No argument. I have said elsewhere that even "The Glorious Day" (if any) would leave us with a polity half made up of those well habituated to dependence and servitude. Can't simply ignore them; we'd be back right where we are inside of two generations -- three at the most.
Can't simply, uh...not ignore them, unless one is game for a Terror that would make Bill Ayers blanch. I say to you plain, I don't have the stomach for it. I think most don't, though I can speak with certainty only for myself.
When I ponder that, I wonder whether it would be worth the candle, however it turned out in the short run. I don't grudge anyone the choice to sit on the couch in their underwear, drinking cheap gin from the bottle and watching American Idol until their brains leak out their ears, but I'm not eager to leave my children fatherless to secure the blessings of liberty for 'em.
So what is to be done?
For a sentiment similar to the Remnant, I commend to your attention the last few pages of The Candle in the Wind, the fourth book of T.H. White's The Once and Future King.
The other thing one might do is start reading John Robb at globalguerrillas at typepad dot com. If we are indeed living through (among other things) the death throes of scale as an organizing principle, there much to be learned there.
I keep telling myself that if they pass this, it isn't the end of the republic, and if they somehow don't pass it, it isn't the end of the struggle. If they pass it, the lawsuits start tomorrow; how much could be nullified by successful law suits is difficult to guess. Likewise, if this monstrosity is somehow aborted (seems to be the appropriate word), it will be back soon enough in other guises.
Unfortunately, if they pass it, civil unrest also might start tomorrow. I get that vibe from a lot of places. Walk around a gun show, pretend to look at tables and spend your time listening to the way people talk. Listen to talk shows.
To your original point, though, if there is a constitutional convention we are f***ed! It just seems that the liberty-minded are not very organized. We mostly are the kind of people who want to be left alone. The institutional left, though, specializes in organizing astroturf rallies. These are the guys who bus in professional protesters for every event. SEIU alone seems to be able to get a busload of protesters together for any event in hours. They bring thugs that beat down the opposition. If there's a convention, you can bet who gets crowds to show up and live outside, and it's not going to be the people who have a real job.
I say we have a civil war/revolution. We WILL win. Then everyone who fought against the constitutional forces will have a choice: be tried for treason, or leave. I wouldn't a "Trail of Tears" of people who think socialism is better than the constitution. I would call it the "trail of GTFO"
I'm game for a con-con. I'm tired of dying by slow poison. Let's have it out. Although, I don't have any young children, and I can understand why some people might not want another civil war with their kids caught in the middle.
nope. there won't be a civil war/revolution any more than there was when FDR passed the national ponzi scheme. or when he made ownership of gold **illegal**. or any of the other tens of thousands of outrgaes, large and small, that have gone by since then. it's 'fall of the roman empire' time, baby, and there's NOTHING you or i or anyone else can do to stop this runaway train. the die is cast.
if that sounds too gloomy, kindly show me where i'm wrong. have i forgotten the incident where the 10,000 citizens opf waco showed up armed & pissed off, and drove the FBI away before they could kill the women and children at the branch davidian complex? or when the good burghers of california's san joaquin valley forced the feds to allow water to flow to their farms, rather than allowing them to go under so a 2" fish could be saved? no? none of that ever happened?
"well, they unblocked a forest service road in nevada once!" is not, repeat NOT a harbinger of freedom's siren call. the die is cast: this empire/republic WILL fall. next up: they'll make a feint for the guns, then back off and pretend to be whupped by the righteous outrage, and then quietly grant amnesty to the illegals while the patriots are busy congratulating themsleves. watch it happen.
I have to say that the lack of a rising at the gold confiscation got my attention too, when I finally started to reason through this stuff (way too recently, but unless "once shamed may never be recovered," better late than never).
All that said, I do not willingly accede to the current estimate of the situation. It is the late Cretaceous; time to think like a mammal.
the reason I vote for a con-con, is either we'll win back some ground, or it'll be like Domestic Enemies. El Coronado, do you think there is no way a civil war is possible? If at the con-con they ditched the 2nd amendment and forbid private ownership of weapons, do you think people would sit idly by? Imagine turning on the TV and hearing this: "Yesterday, Governor Schweitzer of Montana publicly declared that he would defy the gun ban. This morning President Obama declared Montana in a state of insurgency and has ordered federal troops in to secure the state. A warrant has been issued for the Governor's arrest." How would you react? I expect it'd be like Lexington and Concord. I don't think we'll go quietly into that good night.
"If youlove wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude betterthan than the animatingcontest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your councel nor your arms. crouch down and lick tje hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countryman." - Sam Adams
Civil war? so be it. I'll not leave this fight to my son or grandchildren. I took an oath, Imean to uphold it
The States have applied. The Constitution mandates a convention. To hold otherwise is to hold the Constitution should be vetoed. One cannot say let's follow the Constitution as it is then hold it should be vetoed. We'll have to decide on this one. Either we do as the Constitution says and have a convention or we say we will not obey the Constitution. There is no middle ground. See www.foavc.org to read the over 700 applications from all 50 states.
