K Blog: The Sacred Oath

On the Constitution and (some of) its defenders.

Could it be that, rather than limiting the national government’s power and thereby protecting individual freedom, the USC and BoR are working precisely as intended?

Check out the 19th and 26th Amendments as a kickstart to your thinking.

41 responses to “K Blog: The Sacred Oath

  1. not “precisely” as intended. In fact, absent the (((Third National Bank))) and it’s debt-financing of an ever-expanding welfare/warfare state, gubmint today would be much less extensive and oppressive.

  2. “K” is on to something here.

    Or… As I say, AmRev was the third Communist Revolution.

    Oathkeepers is a bad joke.


  3. Matthew Wilbanks

    Just like any political document, the U.S. Constitution was a compromise between two sides (the Federalists and Anti-Federalists). I have no doubt that men like Alexander Hamilton supported strong central-government for their own nefarious purposes, but claiming that a document can somehow “authorize” or “be powerless to prevent” what has happened in this country as Lysander Spooner did is just nonsense.

    A document is an inanimate object with no will or power of its own. Any failure is mans failure, as it has always been. Man will continue to strive for both good and evil, sometimes succeeding or failing at one or both. The U.S. Constitution is imperfect, because it’s framers were imperfect. I neither deify it nor claim that it is “unfit to exist”. My rights are inherent.

  4. There’s only one comma in the final ratified 2A, the middle one. Ship sailed and all that being understood.

  5. Until this morning, “after” I read this on theKakistoracy site here on WRSA, I was amused. Until today I had no idea of the definition of the word, it’s meaning.

    After googling it, I had to smile. ” the unworthy, or unfit, running the Govt. the least qualified running govt. ” if the shoe fits”!

    I read the article roughly at 09:00, something just didn’t resonate, something was just to tidy. The definition was being milked, oath keepers, military LEO, we’re just a piss poor fit for liberalism.

    The story about the ” trump” country hicks, telling she, and her adopted African American son, to get out. Her African American 12 yr Los son scaring them off, as a shining example of the Hypocracy, the crowd at he foster freeze, just seems to be the pot calling the kettle black.

    Her defining ALL oathKeepers, Military and LEOs as liberals, because of their political alignment is just plain UN truthful.

    I’m sorry I’m calling bull shit., To define a man or woman by such a slim sliver of their lives is self serving, its chickenshit. It’s hypocritical, it’s a poor judgment of the spirt, and hearts of those who served, those who joined for their country. To at least stand up and try. Perhaps to show unity, and loyalty to their cause.

    As for the 16th and the 26th, amendment? No thanks I’m not buying the smoke and mirrors were being led to. The men who prepared the constitution were patriots. Sure the amendments were prepared much later.

    Moral, ethical, legal are all definitions which change from time to time. My example.

    Child brides 100 years ago. 12-13-14-15-16 year old brides and mothers.

    A small sample but I think makes my point. In our era wifes or mothers those ages are very very rare here in the states, religion drove that. Or should I say Christianity made it a sin, or a capital punishment issue.

    When on other continents, in different cultures it’s still a common practice. We’re in the mess we’re in by our own deeds. Our local, state, and federal legislators make new rules ever session, while never recanting the old out dated rules.

    Example. Her in Oregon Cattle Wrustling ! Is still punishable by hanging. No shit. It’s way past time.

    Dirk Williams

    • wendystringer48088

      They are saying the responses starting with “Give ’em hell Navy Jack!” and “Kudos, Navy Jack! Well put, sir.” are trolling messages posted as satire, making fun of the OK position and actions.

      It’s a thing some people do – along the lines of argumentum ad absurdum (“argument to absurdity”) but make it barely believeable so it sticks with people and gets a reaction. Works pretty well, sometimes even better than a well thought out rebuttal that people may not read or consider in depth when people initially fall for the”way out there” posting as a true posting and then realize they’ve been had by a troll posting. “Gotcha”. 🙂

      June 26, 2017 at 6:31 am
      The guy who wrote the restaurant story clearly never left his basement. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so depressing.
      Save us, Constitution! You’re our only hope!

      June 26, 2017 at 9:29 am
      That one was beautiful trolling. I wouldn’t be surprised if Porter sent that story in.

      As another commentator pointed out, “The fact that the military or law enforcement is supposedly where these people originate, and that worse yet, they’re armed is truly frightening.”

