Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Craig: I didn't ask for it

Here's the link.

CA linked it as well, with a few more concepts to blend.

...as ratified... would make almost all of the complaints go away, I think - not only from my house, but the broader Right. But "The Establishment" and everyone on the Left (and every FSA parasite belongs in either the Establishment or Left camp) will never let us scale back to an ...as ratified... position.

Consider the post below, in which I point out that it is the Executive Branch that has all of the guns and bullets. That's usually the guy who makes the rules.

But where, folks, is the Constitutional Authority for the FBI, for instance?

Most people point to the 1887 Interstate Commerce Act, which has grown since it was passed into law.

...as ratified... gets rid of the ability for the Feds to carry guns and kick in your doors.

I have one nit to pick for those of you who are disgusted with the Flag, or the Constitution.

Consider your argument for 2A. Do you not tell people that the gun is not the problem, it's the person who uses it improperly who is the problem? The gun is not evil. Nor is the Flag. Nor is the Constitution. But in the hands of Bad People, these tools can be abused.

I'll remind you of Colonel Cooper's counsel when next you see a flag or Constitution and feel disgust: “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.” ― Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

If we few, righteous Patriots use the Flag and the Constitution as intended, we can correct our problems.

Think about it.



  1. Excellent point about the Constitution being a tool. Currently it is indeed being used by bad men with bad intentions. The citizens of this country should turn it around and as Curtis and you and others have advised, actually use it as intended, show these craven elite what it means when they step outside of the rule of law.

    They need to be shown that they cannot have their cake and eat it, too. If they are unwilling to accept the Constitution - as ratified - then they lose their right to the benefits of the Constitution. Not their natural rights - those accrue to evil men just as to good men - but if they steal, if they kill, if they abuse and defraud, then they will suffer the consequences.

    I don't have a frickin' clue how we go about that yet, save that we should try to prepare ourselves to survive the die-off so that we can start applying force to those survivors who wish to continue to rule us, to control us.

    One of the scenes in John Wesley Rawles book, _Patriots_ that always bothered me was when the representative of the "new" government flew into their airport to tell them the demands to which they would have to submit. One or more of the men in that crowd, upon hearing that, should have shot the SOB dead. Or at very least, taken him into custody, along with anyone else on the aircraft he flew in on, so they could not carry that bit of intelligence back to the enemy (said "new government"). That failure cost them.

  2. I may have missed it, but... When you say "as ratified" do you mean before the Bill of Rights was added?

    As I understand it, the Constitution would not have been ratified except that a Bill of Rights was promised, but on the other hand, it really wasn't necessary since all those rights mentioned were already protected from government /spit/ by not being subject to the listed powers of that government. In other words, since the Constitution didn't establish a "Church of America", it wasn't really necessary to have an amendment specifying that there would be no establishment of religion.

    I guess that gets back to "as ratified", too. Those of us who aren't trying to find new ways to violate our neighbors' (or our enemy's) rights by force of "law" wouldn't need it spelled out that we are not allowed to pass or enforce anti-gun "laws", while most people would have to see, in writing, that it is illegal to pass or enforce gun "laws" before it would even occur to them that it might not be "legal". (And, then they do it anyway as long as there are no fatal consequences.)

  3. Kent

    Good question, from what I have read the Bill of Rights was a bulwark for the anti federalists. Given their history with government oppression, the anti federalist's wanted absolute rights guaranteed to the individual.

    One thing that need be clarified is the Constitution, was written behind closed doors, without public scrutiny, the anti federalists found contempt with this and sought assurance for the individual.

    Atleast that is my reading of the process.

  4. Some realized it needed to be spelled out, for those who didn't understand that government by its nature needs to be kept on the shortest of leashes, although our lack of attention and oversight has allowed that to go by the wayside as well. And as much as many folks are against aggression, against violence, we might do well to keep this in mind:

    “Anyone who clings to the historically untrue- and thoroughly immoral - doctrine that ‘violence never solves anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, The Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon.

    Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms”.

    Robert A. Heinlein, from Starship Troopers

  5. Mr. K,

    I have stopped flying the USA flag. No bumper stickers, no USA flag patches, nothing that represents the USA today. Do I fly Betsy Ross ? Yes sir ! Do I fly Gadsen ? Absolutely.

    A flag is a symbol. The American flag once stood for Freedom and Liberty. Not today. I will not fly a symbol of USA's domestic tyranny anymore than I would fly the flag of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich.

    May I submit to you Mr. T.L. Davis' essay on this subject, posted on his blog, TLINEXILE, in October of last year: NO GLORY IN "OLD GLORY"ANY MORE.

    Think about it.


    1. Dan III- I, for one, agree.

      I fly a flag of my own design since the Gadsden has proved to be an empty warning. We have been tread upon for over 200 years now, and the Gadsden has been co-opted by some very statist folks who have no problem with treading on "the other guy", now, too. It's still much better than the federal flag, which I will NEVER fly again.

    2. Kent Mc....I concur with most of what you write. But Gadsen is still the most symbolic banner out there, IMO. Regarding a USA .gov flag....whether your flag or Gadsen, I will not fly a USA .gov banner ever again. I'm with you on that.

      DAN III


Please post anonymously. III Society members, please use your Call Sign.