I find it necessary to remind people one more time why the Patriot is morally safe when engaging the Blue "voter" or "Non-Combatant".
The Blue voter is not merely exercising a "...legitimate difference of political opinion..."
The Blue voter is a Marxist working to overthrow the republic, to overthrow by force the US Constitution, advocating that Government take the fruits of your labor, the bread from the mouths of your children, by force. Yes, by force, because if the Blue voter's guy gets into office, as we have all seen, they'll send men and women with badges and guns to enforce the Blue voter's wish to overthrow the Constitution.
That is Treason.
Treason is the only crime articulated in the Constitution.
Article III Section III: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason...
If using the muzzle of a firearm is not levying war, I sure as hell need remedial English.
The Blue voter is an active Traitor seeking the violent overthrow of the Constitution that most of us have taken an oath to support and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
That Treason is most assuredly a direct and violent infringement upon my Rightful Liberty, and I am morally, by Natural Right, entitled to defend my Rightful Liberty.
There is no Miranda in War.
When you find yourself face-to-face with an Enemy of Liberty in a time of war, when there exists an existential threat to the republic, you do NOT need permission from your local Prosecutor to defend your country. You want to live up to the "Testimony of two witnesses" aspect of the Article, get a buddy and go watch the same people. You and he satisfy the threshold.
The concept that an American, a member of We the People, is not empowered by our Framers to be the final arbiter of what is, and is not, Constitutional, the concept that says a Patriot must ASK GOVERNMENT FOR PERMISSION to defend the Constitution is absurdity defined.
In summary: The Blue Voter and EVERY f'n person facilitating the overthrow of the Constitution and the legitimate republic of the United States, by force of violence, and that violence may morally be met with the ultimate violence, for the US Congress, per the Constitution, has deemed one of the penalties for Treason is Death.
Kerodin
III
This is a case where you may have an argument for the morality of it (I don't think so, but for reasons well afield of your claim), but you don't have the legal case for it.
ReplyDeleteVoting is not "an overt Act" of treason, as meant in the Constitution. And if you retort that it's both overt and an act, then you are just playing games with the words like the people you are supposedly fighting.
An overt act of treason, particularly as witnessed by two others or confessed in open court, is an overt act of treason, not merely voting for an asshole.
If voting for assholes were really the Capital Crime of Treason, there wouldn't be enough rope.
Don't have the "legal" case says whom? The SCOTUS that ruled taxing for Obamacare was Constitutional? Current Court precedent?
DeleteIf you don't think voting for a third party to violate the Constitution and to come and rob me (and kill me if I refuse/resist) is a violent act, you and I will have to agree to disagree.
Stalin ordered the deaths of millions with a pen from a desk - he was not being violent??!!
Voting for an asshole who is TELLING US he is overthrowing the Constitution is ...adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort...
As you often say, Jim - words have meaning. and those words are clear in the Constitution.
K
I shouldn't even be talking about legality, since I only care about the morality. I'll give you a parting shot on this anyway.
DeleteMost of the people who voted for Obama did not vote "for a third party to violate the Constitution and to come and rob me (and kill me if I refuse/resist)." If you don't believe that, just ask 'em.
Yes, that's what happens anyway. The thing is, to accuse THEM of a crime, let alone the capital crime of Treason, is to engage in prohibiting "thought crime." And really even worse, since it wasn't even their thought. Okay, some yes and some no.
The point of the tight clause in the Constitution was that Treason was to be a clear OVERT act of Treason, not some tertiary idiocy that leads to treason. This is obvious, and it's silly to argue about that particular point.
Next you could argue that picking up a hitchhiker and giving him a ride to some meeting where nefarious acts are planned, is itself a crime. After all, that's what ends up happening, right?
The whole point of objective Rule of Law is to eliminate such craziness. Hey, you're the one who wants it supposedly, not me. That's why I keep saying over and over, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Like it or not, you're making an argument against Rule of Law since you're saying everything rests on how some particular guy--in this case you--views the actions of others.
My retort? That's right!
