and moral vacillation of ordinary men.”

  26. Steve, I searched all through the comments looking for yours. Not worth it? LoL!

  27. “Oh, it matters, Walter. ….”
    Considering what is currently going on with the donor class in the GOP about possibly backing Romney, that quote is far more accurate than even the author realizes. What baffles me is why the GOP donor class cares. They could start sadling the Democrats and be just as effective in their cash out. Probably more so since a President Clinton would be looking for high end graft from sea to shining sea.

  28. CA’s “question” asked…

    “Is the body of US constitutional law worth killing over, or is it the ideals supposedly protected by that institution that are worthy of taking others’ lives?”

    That is two questions, unfortunately combining a discrete term (Q1) and an abstract term (Q2).

    (Q1) “Is the body of US constitutional law worth killing over….”

    The answer is, “No.”

    (Q2) “…[Or] is it the ideals supposedly protected by that institution that are worthy of taking others’ lives?”

    Again, the answer is, “No.”

    If the Constitution is not worth killing over, then (by implication defending) the ideas it is based upon are not worth killing over.

    If the ideas the Constitution are based upon are worth killing over, then one must accept the Constitution and its consequences. One cannot reject the effect (the Constitution) while embracing the cause of that effect (the ideas the Constitution is based upon). To do so is a contradiction. But, contradiction is what informs the “patriot (or ‘Liberty’ if you wish) movement.”

    Now, if the question were rephrased, “Is it worth killing over eradicating the ideas that inform the Constitution?” my answer would be, “Yes.” There was a happy time in the history of the West when there was such a glorious example; it was called the Inquisition.

    S//

    • Wisdom and Discernment here.
      Amein. amein.

    • What are the ideas behind the Constitution which require examination/repudiation?

      • I’m sure it’s the freedom and liberty for all since he wants a Monarchy…

        • How is a monarchy inferior to a democratic kakistocracy?

          • Not saying it better or worse than what we have now CA…Just stating by what he has said here that its what his problem with the Con. was… That’s all no more or less…

          • Monarchy is the will of one (usually/likely/prone to) evil man, and his striving sycophants, versus the evil will of an oligarchy acting through a charade of the will of the venal mob.

            Oh! The happy happy times of the inquisition!

            The rack, the gibbet or the ax…. lets see, do I get a choice? Oh, yes, I can confess to “crimes” I never committed and receive “absolution” and a “merciful” death at the stake by immolation.

            Oh! Happy day, when the Inquisition takes all my sins awaaaaaaayyyyy!

            Jump Jeebus, Steve, you can say the most ridiculous nonsense with the straight face and all the probity of a pretentious “scholar.” Prof. X? ‘Zat you?

            If there was any real humor in it, I’d say you’re a refugee from Firesign Theater.

            • What do you know about it? Excepting what you got from bubblegum wrappers?/ S//

              • There’s Inquisition cards?

                Bet that Torquemada brings a premium! I gotta do an EBay search……

                That all you got, Steve?

                Bubble gum?

                That’s a wrap, Folks!

              • Answer the question. What do you know about it?/ S//

                • Torquemada was your clue.

                  What do you know about him?

                  Awww, fuggid, you don’t really give a shit, other than to disturb it.

                  DLL- Doctor of Latrine Law, or, Shithouse Lawyer

                  • In other words, you know nothing altogether about it./ S//

                    • C’mon, scholar… Who was Torquemada?

                      Who did the Inquisition serve and why? Or was it the other way round?

                      Is torture morally justifiable? summary execution and the persecution of whole classes of people on specious grounds of “witchcraft” (and all manner of irreligious, unscriptural mumbo jumbo) justifiable in your tiny mind?

                      It must be painfully pitiful to be so in need of the approval of “Higher.”

                      Especially so when “Higher” has made known His Will through the Salvation offered freely through the Life, Death, Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ (whosoever Will!) … made known to the Great Illiterate Unwashed (enslaved by Church and Crown for centuries) through the scriptural acumen and courage of your much maligned Martin Luther.