I've got news for the first two cunts who were blabbering about their 'personal pain' that just HAD to be shared with everyone, by force of law (yeah, that's right, it IS NOW); I don't give two licks of a dead, wet rat's ass about how much your fucking blood thinners cost, IT'S YOUR PROBLEM, NOT MINE!
And the second cunt; well, guess what? From the looks of it on the video, there, YOU are doing just fine, so get the FUCK out of my face with all your fucking 'pain' about your poor ancestors who were so put upon. Do I fucking owe you a fucking apology? And to be so flippant about the Holocaust. Jeezis, talk about being glib while projecting one's own personal baggage.
I couldn't finish the rest.
Game is fucking on, as far as I'm concerned. The vote has been cast, and I'm pissed.
I completely agree Kevin. A Constitutional Convention would only bring about more of what we have seen tonight. Matthew Bracken nailed it. To think that SEIU and ACORN wouldn't take control of that situation and run every common sense thinker for the hills is foolish. It would be a monkey house of Gimme-Gimme and 'Social Justice'.'
The fall of Rome?
Probably. Maybe all we can do is hole up, act as serfs and wait for the die off to happen when the Government can't meet all of its promises or obligations.
Then again, "when they came for the Shopkeepers....."
All I can say is that a people who could elect this President or this Congress would not be able to have a Constitutional Convention worth a hoot. It would be better to never have one again.
for preston - this is just an answer to the question you posed earlier of me. i hope it doesn't come off as too antagonistic or something - that's not the intent. if i had to bet, i'd say you & i (and most here) are all pretty much on the same side of the fence. so!
why do i disparage the chances of a civil war/revolt/insurrection happening here? 4 reasons, really.
1) "history", as i mentioned earlier. FDR crapped all OVER the constitution, and there was no revolt. hell, i know an old (OLD) fart who still keeps a photo of FDR in a place of honor in his hoouse. why? because "FDR *saved* us!" so history teaches us that, in a crisis, americans will discard the constitution and follow a charismatic leader down the garden path just like the germans or north koreans will.
2) they've been teaching "violence never solves anything!" to the kiddies for 3 generations now in the government skoolz. mix that in with the modern, video-game-playing soft passivity of today's young men, and...what you get are butter-soft weenies who would never *dream* of defying authority, much less take up arms to do so. sure, there are exceptions. but for every tough, hard soldier or marine out there, i'll bet there are 100 softies back here.
3) been reading a couple of books that had some interesting notions. among them is the idea that our "freedoms" are really just stage-managed kabuki theater. we get to "make our own choices", sure, but they're choices from a **pre-approved list** handed to us by our betters. has there ever been any serious chance that social security would be dismantled? ever? despite the fact that EVERYone knows it's going broke and the younguns won't see a dime? did reagan close down the departments of commerce and education and energy like he (acted like he) said he would? did he even make an attempt? did anyone really believe a border fence would be built, no matter how much bush and congress solemnly swore it would be? does anyone really believe obama won't come after the guns sooner or later? if, by some miracle, the GOP wins EVERY SINGLE SEAT in congress in the upcoming elections, do you think they'll try and repeal this healthcare abortion? me neither. so just how "free" ARE our choices, really?
4) if it comes to actual shootin', do you really have any doubt that 80% or more of the US armed forces would move against or fire on american citizens if ordered to do so? they burned down the branch davidian complex without question. they seized the guns in post-katrina new orleans without question. try to drive onto area 51 or NSA land, and they'll open fire without hesitation. hell, it'd be *easy* for the command: just tell the troops they're going up against 'commies'. or 'terrorists'. or 'right-wing racist whackos'. pick a boogeyman: the troops will fight.
hate to sound so glum, but the facts are what they are. the system's broken: too much money; too much power; too much fun for the elite. the last 100+ years of the roman republic was nothing but a litany of civil wars trying to fix the broken republic, and it was all for nothing. no matter how much money they spent, no matter how pretty the speeches they made, no matter how hard they fought for it....the republic was doomed. and after all that, they STILL ended up with a military dictatorship.
el coronado, you forget that even if a small percentage of gun owners rise up, that's well more than a million people. more than our army can handle. they can't stop several thousand backwards iraqi/taliban. We're smarter and have better technology. And if you think 80% of the US forces here (a large number of National Guard units as well) would fire on their own citizens, you out of your fucking mind, man.
el coronado, thanks for your reply. It did not come off as antagonistic. Are you saying that there are no circumstances under which Americans would revolt? To take it to an absurdity, imagine Obama declares that "All Republicans will be rounded up and exterminated, and their children, too." We'd all just report to the gas chambers? My point about the con-con is that I'm tired off the slow motion death of our Republic. I either want it restored in full (preferable), or for the socialists to proclaim us a commune, and start trying to round up guns.
el coronado, you forget that even if a small percentage of gun owners rise up, that's well more than a million people. more than our army can handle. they can't stop several thousand backwards iraqi/taliban. We're smarter…
I disagree.