      I can see from the Lauren Southern video at the 4:52 mark on that the OK people apparently default to their military training in their ways of dealing with “problems”.

      No one knows how to do a walking one arm escort while the others pick up his stuff and they all walk him away without the choke hold? Makes you wonder how they deal with a drunk friend who gets a bit out of hand…

    • Grenadier1

      The story of the Dairy Queen incident is a troll.
      Its a common tactic on left winger social media and usually sees the story posted to Alt-right boards where it receives a steady string of comments such as “I’ll take Shit that never happened for 400 Alex”. I am very confident this was posted in jest by an Alt-right.

  6. No. Perhaps the USC is working as the federalists intended, but the BoR as the anti-federalists wrote it is simply being ignored by the people in power.

    I understand that there are a whole bunch of people in the freedom movement who are now spending their time making arguments against the USC and BoR, but I’m not sure what their eventual goal is. Are there no other subjects to argue against?

    I’m starting to get confused here. How can we ask for coordination and unity among the freedom movement, and yet hold every possible uniting medium in some degree of contempt? For example, it’s said here often that the “reds” show a good bit more unity than the anti-reds. Ok, true. But every time there is something the anti-reds can unite on, like the 3% ideal, the BoR, Trump, the Tea Party, etc., the people here seem to care little for it.

    What the fuck are we supposed to unite over?

    • Eventual goal is simple: get folks to focus on the ideas behind the USC/BoR/DoI, rather than worshipping the failed documents themselves.

      • Pete, those documents best represent the ideas behind them, the men women who diligently penned them, for the good of all, based on critical thinking of those times.

        Pete, are you a vet? .


        • Not a vet.

          3 badges – five county felony narco, one county all crimes, second county all crimes. 1989-1995. As we used to say: cops put you in jail for under a year, we put you in state prison for the rest of your effing life.

          Understand, Dirk, I am not shitting on the ideas that those docs were designed to protect — free speech, free exercise of religion, private property rights, RKBA, etc..

          I am annoyingly insistent on reminding people of the gaps between what is claimed for the docs and what has actually been achieved under them.

          And I totally reject the canard about “the docs didn’t fail – we did.” The docs were flawed from the git.

          Net-net: Ideas mostly good, execution badly flawed, better execution next time based on candidly-assessed lessons learned from the last 240 years.

          Hope that helps.

        • Grenadier1

          Pete and I have this discussion occasionally so I will toss my two cents in here. My position is that we all failed. The documents as well as those of us living in the country. The documents have no stated consequences for failing to abide by them, nor do they spell out a means of assuring that the concepts behind them are constantly reaffirmed within the society. Thats the part that we failed on. Nothing that we do on a regular basis continues to restate the principles behind the documents. At the time of there writing it was assumed that the people (who mattered) would always be marinaded in the culture that formed the foundation of our society, aware of and firmly understanding the principles of English common law and the rights of man.
          The assumption was that the government was not the principle or at least not the singular guide to the life of a nation. Public and private institutions played as big if not bigger role in guiding the beliefs and traditions of the people. It was the constant push and pull between these forces that drove the nation forward but kept it well grounded.
          The people failed to withstand the assault on those institutions. At the same time the government bloated and unfettered by restraints assumed all of the roles of those traditional institutions, and thus here we are. Its more complex obviously but that’s it in a nutshell.

          Yes I left out the Scooby Jews and the dirty migrant workers.

      • An idea not expressed in words is a nonsensical notion.
        Language is for expressing ideas precisely, and without it, they don’t exist.

        If there are issues with the words, discuss the words you have issues with.

        The documents have not notably failed once. They express exactly what they intend.

        When someone gets divorced, it wasn’t the vow that failed, it was the person who failed to live up to it.

        Your quibble is with men, unless you’ve invented a document that compels utter and perfect obedience. Last time I checked, even the Almighty hadn’t managed that with ink and paper, or even using stone tablets he wrote out hisownself.

        As long as you focus on not-the-problem, you’ll keep getting not-the-solution.

        • Absence of penalty provisions for violations other than impeachment

          Absence of term limits

          Absence of prohibition on creation of new government branches (e.g., administrative departments) without proper amendment of the baseline document

          That’s three. Took two minutes.

          Aesop, you are smart, educated, and articulate.

          Others are, too.

          • I never said it would take long at all.