                      That watershed led directly to The Enlightenment and the establishment of a government by Consent of the Governed, rather than by spurious and and haphazard papal investiture of monarchs. The pope is only a man, get it? No One needs any intercessor other than Christ. No rituals, no priests, no ordinations, no sacraments, no infallibility, no fasting, no sacrifice… nothing you can add by you own efforts, or those of popes and potentates, to what Christ did at Calvary: other wise, in the words of the Apostle Paul, “the Cross of Christ be made of none effect.”

                      Yes, the results have been predictable… men have failed in their duty, just as you and your valiant SF Underground buddies, all four of them, failed to take out Clinton after Bosnia.

          • The superiority of monarchy would depend, entirely, upon the character, intelligence, humanity and morality of one. single. man.

            If that man were subject to immediate recall and banishment, etc, by the peerage, tit might be superior to the madding rabble “authorizing/voting” their own enslavement… but enslavement by any other name…………

            Why would anyone, Steven Barry, want to rest their entire societal relationships upon the will of one mortal man? If you think that investiture by the Pope, noblesse oblige, Divine right of Kings, etc, is for real…
            you not only will never be knighted, you are simple benighted.

            Likewise, none of us rational folks considering how to arrange our affairs to the benefit of a sane society are espousing the rule of the oligarchs at the (manipulated/purchased) “will” of The Mob.

            False dichotomy.

            • would depend, entirely, upon the character, intelligence, humanity and morality of one. single. man.

              And the recent death of a Supreme Court justice is a crisis, why?

              Tom

              • Because he was the only such man on the court and one of damned few anywhere in public life… and because the bastards likely murdered him and are getting away with it.

                So far.

            • Mr. Oughtsix,

              Whew ! You’re really on a roll across the depth of this comments section. You make many good arguments. Too many for me to concur with, oppose or add to. Besides, not much I could add to that you already didn’t remark admirably on. Bottom line….you’ve REALLY been quite informative here this go around.

              However, the comment I appreciate the most is this one in reference to the Army retiree Barry. Barry, who can’t get it through his thick skull that the Army shit canned him, pensioned him off, back in ’97 when his 20 year board came up and Big Army told him “Go Away, You’re Not Wanted”.

              Kudos on this comment of yours in reference to rocking chair retiree Barry:

              “….men have failed in their duty, just as you and your valiant SF Underground buddies, all four of them, failed to take out Clinton after Bosnia.”

              • I am humbled by your remarks, and thank you Dan.

                “Doesn’t mean we’re gonna be takin’ warm showers together….”
                Clint Eastwood as Gunny Highway, Heartbreak Ridge. 😉

        • Marx and Lenin wanted freedom for all. If you doubt it, read them./ S//

      • Read Wycliffe, Ocam, Luther, Calvin, Descartes, Hume, Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, Smith, Franklin, Hegel, Jefferson, Payne, Kant, Madison, Adams (both of them). They are an easy and logical slide into Marx/Engels and Lenin — and the cunt Rosenbaum.

        S//

  29. If I’m gonna fight for a word my word is poontang…..seriously though;

    I’ve stuck my flag in the ground for; my natural right to life, liberty and property. I’m not fighting for the constitution nor the BoR. I’m fighting for my natural rights. The constitution was wrought by men. My rights didn’t come from them. They come from nature and natures god.

    It’s long past time to dissolve the political bands that have connected us and institute new government.

    What’s that new government? I reckon that’s what we should be discussing.

  30. “Is the body of US constitutional law worth killing over, or is it the ideals supposedly protected by that institution that are worthy of taking others’ lives?”

    Neither. The body of US constitutional law is lies, and the ideals of men very. There is but one word that matters. His word. Only a righteous and just law is to be defended by life. Only the Natural Law of God, is righteous and just law.

  31. “In the long run, we are all dead.” John Maynard Keynes may have been an economic idiot, but he at least got that one right. What happens to this country in 20 years is not going to be my concern. So, why should I be concerned with it now? Ecclesiastes 9:9, baby.

    • So either you don’t have kids or you don’t give a fuck about them…I for one though do care and would rather the war start now so my kids won’t end up as slaves…

      • Not to mention we are all living in it right now to some degree and rapidly declining.