Admittedly, my sample is based on the internet chest-beating of the Three Percenter crowd, but I believe the average gun revolutionary to be operating from a romantic wish-fulfillment template taken right from Red Dawn, or a rosy and unrealistic version of Lexington and Concord.
There are a small handful of such people who have made a serious study of irregular warfare, but most of them are insane. If they weren't, they would realize the horror of such a prospect and diverted their energies into peaceful political work, of the type that the ACORN crowd does so well.
Here's a challenge for anyone wishing for an armed revolution. Name for me a single consolidated democracy that was ever overthrown by an armed revolution. Further, name any unsuccessful armed revolution in a consolidated democracy that left the society freer than when it started.
As far as I know, you can't. That should tell you something.
We can't win by ACORN tactics because we're not promising rainbows and unicorns. We're promising like, anti-rainbows and anti-unicorns. "If you elect our guys and we remake the laws by our philosophy, we promise you the freedom to work hard and possibly starve if you're incompetent." Try that, vs: "WHO WANTS CANDY?" in the room of second graders that is the American Electorate these days, and well, you get what we've got now.
I'm not sure we really need a "Trail of GTFO" (though, on a base level, I have to admit it kind of appeals to my dark side), we just need to limit the voting franchise to the adults. Because letting the children vote for candy is really not sustainable in the long run.
That was the case after the American Revolution. I'm not really sure it's possible to have a stable country when a significant portion of the population is willing to pull a gun (via government) on the rest of the population.
BTW, el coranado, the American Revolution is one such example. Even so, it was a long shot with the advantage of a sea between us and our "masters" and another equally powerful force willing to fight on our behalf, albeit, for their own reasons. We also had the advantage of leaders who were very well educated in what actually works and what doesn't. I don't see those advantages available to us this time around. So having a successful revolution is a long shot and the complete opposite of a sure bet. But as perlhaqr so succinctly put it, "Can't fight. Can't not fight. What to do?"
Sometimes I think the only possible option is to fight. Other times I think the monastery/Asimov's Foundation route (withdrawing and protecting the seeds of civilization to rebuild after the destruction) is the best route. Then I start thinking that such a withdrawal isn't possible because they simply won't let us and there's no place on the globe to really escape to, and I come right back around to fighting as the only option other than slavery.
If the State is a T.rex, the answer isn't necessarily to meet it like a Triceratops, although it is not impossible that one's hand will be forced, should a T.rex finds its way to one's door.
Until or unless that happens, though, think smaller, faster, smarter. Think mammals eating dino eggs. Think The Moon Is Down (if you haven't read it, read it).
I'm not really sure it's possible to have a stable country when a significant portion of the population is willing to pull a gun (via government) on the rest of the population.
I can understand that sentiment. That's what I was trying to get at with the "only let the adults vote" line of reasoning. (Although, yes, I realize that's a kettle of soup in itself, right there.) Most of "those people" are willing to pull a gun on the rest of the population via government. If we don't let "those people" vote anymore, they can't do it via government, and most of them seem less inclined towards the sort of personal involvement that's required to rob people directly.
But, since I don't have any idea how to implement this, I admit up front this is mostly magical wish fulfilment.
1) britain's heart wasn't really in it. william pitt spoke for a lot of england when he defended the colonists with his "never never" quote.
2) the brit army was led by men who'd gotten their rank through family, connections, or outright purchases of commisions. "ability" was not much of a criteria for leadership then, it seems.
3) as such, the brit army fought the entire war the way they always had: in tightly bunched set-piece formations. (with the possible exception of maybe south carolina.) *highly* susceptible to guerrilla/irregular warfare tactics. since the hallmark of the US armed forces nowdays seems to be "rapid adaptability", i rather doubt that'll work this time.
4) those were the good old days. high-tech weaponry consisted of cannon and mortars - and they were easy to make. so the rebels had plenty to use. now....not so much. none of MY neighbors have AWACS, or A-10's, or apaches, or tanks, or tank-killer missiles, or missile/artillery systems with radar-boosted fire control, or predator missile drones. not even so much as a ma deuce. do yours?
5) lastly, lest we forget, we had a LOT of help in terms of men, money, and capital ships. from our friends, les francais. without that help...washington et al end up hanged as traitors right quick. where might us 'rebels' get that kind of help and weaponry from now? the russian mafiya? the triads? the mexican drug cartels? greece? (LOL)
compared to what we'd have to face today, the american revolution was a piece of cake. so if we have to fight...it's going to have to be a dirty war. *extremely* bloody and personal. that's a pretty big step....
The big question would be "Which side will the Armed Forces take?" The "Federal Government" consists of about 500 or so elected officials, a few thousand jackboots (FBI, BATF, Waffen-IRSS, DEA etc) and a couple million parasitic desk drudges. The Civil Service probably wouldn't fight. The jackboots would target any organized group with public leaders. The officials would run and hide until the fighting was over or flee to Europe.
What the founders left out of the Constitution was a procedure for the people to remove senators, congressmen, judges and the president from office via a recall, similar to the way Arnold Schwarzenegger ended up as governor of California.