            So we work on fixing those problems.
            I’ll shell out for the campaign button and a lawn sign.
            Term limits would seem to be the easiest: the Pres & VP were already term-limited. It seems to have made Frank The Cripple a one-off, and gotten rid of HopeyDopey. Let’s extend the experiment to Congress (say 12 years max, total, both houses), and federal judges, including SCOTUS (18 years max). (Which last we could start dumping in two-year intervals, so that every 18 years, no repeats allowed, they’re all replaced. For every Holmes or Scalia we dump, we’d get rid of four Kennedys, Ginsburgs, or Satanmayors.) That’s an easy sell.

            Then move on to the next item.
            FTR, CW v1.0 necessitated three modifications, one of which being the reason you have your federal rights (nominally) applied at the local level.

            As opposed to trying the baby-and-bathwater approach.

            If the objection is that it’s too late too fix, I’m sympathetic.
            But sooner or later, no matter the impact crater, somebody’s going to have to do this again someday (anarcho-eden fantasists notwithstanding).
            Best they have a better blueprint in hand, come the day. The framers did a pretty good job of hedging out the douchebags, but given enough time and enough lawyering, douches find the cracks in the hedge. That’s always fixable.

            After you root out and hang the douchebags.

          • sure he is… riiight.

            if you are comparing the fool to a downs syndrome kid.
            he is nothing but a broke little bitch who lives in calibullit button.
            what lfqueers excuse?

            fucking nobodies.

            seriously, if somebody is truly smart, they would be rich and retire…. oh, i know, they love their work…

            ha ha ha

      • This is 100% correct. No 19 year old wants to go back to 1800. The ideas and path to getting a society that would honor them are generally accepted even by many young folks on the ‘left’. If you say 1st amendment to young folks ‘right’ or ‘left’ they are unreceptive but almost all want free speech, press, and practice of religion. Saying ‘constitution’ loses everybody in the room.

    • jbryan314,
      I think that your last sentence re-phrases CA’s question quite succinctly.


      I think it’s a very reasonable question. Some (though surely not all) of the problems with today’s USgov stem from flaws in our founding docs. They are NOT Holy Writ and the men both fer an agin’ em had each their own agendas … some less purely “liberty-minded” than others.

      Perfection is not in man.
      Were the documents perfect? No.
      Could they be made perfect? No.
      Can any government be limited perfectly? No.

      But a few crucial edits to make the documents better (though still imperfect) couldn’t hurt.

      Still, I don’t advocate revision of the US Constitution or BoR; I instead would advocate for the adoption of multiple Constitutions and Bills of Rights in the disunited (Balkanized) several States, using the USC and early State Constitutions as examples of both what to do and what not to do.

      As a side point, it strikes me that the question you posed is both “Federalist” and “Anti-Federalist”.
      That is, the “Anti-Federalists” cautioned of failings in the USC; whereas “Federalists” (specifically Madison) thought the BoR posed a danger by limiting the rights protected and that the wording of any rights protected would merely be a target to shoot around — i.e., a Maginot Line to fly over — for despots seeking to infringe rights while remaining within the letter of the law.
      There’s more than just a little to both side’s arguments.

      Also, … haven’t we had this question before? The answer is 5.23 .
      Don’t ask me to show my work, I just remember the answer from last time (like questions from that old original Trivial Pursuit).

      • “There’s more than just a little to both side’s arguments.”

        Eh, not really. The Federalists have never really upheld their end and given how the interstate commerce clause now apparently covers everything under the sun while the Feds/States ignore the amendments willy nilly, whats the point?

  7. Muzzles downrange, kids. No room for purity tests.

  8. Logger on the High Slopes

    Yeah, the bull of rights. kept in a pen and slaughtered at the most opportune moment…