      • Roger that Lineman. I remember the picture of the little girl whose fingers are entwined with the chain link fence while her parents are being brutalized by the state police. The caption reads; ‘when future generations ask why we did nothing, what will your answer be?’ Those who say; who cares about the future is part of the enemy camp. Just saying…

        • It’s cowardice in my opinion but maybe I didn’t take it in the way he meant it…We all have a habit of doing that at some point since we aren’t talking to each other face to face…I told a Brother today I pray that God will take my anger and turn it into resolve to stand against evil wherever and whenever I’m called to do so…I hope to have Brothers to the right and left of me but if I have to stand in the Gap alone I know he is with me…

          • Brother, you will not stand alone if I am still standing. You know where my hide is. All you have to do is call … and I will bring others. Besides you are on my Northern flank, what the hell could I do? GRIN.

            • You being there Brother gives me strength and I thank you for that…And you know I’m here for you as well;)

              • Wish I was closer to you both. Here, so far as I know, I got nothing.

                • The light will always be on for you 06…

                  • That is most welcome, Brother. I doubt I could ever take you up on it, but I deeply appreciate the sentiment.

                    I return in kind but why you would ever come here I shudder to imagine!

                    Nevertheless, you would be welcome.

                    Jon

                    • outlawpatriot

                      Mmm… may I offer some advice my friend? Never say never and remain flexible. 😉

                    • 06, Are you anywhere near the Northern Rockies? We have some classes coming up. Learning and meeting like minded souls makes for a good time. We have folks scattered all around our area. Distance takes on new meaning when it may be 100 miles between towns of any size. One simply ignores it and keep their foot in it. GRIN.

                • …time to head west, 06… better a year too early than a day too late.

                  • Frail wife, all family, hers, mine and ours, are nearby.

                    Last time I mentioned Montana, she, missing not a beat, said, “‘Bye!”

                    Kinda like Curly Bill said to Wyatt in Tombstone.

                    But thanks fellas, I appreciate it sincerely. I envy you your good location.
                    Mine isn’t tragic… the Ozarks has a little rugged isolation and a tradition of self reliance and rebellion?

                    I figure that, if melt down occurs during spring/summer/fall, the Golden Hordes will be consumed by ticks and chiggers before they ever reach me!

          • I know for a fact there will be a gnarly ol’ fucker that has your back, brother. You should know that as well…

          • Yes, I guess it’s cowardice. But then, I don’t see anyone else taking up arms to stop the depredations of Fed.gov…

            • You will know when it’s time and that’s when you will find what your made…Don’t give in to hopelessness and fear Brother… Christ overcame all even death and through him we can as well…

      • I do have kids, but they will be slaves just like I am today. You think a WAR is going to solve this? If anything, our offspring will be MORE enslaved than we are now.

  32. Pingback: WRSA: Is the Constitution Worth Killing Over? - The Order of the White Rose

  33. DWEEZIL THE WEASEL

    Sorry I’m late to the party. I cannot add anything original or profound. All I can do is repeat the two Natural Law tenets in Maybury’s book: WHATEVER HAPPENED TO JUSTICE? 1) Do all you have agreed to do. 2) Do not encroach on the person or property of another. Obviously, Mordor-On-The-Potomac has violated these two tenets for many years. This makes the FEDGOV and their ORCS null and void in my mind.
    Now, you may say okay, Dweezil, why are you still paying your taxes? Why are you still giving your hard-earned wealth to the Leviathan? The obvious answer is that if I do not, men with guns will come for me. My disabled wife and stepdaughter will be out in the street and i will be dead or in jail.
    I would reference the latest tome from SLL, where he goes over the FEDGOV balance sheet and the fact that 37% of the Leviathan’s “assets” are student loans! We are close to the “event horizon”, whatever that really means. I can endure for the time being and plan, prep, and pray for what is surely going to happen. When the dust clears, those of us left standing can write a new Constitution or Articles of Confederation. Bleib ubrig.

    • DTW, That’s the old guys plan, out of necessity

      Me too.

      Bless you and yours. I feel your constraints. In my bones!