I asked my state senator about the sovereignty resolution. He said it was just a meaningless gesture. Same as the "right to bear arms" amendment to the State Constitution to be voted on in November.
John Ross's "Unintended Consequences" is one possible blueprint. If we can't restore freedom to a people that don't seem to want it, what is wrong with punishing those who took it away from us?
2) Perhaps, but they were also damn good at their jobs for the most part.
3) Which was the way any army fought at the time - and they wiped the mat with the Colonial forces when they met them most of the time. Guerilla warfare is pesky, but it doesn't make that big of a difference in the long run without the ability to crush the army in force of arms.
4) So easy to make that most Colonial forces didn't have artillery, cannons, and more importantly, knowledge in their use. (in the earlier days)
5) Not until there was a significant stalemate, and never make the mistake that the french are our friends. Marquis de Lafayette was, yes. The French crown and government? Non.
The bigger problem with the analogy is that the government knows who we are, where we are, and given the infrastructure, quickly move people around to establish crushing superiority in any one area. Not easily done in the 1700s.
As to how we won the Revolution:
It was a long war, with a command chain up to 9 months long. It was weakening England noticeably (hence French assistance), and the gains were well outweighed by the costs. Think about the shipping effort it took to move 10,000 troops - and when they surrendered, they'd have to be replaced... with shipping and warships sorely needed at home to deal with the French.
That's pretty much the long and short of it - economically it made little sense, militarily it was a sinkhole, and most brits figured we'd be coming back to the Crown begging for help shortly.
If you can't take them all at once, take them out one at time. We know who they are, we know where they are. Death by 1000 cuts. The government may not have a lot of technology, but if i remember correctly there are tons of unsolved cases of all kinds of acts...
jsid-1269299245-21theirritablearchitect at Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:07:25 +0000
ATLien has it.
Only way I can see is taking the little bitches one at a time. This has the effect of limiting critical numbers, disrupting command structures as well as the psy-ops factor.
"There is nothing wrong with our current Constitution."
Except that there is. The Constitution either encouraged the current state of affairs, or was powerless to prevent it. :( Believe it or not, I share your concern about the consequences of a CC. But, when all is said and done...could we possibly be any worse off than we are now, discounting open civil war or martial law?
The willingness of the states to pass 10th Amendment reaffirmations, Firearms Freedom bills, and laws that are openly giving the bird to CommieCare before it's even passed...that suggests to me that if we're going to have a Con-Con, it's now or never.
could we possibly be any worse off than we are now, discounting open civil war or martial law?
Yes.
Oh, yes, it can always be worse.
The willingness of the states to pass 10th Amendment reaffirmations, Firearms Freedom bills, and laws that are openly giving the bird to CommieCare before it's even passed...that suggests to me that if we're going to have a Con-Con, it's now or never.
That's not the case.
But don't forget - Obama did win a smidge under 2 years ago. Sure, he lied his ass off to get it, and there were lots of gullible dupes who fell for the illusion - but right now, most people are used to the current system. Now's not the time to burn it all down.
Furthermore, the original constitution was written in a time when lawyers as we know them now didn't own the system. Notice the length of the US Constitution. Compare it to any nation or government or new Constitution in the last 40 years. Imagine trying to write a Constitution - fairly - while delegates demand "living wage rights" and "food and shelter" rights and.....
The Constitutional Convention isn't just of the "right" people. If you can't see that, I'm not sure you can be convinced.
Too many people have gotten used to the luxuries of what the mostly-free market innovates and delivers, as well as the nanny-statism that so far, has been affordable - but without realizing what the end result of continuing down the paths to tax businesses and innovation and work and stifle "risk".
Which means we won't have a 5 page Constitution, more than likely. It'll be several hundred, written in legalese.
That's why it's not worth burning everything down. As bad as things are now, it'll be much, much worse after the fire.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/03/republic-if-we-can-keep-it.html (48 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
No argument. I have said elsewhere that even "The Glorious Day" (if any) would leave us with a polity half made up of those well habituated to dependence and servitude. Can't simply ignore them; we'd be back right where we are inside of two generations -- three at the most.
Can't simply, uh...not ignore them, unless one is game for a Terror that would make Bill Ayers blanch. I say to you plain, I don't have the stomach for it. I think most don't, though I can speak with certainty only for myself.
When I ponder that, I wonder whether it would be worth the candle, however it turned out in the short run. I don't grudge anyone the choice to sit on the couch in their underwear, drinking cheap gin from the bottle and watching American Idol until their brains leak out their ears, but I'm not eager to leave my children fatherless to secure the blessings of liberty for 'em.
So what is to be done?
For a sentiment similar to the Remnant, I commend to your attention the last few pages of The Candle in the Wind, the fourth book of T.H. White's The Once and Future King.
The other thing one might do is start reading John Robb at globalguerrillas at typepad dot com. If we are indeed living through (among other things) the death throes of scale as an organizing principle, there much to be learned there.