  9. Fred Seymour, Jr.

    White Masculinity, Posse Comitatus, and the Awakened Saxon

  10. The return of the people to God-given rights was the result of their prior return to their God-given responsibilities. Like in the days of Egypt, the people exerted an extreme effort to care for one another which led not only to their freedom, but restored the virtue so necessary in society to maintain that liberty.
    Because of that long struggle and mutual sacrifice in a new world and a bloody stand against an unwarranted usurpation, the “People of a state [were] entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative.”2 “In one sense, the term ‘sovereign’ has for its correlative ‘subject.’ In this sense, the term can receive no application; for it has no object in the [Original] Constitution of the United States. Under that Constitution there are citizens, but no subjects.”3
    This early 1793 Chishom v. Georgia case and other American jurisprudence cases speaks of a free and natural non-subject citizenship, but by 1842 there was already talk of surrendering rights and becoming subject to the will of authoritarian benefactors.
    “For when the [so called American] revolution took place, the people of each state became themselves sovereign; and in that character hold the absolute right to all their navigable waters, and the soils under them, for their own common use, subject only to the rights since surrendered by the constitution to the general government.”4
    The inalienable rights of men are still here, but access and exercise of those God-given rights may be barred by contracts, as well as by their agreements and the obligations of those agreements. This is clearly a substantiation and confirmation of the prohibition by God of making no covenants or contracts with the inhabitants where you go.
    Modern citizenship “in the United States ‘is a political obligation’ depending not on ownership of land, but on the enjoyment of the protection of government; and it ‘binds the citizen to the observance of all laws’ of his sovereign.”5 “A citizen of the United States is a member of the large society which we call the United States of America.”6
    In its entirety here:

    Eyes & Ears Open
    semper vivium

  11. Additional background – “anti”-federalist papers – you know, where the naysayers predicted (precisely) the type of government certain to ensue following adoption of the CONsteetooshun; the tut-tut response from those set to gain by same aka “federalists”; Lysander Spooner – any writing regarding the wretched document, Thoreau, Emerson, Nock Our Enemy the State;
    K Royce Hologram of Liberty.

    Oh, and then there is 1st Samuel as well.

    Oafkeepers, indeed.

    The parchment (and its adherents/promoters) Is The Ring.

    from a (blessedly) former adherent.

  12. The US of A is Freedom. It is not a particular race, we have been multiple races from the beginning. It is not a particular religion, we have been many religions from the beginning. It is not a particular nationality, social group, economic interest, or political interest, we have been very diverse from the before the beginning, that is why we had 13 different states.

    It is far too late to be putting any segment back into uniformity, unless entirely voluntary by the members of the segment.

    We change this world best by changing ourselves and helping to improve our communities by our change. Any coercion, laws restricting other people’s freedom, will make everyone’s world worse, that is how we got here.

    Diversity is not the problem. The problem is the coercion, the centralization of power, the loss of Freedom.

    • Jimmy the Saint

      ” It is not a particular race, we have been multiple races from the beginning.”

      Sorry, but no. “The beginning” was pretty much all of the same racial stock, with a few outliers here and there, yes, but not really even enough to constitute a rounding error.

      “It is not a particular religion, we have been many religions from the beginning.”

      Again, not so much. There were some sectarian differences, but it was pretty much a single common religion – Christianity.

      The differences back then weren’t that great, and even those minor ones proved challenging.


    Well, I’m sure this will kick over a hornet’s nest. So be it. The quote at the beginning says it all: “liberalism is two Jews and a black man deciding who to have for lunch. Conservatism is an armed white man enforcing same…” or whatever.
    It has been stated here previously that “our military” and “the good cops” will be on our side when the balloon goes up. I doubt it. The armed whites wearing badges or digital camo will do exactly as their rat bastard NWO handlers tell them. And, they will be supported by all of the ball cap-wearing “I served” crowd(also white) and other useful idiots from the Elks and the local Masonic lodges. We are on our own. Plan accordingly.

  14. The Bill of Rights has an important preamble.

    December 15, 1791

    Congress OF THE United States
    begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
    the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

    THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

    RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

    ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

  15. About as likely as political anarchy working.

    As the world goes, it is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. – Thucydides

    • Northgunner

      Your statement is irrational as anarchy/Voluntarism is NOT a political ‘system’.

      These will help explain:

      What Anarchy Isn’t

      Eeek, an Anarchist!

      The Myth of authority

      If There Were No gov

      The Whole Problem (and Solution) In Two Minutes

      Voting is an act of violence

      To get back to the actual thread, the declaration was a “Hey Georgie, you’re not the boss of us!!..we don’t NEED you or any parasite anymore!! BFYTW!!!..a bunch of troublemakers in your former colonies!!” letter.