  34. After reading, I can’t help but believe…
    Because of the current Mental State of Society,
    1-The US no longer exists, except in name only, and as a land mass.
    2-Balkanization is Inevitable

  35. Pingback: The Captain's Journal » A Touching And Heartwarming Story Of Violence And Revolution

  36. Q: But if there is no higher level of government above us, who gets to finally decide? A: Nobody. Nobody should have a monopoly which allows them to declare final answers. Final answers are overrated and unnecessary. When the contestants finally stop fighting or feuding or yelling at each other in public then it stops. As fighting is costly and destructive, only idiots keep fighting.

    Your problems are not my problems. If you try to draft me into taking a stand on your problems, either as a soldier, taxpayer, snitch, or bullet backstop, then you have created yourself a new enemy: me.

    “Local” is a weak try to address the monopoly problem, because somebody who hates the one final answer badly enough can usually move away. But having conceded the existence of something which rules, the rulers use that advantage to consolidate and here we are.

    “No-monopolies” allows moving away from an underperforming criminal control system without leaving your neighborhood. The one antidote for bad performance is competition, and that includes military competition from armies. “No-monopolies” reminds us to do the competition immediately before the badness gets stronger.

    • “and Klein can have his small land where no one interacts with anyone else accept on a strict voluntary basis.”

      I have no idea where you’re at. But I know where Klein is, and that’s exactly how it is up here. We have so much land and forest between properties you literally can scream and no one can hear you. If you can see another house when you’re standing in your front yard then you have no clue how we live up here. NO. CLUE.

      I’ve traveled all over the states lately, and for the life of me, I can’t figure out why the vast population of americans all cluster together so close you can smell each other farts, and hear each time someone talks, shuts a car door, or rolls down the road. No wonder you guys are worried about the “hordes”. All we have to worry about is an occasional local druggie looking to steal something.

  37. Seems to me to be an interesting mental exercise but somewhat irrelevant on a national level.
    Unless you happen to be the new messiah then your options are limited.
    1) Choose a line to fall in to. Your opinions are now irrelevant.
    2) Lead.
    Outcomes of (2).
    a) Death.
    b) Control over an area the size of which is inversely proportional to your likelihood of surviving the attempt to take/hold it.

    If the collectivists don’t have the power to enforce their plans at gunpoint across the entire nation then sure as hell neither do the constitutionalists or the anarchists or anyone in between.

    • Well done, very insightful. That’s why this time is different. It’s the first time in history it’ll be bottom-up because it’s the first time in history it’s possible and doable.

      New ideas always sound odd to stubborn emotionalists.

  38. I just know that the Romans are evil and we need to kill them, maybe after we do that we can all sit down and figure out what system we want and how much influence it should have on our lives. Maybe we could have smaller areas within the whole country that tried out the different systems. That way Steve could have a small land where burning the feet of heretics till the bones fall out is a daily practice and Klein can have his small land where no one interacts with anyone else accept on a strict voluntary basis.
    I cant decide guys, you are all making a good case. I cant determine if I want to be a Peoples Front of Judea, or if I want to be in the Judean Peoples Front.

    • Splitter.

      The only viable group is the Liberation Vanguard For Judea.

      🙂

    • “where no one interacts with anyone else accept on a strict voluntary basis.”

      It’s worth noting that it’s already like that for about 99% of the people, about 99% of the time. Depending on the lines at the DMV, I guess. Let’s face it…if we can’t fix the other 1%, we suck and probably deserve what we get.

  39. Pete,

    The ideals and principles that are embodied the the Constitution and associated Bill of Rights (which were, as most know, required to guarantee ratification of the Constitution) are worth protecting, as they require the least amount of submission by John and Jane Doe and the most amount of personal freedom available under any form of government on the planet when executed and administered as written and by design

    The follow on question might be: “Do the ideals and principles embodied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights require the citizenry to rigorously enforce at the local, regional, and national levels when it is apparent those ideals and principles are plainly violated by associated governing bodies?”

    An example of the answer may lie in. “The Battle of Athens” in 1946.