I keep telling myself that if they pass this, it isn't the end of the republic, and if they somehow don't pass it, it isn't the end of the struggle. If they pass it, the lawsuits start tomorrow; how much could be nullified by successful law suits is difficult to guess. Likewise, if this monstrosity is somehow aborted (seems to be the appropriate word), it will be back soon enough in other guises.
Unfortunately, if they pass it, civil unrest also might start tomorrow. I get that vibe from a lot of places. Walk around a gun show, pretend to look at tables and spend your time listening to the way people talk. Listen to talk shows.
To your original point, though, if there is a constitutional convention we are f***ed! It just seems that the liberty-minded are not very organized. We mostly are the kind of people who want to be left alone. The institutional left, though, specializes in organizing astroturf rallies. These are the guys who bus in professional protesters for every event. SEIU alone seems to be able to get a busload of protesters together for any event in hours. They bring thugs that beat down the opposition. If there's a convention, you can bet who gets crowds to show up and live outside, and it's not going to be the people who have a real job.
The quickest way to rile up the appetite for freedom to remove freedom completely, and we are damned close to it. I think England is already there.
And the English are . . . Doing what, exactly? Besides leaving in droves.
As a long admirer of Nock this essay is particularly well suited for the current atmosphere.
I say we have a civil war/revolution. We WILL win. Then everyone who fought against the constitutional forces will have a choice: be tried for treason, or leave. I wouldn't a "Trail of Tears" of people who think socialism is better than the constitution. I would call it the "trail of GTFO"
I'm game for a con-con. I'm tired of dying by slow poison. Let's have it out. Although, I don't have any young children, and I can understand why some people might not want another civil war with their kids caught in the middle.
nope. there won't be a civil war/revolution any more than there was when FDR passed the national ponzi scheme. or when he made ownership of gold **illegal**. or any of the other tens of thousands of outrgaes, large and small, that have gone by since then. it's 'fall of the roman empire' time, baby, and there's NOTHING you or i or anyone else can do to stop this runaway train. the die is cast.
if that sounds too gloomy, kindly show me where i'm wrong. have i forgotten the incident where the 10,000 citizens opf waco showed up armed & pissed off, and drove the FBI away before they could kill the women and children at the branch davidian complex? or when the good burghers of california's san joaquin valley forced the feds to allow water to flow to their farms, rather than allowing them to go under so a 2" fish could be saved? no? none of that ever happened?
"well, they unblocked a forest service road in nevada once!" is not, repeat NOT a harbinger of freedom's siren call. the die is cast: this empire/republic WILL fall. next up: they'll make a feint for the guns, then back off and pretend to be whupped by the righteous outrage, and then quietly grant amnesty to the illegals while the patriots are busy congratulating themsleves. watch it happen.
I have to say that the lack of a rising at the gold confiscation got my attention too, when I finally started to reason through this stuff (way too recently, but unless "once shamed may never be recovered," better late than never).
All that said, I do not willingly accede to the current estimate of the situation. It is the late Cretaceous; time to think like a mammal.
If we had a Constitutional Convention, we should probably set it up like Falkenberg did on Hadley's.
Instead, it would probably be "set up" like Matthew Bracken described in Domestic Enemies.
the reason I vote for a con-con, is either we'll win back some ground, or it'll be like Domestic Enemies. El Coronado, do you think there is no way a civil war is possible? If at the con-con they ditched the 2nd amendment and forbid private ownership of weapons, do you think people would sit idly by? Imagine turning on the TV and hearing this: "Yesterday, Governor Schweitzer of Montana publicly declared that he would defy the gun ban. This morning President Obama declared Montana in a state of insurgency and has ordered federal troops in to secure the state. A warrant has been issued for the Governor's arrest." How would you react? I expect it'd be like Lexington and Concord. I don't think we'll go quietly into that good night.
I have little patience for people. I think the black lady in that video should be on The Trail Of GTFO.
"If youlove wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude betterthan than the animatingcontest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your councel nor your arms. crouch down and lick tje hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countryman." - Sam Adams
Civil war? so be it. I'll not leave this fight to my son or grandchildren. I took an oath, Imean to uphold it
The States have applied. The Constitution mandates a convention. To hold otherwise is to hold the Constitution should be vetoed. One cannot say let's follow the Constitution as it is then hold it should be vetoed. We'll have to decide on this one. Either we do as the Constitution says and have a convention or we say we will not obey the Constitution. There is no middle ground. See www.foavc.org to read the over 700 applications from all 50 states.
What is funny: I used to work in that building. Used to drop her pro-2ndA pamphlets and notes and etc...
Those folks are right!
The House has passed the Senate version 219-212.
#$% $#%^#$ (#$^*& @&@#(& (@#&&#%@&@#)(&
%&@! *(&
$) @)&%$)* @#$&@#()$&% *@&$ %)*&$&@#)*%&$@)#*&% *& )*@$#& )*$#& %*)#&@ $)*&@# $)& )($& )*(& %*& $& *$&@ !& $)(#&% )*#&$% !!!!
Looks like I stumbled across some magic character combination. I wonder what it is…
By 1:00 in, I couldn't contain my anger.