Jim, the only Law I want is the Natural Law codified in the Constitution, DoI and BoR. The entire US Code is pretty much a joke, so you can quit with the "wanting it both ways".
DeleteWe'll just have to agree to disagree about the culpability of the person who signs the death warrant and the head that lands in the basket. I guess he had no part in it, and if that head in the basket is innocent, the guy signing the warrant is without guilt.
K
"Jim, the only Law I want is the Natural Law codified in the Constitution, DoI and BoR. The entire US Code is pretty much a joke, so you can quit with the 'wanting it both ways'."
DeleteWhy? You just explicitly confirmed the charge. "I want Natural Law" and "I want what's codified in the Constitution." Those are not synonymous, even as we all wish they were.
Besides, if you want to get technical, "Natural Law" is to be found exclusively in the conceptual abstractions of your mind. What you really mean by Natural Law is, "those abstractions which are correspondent with the way things are," which FWIW I agree is the proper approach to both morality and Law.
"We'll just have to agree to disagree about the culpability of the person who signs the death warrant and the head that lands in the basket. I guess he had no part in it, and if that head in the basket is innocent, the guy signing the warrant is without guilt."
But we don't disagree about it. I'm the first to declare that, for example, there's an over-focus on Obama. That guy couldn't build or plumb a shed, much less bring a whole country down.
I don't disagree with you about the voters, either. 47% are explicit moochers and about 52.9% are collectivists. So of course it's their "fault" in the generalized sense. But in the specific sense, that of our own lives, it's your fault and my fault. EVERYTHING in our own lives is our fault; we own ourselves and hence we're responsible.
We don't disagree about any of the relevant identifications. We disagree about, "Therefore ..."
And in view of the principles behind the Citadel, we don't even disagree about that very much.
And so it begins.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if morbid
sarcasm would be rude at
this moment, but given the
fact of what will certainly
follow this tragic(black swan)
rubicon or completely random event,
many of us will also soon be dead.
The "many" I refer to are those
free people still left, who believe
in(respect/defend)the Constitution, the rule of law and the fredom to maintain, protect and defend(by any means necessary)our birthright
of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Here it comes, it's not a clay pigeon, it's a black swan.
Voting for one of the choices on a legal ballot is treason? It could be argued that a vote for Mittens was just as treasonous. I would say the crime has been inaction by so called lovers of liberty since 1865. The person who votes for hopey changey is simply choosing one of the two options put before them by a corrupt system. They are stupid sheep who are not intellectually honest or well informed, but they are not enemy combatants nor are they committing treason.
ReplyDeleteThey are not seeking a violent overthrow of the Constitution (it has already been overthrown) but have bought into the lies and propaganda that have been fed to them their whole lives via media and the education "system".
To call for mass killing of people because they voted a certain way is NOT what our Founders intended and is in fact a tactic of communists and fascists.
Look brother, I do not enjoy seeing entire states of people who seem to love promoting socialist ideas. I hate the projects and the poverty they perpetuate. I hate the entitlement class and how the government steals to pay for it. But, advocating genocide based of voting record is not the answer.
Let's just say an armed resistance is successful, and the Gov is pretty much dissolved. We can't even get 50 people on the web to agree to meet, much less create a new government under the stresses of rebuilding our lives. Would your answer be to leave the Citadel and round up people who were suspected former blue voters? To become some sort of judge and jury and executioner like in The Postman?
I am not being argumentative nor am I seeking enemies, I desire to unite us all into a cohesive unit. I am willing to do my part in open war and subversion. Killing will be a part of the coming trouble. Killing in war and rounding up people for extermination post conflict because they voted for the marxist are two very different things. I think what I want is to be able to understand exactly what you are advocating (logistics and morality, not legality)so I know if you are some kind of monster in the making or a misunderstood Patriot with real vision. -55six
55six: I never called for mass killing - anywhere. I called for deportation, voluntary leave of Marxists and anti-Constitutionalists, and for those who remain and insist on continually undermining the ideals of our Founding, trials for Treason.
DeleteI agree, many are just plain stupid.