    Following that, one might ask: “What is the best way to ensure the citizenry, who share in the opportunity presented by government administered according to the plain language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, fulfill their personal responsibility to hold to account, or physically ensure those elected execute and administer those principles and ideals faithfully?”

    All the questions have alternative solutions, none of which are easily applied, as over 50% of the nation (about 160,000,000 people, give or take) receive some sort of government stipend that keeps them fed and sheltered.

    That said, what can be proposed? Balkanization? Confederation? Simple and painless ‘divorce’ (I wish it was simple as that!)? Trash the ‘bones’ (founding documents) and start over with a vacuum (who’ll fill it – probably not an entity concerned with ‘live and let live’ or personal principles).

    There’s a lot of water under the bridge, many wrongs have been committed in the name of the Constitution and the Bill or Rights, and a lot of people subsequently hate the founding ideals, principles and documents so much, they seem to wish bloody chaos resulting in scorched earth, which I find to be unacceptable, because nobody will ever again know a life that’s not short, brutal, and nasty. For me, it goes back to rigid enforcement of the bedrock that ‘the Rule of Law’ in this country was predicated upon: The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    My .02

    • “…and a lot of people subsequently hate the founding ideals, principles and documents so much,”

      Then name one. You’re just making that up, at least in this context. Why would you care anyway? Do you really care that some nitwit Bernie fans think they’re gonna live for nothing? So it’s crazy; lotta craziness out there. Aren’t there enough real problems?

      “they seem to wish bloody chaos resulting in scorched earth”

      “they SEEM” Yes, seem to you; that’s just you making up stuff again. WHO wants “bloody chaos and scorched earth”? Virtually nobody, that’s who. But get this above all else…

      “they require the least amount of submission by John and Jane Doe”

      THAT’S the evil, the submission, and you know it. And if you stand in favor of it anyway, IN ANY DEGREE FOR SOMEONE ELSE, then you are choosing thuggery over consent, since that’s the only way involuntary submission can get done.

      Is that your final answer?

      • My final answer:

        First, my reply was to the question posed by Pete; hence, the greeting, “Pete.” Simply put, I wasn’t writing to you or for your edification. If I had desired a restatement of your oft-cited (and unrealistic, IMHO) position on voluntaryism, et al, I would have asked for it, really. I understand where you’re coming from, and I disagree with you.

        You fail to acknowledge the reality that nature abhors a vacuum, and when a vacuum exists, nature fills it with something. My position, which you obviously disagree with, but I’ll restate it anyway, is that the Constitution, administered and executed as designed, is the best solution to date, in the history of man, to ensure the greatest amount of freedom for all those under its umbrella, be they voluntarists, constitutionalists, atheists, Christians, libertarians, or anyone else. To charge that restoring that method of governance is ‘thuggery’ is beyond the pale. To pick nits about how it’s administered now is also off the mark, as my position has always been about restoration of the limitations as designed on the principles upon which the nation was founded. I’m also on record saying that those who cannot live under such a ‘yoke,’ should the day come when/if we do restore constitutional government, are free to leave, and that includes any of the several States that may or may not choose to leave (more proof of not being a ‘thug’).

        As to those who hate the principles upon which the country was founded and the ‘scorched earth’ types, one only has to read some of the commentary here and at other blogs/forums to validate that many, many people would like to see the whole thing burned to the ground. Name one? Not that I answer to you for anything, but in answer to your question, I’d suggest looking in the mirror if I were you to answer your own question, as you take issue with most who would like to see the constitution restored. Being more benign than others does not change the perception you (I think purposefully) paint that you abhor the constitution because it draws boundaries around not only governmental activity, but that of its citizenry (i.e., representative government vs. individual determination on what is acceptable/unacceptable societally). You don’t say you hate it, but taken together, your position of supporting ‘the great nothing,’ leaving all others with no boundaries, no structure, no method of dealing with those who would harm innocents, does, and leaves the rest of the country vulnerable to entities outside of its boundaries (and some within) that would like to turn us into a host for their parasitic pleasure. Not. On. My. Watch.