I've got news for the first two cunts who were blabbering about their 'personal pain' that just HAD to be shared with everyone, by force of law (yeah, that's right, it IS NOW); I don't give two licks of a dead, wet rat's ass about how much your fucking blood thinners cost, IT'S YOUR PROBLEM, NOT MINE!
And the second cunt; well, guess what? From the looks of it on the video, there, YOU are doing just fine, so get the FUCK out of my face with all your fucking 'pain' about your poor ancestors who were so put upon. Do I fucking owe you a fucking apology? And to be so flippant about the Holocaust. Jeezis, talk about being glib while projecting one's own personal baggage.
I couldn't finish the rest.
Game is fucking on, as far as I'm concerned. The vote has been cast, and I'm pissed.
55 seconds before I stopped watching. You are 5 seconds tougher than I am. :D
I completely agree Kevin. A Constitutional Convention would only bring about more of what we have seen tonight. Matthew Bracken nailed it. To think that SEIU and ACORN wouldn't take control of that situation and run every common sense thinker for the hills is foolish. It would be a monkey house of Gimme-Gimme and 'Social Justice'.'
The fall of Rome?
Probably. Maybe all we can do is hole up, act as serfs and wait for the die off to happen when the Government can't meet all of its promises or obligations.
Then again, "when they came for the Shopkeepers....."
All I can say is that a people who could elect this President or this Congress would not be able to have a Constitutional Convention worth a hoot. It would be better to never have one again.
for preston - this is just an answer to the question you posed earlier of me. i hope it doesn't come off as too antagonistic or something - that's not the intent. if i had to bet, i'd say you & i (and most here) are all pretty much on the same side of the fence. so!
why do i disparage the chances of a civil war/revolt/insurrection happening here? 4 reasons, really.
1) "history", as i mentioned earlier. FDR crapped all OVER the constitution, and there was no revolt. hell, i know an old (OLD) fart who still keeps a photo of FDR in a place of honor in his hoouse. why? because "FDR *saved* us!" so history teaches us that, in a crisis, americans will discard the constitution and follow a charismatic leader down the garden path just like the germans or north koreans will.
2) they've been teaching "violence never solves anything!" to the kiddies for 3 generations now in the government skoolz. mix that in with the modern, video-game-playing soft passivity of today's young men, and...what you get are butter-soft weenies who would never *dream* of defying authority, much less take up arms to do so. sure, there are exceptions. but for every tough, hard soldier or marine out there, i'll bet there are 100 softies back here.
3) been reading a couple of books that had some interesting notions. among them is the idea that our "freedoms" are really just stage-managed kabuki theater. we get to "make our own choices", sure, but they're choices from a **pre-approved list** handed to us by our betters. has there ever been any serious chance that social security would be dismantled? ever? despite the fact that EVERYone knows it's going broke and the younguns won't see a dime? did reagan close down the departments of commerce and education and energy like he (acted like he) said he would? did he even make an attempt? did anyone really believe a border fence would be built, no matter how much bush and congress solemnly swore it would be? does anyone really believe obama won't come after the guns sooner or later? if, by some miracle, the GOP wins EVERY SINGLE SEAT in congress in the upcoming elections, do you think they'll try and repeal this healthcare abortion? me neither. so just how "free" ARE our choices, really?
4) if it comes to actual shootin', do you really have any doubt that 80% or more of the US armed forces would move against or fire on american citizens if ordered to do so? they burned down the branch davidian complex without question. they seized the guns in post-katrina new orleans without question. try to drive onto area 51 or NSA land, and they'll open fire without hesitation. hell, it'd be *easy* for the command: just tell the troops they're going up against 'commies'. or 'terrorists'. or 'right-wing racist whackos'. pick a boogeyman: the troops will fight.
hate to sound so glum, but the facts are what they are. the system's broken: too much money; too much power; too much fun for the elite. the last 100+ years of the roman republic was nothing but a litany of civil wars trying to fix the broken republic, and it was all for nothing. no matter how much money they spent, no matter how pretty the speeches they made, no matter how hard they fought for it....the republic was doomed. and after all that, they STILL ended up with a military dictatorship.
just like we will.
el coronado, you forget that even if a small percentage of gun owners rise up, that's well more than a million people. more than our army can handle. they can't stop several thousand backwards iraqi/taliban. We're smarter and have better technology. And if you think 80% of the US forces here (a large number of National Guard units as well) would fire on their own citizens, you out of your fucking mind, man.
el coronado, thanks for your reply. It did not come off as antagonistic. Are you saying that there are no circumstances under which Americans would revolt? To take it to an absurdity, imagine Obama declares that "All Republicans will be rounded up and exterminated, and their children, too." We'd all just report to the gas chambers? My point about the con-con is that I'm tired off the slow motion death of our Republic. I either want it restored in full (preferable), or for the socialists to proclaim us a commune, and start trying to round up guns.
el coronado, you forget that even if a small percentage of gun owners rise up, that's well more than a million people. more than our army can handle. they can't stop several thousand backwards iraqi/taliban. We're smarter…
I disagree.