Most are not. Most are active Marxists who call themselves Liberals, or RINO's, but they share the belief that they MAY STEAL FROM US.
The Constitution ITSELF allows for the handling of anyone who tries to overthrow the Government, the most visible reminder is what most people calll the Civil War - Lincoln usurped, we fought, he won.
I'm not going to repeat myself - everything in the above article holds. Voting for Blue (Red/RINO, etc) is an act of violence against me and my Rightful Liberty, whether the person voting is malicious or merely stupid. The courts are supposed to treat the merely stupid more kindly - and the malicious more harshly. So should we.
But every single one of those voters, bureaucrats, politicians, people who send $5 per month to Sierra Club are ACTIVELY INFRINGING my Rightful Liberty, and it ain't free, and IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY ADDRESSED in Article III Section III.
CAPS is not yelling at you 55six, it's yelling at all of the people who refuse to read and comprehend the words, then force me to type the same thing time and again.
K
"Voting for Blue (Red/RINO, etc) is an act of violence against me and my Rightful Liberty, whether the person voting is malicious or merely stupid."
DeleteBut it's not, and it's a VERY important point. Really; you can check this out for yourself---go to a polling place and watch someone vote, and then go to the 'hood and get robbed at gunpoint. I promise, you'll readily see the difference.
Most importantly, as in MOST IMPORTANTLY, you'll judge yourself entirely different in the two situations if you take the other person out.
I know what you're saying. First you're saying that the voting LEADS to violence against you. True enough, but technically it only leads to the attempt at violence against you. And then you're also saying that because we're volitional creatures, a man's intent to strip you of your property down the road--like the FSA every time they vote--is equivalent to being stripped of that property.
I have it right, don't I? That's basically what you're saying, isn't it? The problem is that you're widening the meaning of "threat" so broadly, that it includes virtually all the actions that lead up to the deed itself.
Mainly, it's just wrong. Force against you is force against you, and the threat of it is the threat of it. Period...not every action before that is included in the class. Practically speaking, to be consistent you'd have to say that the doctor who safely delivered Nancy Pelosi from her mother's womb, was himself a criminal. Do you really want to say that?
Back to legality, mens rae is a principle for a reason.
"The Constitution ITSELF allows for the handling of anyone who tries to overthrow the Government,..."
DeleteActually, Article III, Section 3 states (and this is for any reader not familiar, K, I'm pretty sure you have this indelibly stored in your mind...), "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Nowhere does it state the quote from the original, as the word 'government' may be inferred to mean the central federal government. The plural forms are boldfaced in the Art III quote to demonstrate the intent against the several States, rather than .gov as we know it today.
Also, "...continually undermining the ideals of our Founding, trials for Treason" could not be done per Article III, because there is no room for interpretation of 'levying war' or 'adhering (joining with)....giving aid and comfort' with the subjectivity involved in 'continually undermining the ideals'...
I think we all pretty much want the same things, but it seems most are not anxious to employ extra-constitutional methods after restoration.
The best solution available to ensure we didn't have a repeat and find a whole new generation of Marxists would be to educate with unrevised history those remaining, those newly born, and those finally getting the fact that Liberty requires something of them post Restoration.
One book that could help, especially with the 'patriot movement' in understanding what we now face with 'dupes' and 'useful idiots' and explains very clearly how our country has been educationally duped and dumbed down, especially in the last 40 to 50 years is, "The Underground History of American Education" by John Taylor Gatto. Once you (the generic you, nobody in particular) read this, you'll have a better understanding of what I mean about getting rid of Marxism.
It'll cost you $40 on Amazon, but I dare say if you buy it and read it, this move to Liberty will mean much more to anyone who takes up the challenge.
Disclosure: I have no interest in the author, the published book, save for having my eyes blown wide open since reading it.
Mens rea is why the penalties range from deportation (stupidity) to execution.
DeleteK
why do you single out the blu voter? as if the red voter is any less guilty under your logic.
ReplyDeleteBlue is merely a tool of language - I include ALL Marxists, which include any R who approves of Entitlements, etc.
DeleteK