        I truly don’t mind your position so long as you don’t attempt to frame the debate and brow beat anyone else who may disagree with your version of how the world should be. If you objectively evaluate the amount and level of discourse you’re having with folks, you’ll see that fewer people are responding because of your baseless attacks (disagreement is one thing; you attack an awful lot).

        For example, in my case, if you’re not going to operate on a mutually respectful (read courteous) level, this will be the last response you get from me (not that I have ANY delusions of my own importance here or anywhere else). It’d be a waste of time: yours and mine.

        Have a nice day.

    • “My .02”

      More like a million damned gold Walking Libertys.

  40. It seems that the only time Americans were free, is the time when the government was too small and under funded to be a problem. There was a lot of open space that was out of reach of the government. Too many people equals too little freedom. The last free man will be on a sail boat in the middle of the ocean.

  41. “If the ideas the Constitution are based upon are worth killing over, then one must accept the Constitution and its consequences.”

    Is that all? Just go look up “non sequitor.” There, problem fixed.

  42. Reblogged this on disturbeddeputy and commented:
    They will think they are patriots defending the Constitution.

  43. Pingback: Constitutional Patty-cake | Head Space

  44. Is it necessary to set up the dichotomy of USC/BOR + all tapeworms attached to them VERSUS clean slate? The potential for overreach exists, no matter what form the govt takes, provided it is administered by men.

    “It is impossible to communicate in such a way that it is impossible to be misunderstood” or something like that. How can the writer’s intent be effectively communicated in a paper document? As you said before, “Can you be more specific?”

    The opposition believes that the original intent of USC/BOR was narrow-minded (they harp on the fact it was “written by rich, white guys that owned slaves”). Looking at the 3 major founding docs (4 if you consider BOR separate from USC), you have:

    Declaration of Independence > the best expression of intent available to us, with zero attempt at structure/plan of execution.

    Articles of Confederation > failed plan of execution, short lived.
    USC > much longer lived, also now proving a failed plan of execution.
    BOR > plan of execution, also failed due to no inherent ability to “secure these rights”.

    In my estimation, we managed to make it at least to the clear expression of intent. The execution of which has been – and may yet still be – many iterations on draft paper; crumpled and tossed to the wastebasket as each is tried and fails.

    The fundamental issue has always been how to willingly vest power in a larger entity (call it a “collective”, if you dare) in order to “secure these rights”, but somehow create safeguards so it doesn’t eventually “grant/approve these rights”, nor have the ability to rescind them. In effect, how to juice up a ferocious attack dog to protect yourself from someone else, but how to prevent the dog from turning and devouring you while you hold the “leash”. Keeping gov’t “on a leash” doesn’t protect us if it decides to turn inward instead of face outward.

  45. Once There Was A Constitution

    And Then There Was None

    “Charges” were finally announced Wednesday ­ in this totally bogus case that has dragged on for weeks without even so much as a hint concerning who was being charged with what crimes in particular…..

    http://rense.com/general96/oncetherewas.html#sthash.LMbQpEIG.dpuf

  46. Gary Patterson

    I would disagree that the “interpretive process” created the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Amendments.

    It did create the “body of constitutional law”, etc, and this is generally where the problem lies. Most of this body of laws is simply unconstitutional and unworthy of being defended.

    • outlawpatriot

      Perfect. Now, if you could get everybody that agrees to those two simple things into a tent, physically or representatively, choose a chairman, and follow Robert’s Rules of Order, then you have a meaningful starting point.

      I’m bettin’ that there is a significant number of Americans that would see the light in such a thing if it could be kept “tailgate simple”.

      Fat chance of that. 😉

      • Lol…lemme guess, your first resolution will be a tax! “I got it comin’.” Did you mention to the folk that you intend to put their children in slavery if that’s what it takes to get your Social Security? Cuz that’s what it’ll take alright; this is already known. “I got it comin’.” Lol…who doesn’t?

        You’re a hoot. Robert’s Rules of Order…maybe that’ll get you the loot, eh?

        So did you decide yet—you gonna work with others consensually and defend against those who don’t, or you gonna try to get your values by forcing them from others…like a tax?

        You’ll choose alright; it’s just a question of when.