Admittedly, my sample is based on the internet chest-beating of the Three Percenter crowd, but I believe the average gun revolutionary to be operating from a romantic wish-fulfillment template taken right from Red Dawn, or a rosy and unrealistic version of Lexington and Concord.
There are a small handful of such people who have made a serious study of irregular warfare, but most of them are insane. If they weren't, they would realize the horror of such a prospect and diverted their energies into peaceful political work, of the type that the ACORN crowd does so well.
Here's a challenge for anyone wishing for an armed revolution. Name for me a single consolidated democracy that was ever overthrown by an armed revolution. Further, name any unsuccessful armed revolution in a consolidated democracy that left the society freer than when it started.
As far as I know, you can't. That should tell you something.
Can't fight. Can't not fight. What to do?
We can't win by ACORN tactics because we're not promising rainbows and unicorns. We're promising like, anti-rainbows and anti-unicorns. "If you elect our guys and we remake the laws by our philosophy, we promise you the freedom to work hard and possibly starve if you're incompetent." Try that, vs: "WHO WANTS CANDY?" in the room of second graders that is the American Electorate these days, and well, you get what we've got now.
I'm not sure we really need a "Trail of GTFO" (though, on a base level, I have to admit it kind of appeals to my dark side), we just need to limit the voting franchise to the adults. Because letting the children vote for candy is really not sustainable in the long run.
"I'm not sure we really need a "Trail of GTFO""
That was the case after the American Revolution. I'm not really sure it's possible to have a stable country when a significant portion of the population is willing to pull a gun (via government) on the rest of the population.
BTW, el coranado, the American Revolution is one such example. Even so, it was a long shot with the advantage of a sea between us and our "masters" and another equally powerful force willing to fight on our behalf, albeit, for their own reasons. We also had the advantage of leaders who were very well educated in what actually works and what doesn't. I don't see those advantages available to us this time around. So having a successful revolution is a long shot and the complete opposite of a sure bet. But as perlhaqr so succinctly put it, "Can't fight. Can't not fight. What to do?"
Sometimes I think the only possible option is to fight. Other times I think the monastery/Asimov's Foundation route (withdrawing and protecting the seeds of civilization to rebuild after the destruction) is the best route. Then I start thinking that such a withdrawal isn't possible because they simply won't let us and there's no place on the globe to really escape to, and I come right back around to fighting as the only option other than slavery.
There's fighting, and then there's fighting.
If the State is a T.rex, the answer isn't necessarily to meet it like a Triceratops, although it is not impossible that one's hand will be forced, should a T.rex finds its way to one's door.
Until or unless that happens, though, think smaller, faster, smarter. Think mammals eating dino eggs. Think The Moon Is Down (if you haven't read it, read it).
I'm not really sure it's possible to have a stable country when a significant portion of the population is willing to pull a gun (via government) on the rest of the population.
I can understand that sentiment. That's what I was trying to get at with the "only let the adults vote" line of reasoning. (Although, yes, I realize that's a kettle of soup in itself, right there.) Most of "those people" are willing to pull a gun on the rest of the population via government. If we don't let "those people" vote anymore, they can't do it via government, and most of them seem less inclined towards the sort of personal involvement that's required to rob people directly.
But, since I don't have any idea how to implement this, I admit up front this is mostly magical wish fulfilment.
Rock? Meet hard place. Frying pan? Fire. "Revolution is merely an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment." - Ambrose Bierce.
Well, I for one will no longer espouse the claim that there's no difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
But I harbor no illusions that a Republican sweep in 2010 and 2012 will reverse anything.
If you fight, you will lose.
Don't get trapped by a false choice. Make like Kirk and change the rules.
That's the way to be thinking, boyo.
ok, ed - how'd we end up winning the revolution?
1) britain's heart wasn't really in it. william pitt spoke for a lot of england when he defended the colonists with his "never never" quote.
2) the brit army was led by men who'd gotten their rank through family, connections, or outright purchases of commisions. "ability" was not much of a criteria for leadership then, it seems.
3) as such, the brit army fought the entire war the way they always had: in tightly bunched set-piece formations. (with the possible exception of maybe south carolina.) *highly* susceptible to guerrilla/irregular warfare tactics. since the hallmark of the US armed forces nowdays seems to be "rapid adaptability", i rather doubt that'll work this time.
4) those were the good old days. high-tech weaponry consisted of cannon and mortars - and they were easy to make. so the rebels had plenty to use. now....not so much. none of MY neighbors have AWACS, or A-10's, or apaches, or tanks, or tank-killer missiles, or missile/artillery systems with radar-boosted fire control, or predator missile drones. not even so much as a ma deuce. do yours?
5) lastly, lest we forget, we had a LOT of help in terms of men, money, and capital ships. from our friends, les francais. without that help...washington et al end up hanged as traitors right quick. where might us 'rebels' get that kind of help and weaponry from now? the russian mafiya? the triads? the mexican drug cartels? greece? (LOL)
compared to what we'd have to face today, the american revolution was a piece of cake. so if we have to fight...it's going to have to be a dirty war. *extremely* bloody and personal. that's a pretty big step....