      The a.of.c.was a experimental attempt at governing without ‘Georgie the parasite’ and the constitution was a political coup/fraud engineered by hamilton and his bankster/lawyer backers. The constitution re-engaged a ‘parasite class’ and was and is nothing more than a rank betrayal of the spirit of the declaration. The bill of rights was nothing more than a collective bargaining chip that was hastily added in to give the constitution a semblance of legitimacy where none really exists..it was a scrappy bone thrown to pacify the dirtpeople and also help cement the illusion that the constitution exists for their benefit.

      Both Royce and Spooner among others have definitively shown the truth of the matter; others can read them and see for them selves.

      As for me, I don’t waste time or energy on ‘parchment worship’ any more than I pay tribute to the flag of empire..neither are legitimate in my eyes.

      Yours in Daily Armed Liberty via anarchy!
      Northgunner III

  16. So let me get this straight; the 19th was adopted in 1919 and the 26th in 1971 and those are your evidence that the 1790 docs are working as intended? I’m more of an originalist than that. I know that the Constitution has its foibles, but let’s be honest, it’s the best thing going. Who, exactly, has a better thing going? An old buddy of mine once told me, “There’s nothing wrong with coming up with a better way. Just don’t stop doing the old way until you’ve worked out all the new way.”

    So, for those that think the USCON is sooooo bad, what is your alternative? What is your system? No one has put forth a comprehensive plan that comes anywhere near rivaling the USCON.

    • Grenadier1

      Dont think thats being suggested except by Sgt Barry who is of the mind that we went off the rails at the Magna Carta and would like us to put some inbreed Monarch back in charge, but I digress. I think what is being suggested is that we have to accept that just hitting the reset button and taking us back to Adoption Day +1 is not going to cut it. There will need to be modifications. There will need to be some decision made about criminal and civil code ie what do we do about 200 years of legal precedent and case law? What do we do with 1000’s of pages of federal code and procedure? Who do you wipe all that away on paper AND assure its not influencing the judges going forward? Do you replace every single judge in the country? After we have shot all of the lawyers who is going to be our lawyer? Lots of questions that no one is considering at least to the point of having an appreciation of what its going to be post-spiceyness.

    • “evidence that the 1790 docs are working as intended?”

      Um, the “anti-federalists” said THIS is what would happen.

      The proponents denied those assertions – who was correct, from The Very Beginning?

      See additional background list, above.

      Oh yes, and if not working as intended, why is government not fixing that? ALL
      .gov activity demonstrates an unmistakable irrefutable trendline – more government, less liberty. Surely accidental actions by those in charge would over time result in some actions for, other actions against this trendline – resulting in no discernible change in freedom over the generations.

      The fact that ALL options to reverse, to counter this are described & held by the State – with the State deciding solely the extent of its power & authority should be a clue. THIS from the beginning.

      Face it – separation of powers is a shell game, a vicious fraud, ALL branches are part of ONE State, with the uniparty firmly in charge.

      All within the State, nothing outside the State nothing against the State


      “No one has put forth a comprehensive plan that comes anywhere near rivaling the USCON.”

      Surely you meant to write something different. Why seek a rival?

      A well defined problem suggests the solution

  17. I would counter that the FDR Judiciary has their rulings operating exactly as expected. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 1942 ruled that even though farmer Filburn was growing a crop for only his purposes, not interstate commerce, he was still subject to the whims of Congress. From essentially this ruling it has become the springboard for what is now our bloated administrative state.

    The commerce clause was intended to prevent interstate fee charging, port charges amongst the various States for and against each other. i.e. ‘Make commerce regular’ as is mentioned in the Federalist papers. Not to regulate commerce.

    • Northgunner

      He should have told cuntgress/court to FOAD and that he had NO obligation to do anything that they said nor obligation to respect them ant more than any other tick on one of his farm dogs.

      And if they didn’t like that and came around to hassle him that he ‘educate’ them ala ‘Neither Predator Nor Prey’!!!

      When it does kick off, don’t be at all surprised if one of the first marauders you have to shoot is your local cop, especially when he drives up to attempt to confiscate anything his political boss tells him or her to because they’re ‘better’ than you.

      Yours in Daily Armed Liberty via anarchy!
      Northgunner III

  18. Biggest difference between the early American constitution and the British system it was copied from is that the family of the chief executive officer changes more frequently.

  19. Jimmy the Saint

    Can’t remember who said it, but someone said that if they had access to a time machine, they’d go back to the Constitutional Convention and keep yelling out “Can you please be more specific” until they had him shot.