MAN. multiple posts not my doing, guys. internet seems to be higgledy-piggledy lately.
(Fixed. - Ed.)
Make sure you have cookies enabled in your browser. If I don't, I get multiple posts every time, and I'm using FireFox 3.6 under Windows XP.
The big question would be "Which side will the Armed Forces take?" The "Federal Government" consists of about 500 or so elected officials, a few thousand jackboots (FBI, BATF, Waffen-IRSS, DEA etc) and a couple million parasitic desk drudges. The Civil Service probably wouldn't fight. The jackboots would target any organized group with public leaders. The officials would run and hide until the fighting was over or flee to Europe.
What the founders left out of the Constitution was a procedure for the people to remove senators, congressmen, judges and the president from office via a recall, similar to the way Arnold Schwarzenegger ended up as governor of California.
I asked my state senator about the sovereignty resolution. He said it was just a meaningless gesture. Same as the "right to bear arms" amendment to the State Constitution to be voted on in November.
John Ross's "Unintended Consequences" is one possible blueprint. If we can't restore freedom to a people that don't seem to want it, what is wrong with punishing those who took it away from us?
"The big question would be "Which side will the Armed Forces take?""
We've visited that question. Go read the comments of this post:
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/08/freedom-hope-outrage-bright-lines.html
Coronado:
Sorry, can't not nitpick there.
2) Perhaps, but they were also damn good at their jobs for the most part.
3) Which was the way any army fought at the time - and they wiped the mat with the Colonial forces when they met them most of the time. Guerilla warfare is pesky, but it doesn't make that big of a difference in the long run without the ability to crush the army in force of arms.
4) So easy to make that most Colonial forces didn't have artillery, cannons, and more importantly, knowledge in their use. (in the earlier days)
5) Not until there was a significant stalemate, and never make the mistake that the french are our friends. Marquis de Lafayette was, yes. The French crown and government? Non.
The bigger problem with the analogy is that the government knows who we are, where we are, and given the infrastructure, quickly move people around to establish crushing superiority in any one area. Not easily done in the 1700s.
As to how we won the Revolution:
It was a long war, with a command chain up to 9 months long. It was weakening England noticeably (hence French assistance), and the gains were well outweighed by the costs. Think about the shipping effort it took to move 10,000 troops - and when they surrendered, they'd have to be replaced... with shipping and warships sorely needed at home to deal with the French.
That's pretty much the long and short of it - economically it made little sense, militarily it was a sinkhole, and most brits figured we'd be coming back to the Crown begging for help shortly.
el coronado,
Like I said, not the way to bet.
I'm open to better options…
If you can't take them all at once, take them out one at time. We know who they are, we know where they are. Death by 1000 cuts. The government may not have a lot of technology, but if i remember correctly there are tons of unsolved cases of all kinds of acts...
ATLien has it.
Only way I can see is taking the little bitches one at a time. This has the effect of limiting critical numbers, disrupting command structures as well as the psy-ops factor.
"There is nothing wrong with our current Constitution."
Except that there is. The Constitution either encouraged the current state of affairs, or was powerless to prevent it. :( Believe it or not, I share your concern about the consequences of a CC. But, when all is said and done...could we possibly be any worse off than we are now, discounting open civil war or martial law?
The willingness of the states to pass 10th Amendment reaffirmations, Firearms Freedom bills, and laws that are openly giving the bird to CommieCare before it's even passed...that suggests to me that if we're going to have a Con-Con, it's now or never.
could we possibly be any worse off than we are now, discounting open civil war or martial law?
Yes.
Oh, yes, it can always be worse.
The willingness of the states to pass 10th Amendment reaffirmations, Firearms Freedom bills, and laws that are openly giving the bird to CommieCare before it's even passed...that suggests to me that if we're going to have a Con-Con, it's now or never.
That's not the case.
But don't forget - Obama did win a smidge under 2 years ago. Sure, he lied his ass off to get it, and there were lots of gullible dupes who fell for the illusion - but right now, most people are used to the current system. Now's not the time to burn it all down.
Furthermore, the original constitution was written in a time when lawyers as we know them now didn't own the system. Notice the length of the US Constitution. Compare it to any nation or government or new Constitution in the last 40 years. Imagine trying to write a Constitution - fairly - while delegates demand "living wage rights" and "food and shelter" rights and.....
Nice big winder Schakowsky's got there.... ;)
"...Now's not the time to burn it all down..."
Convince me of it.
TIA:
Convince me of it.
The Constitutional Convention isn't just of the "right" people. If you can't see that, I'm not sure you can be convinced.
Too many people have gotten used to the luxuries of what the mostly-free market innovates and delivers, as well as the nanny-statism that so far, has been affordable - but without realizing what the end result of continuing down the paths to tax businesses and innovation and work and stifle "risk".
Which means we won't have a 5 page Constitution, more than likely. It'll be several hundred, written in legalese.
That's why it's not worth burning everything down. As bad as things are now, it'll be much, much worse after the fire.
And next time, the Union can keep the slaves.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>