But the new "Classified" powers legislated into place is a first, I believe - and may mark the Rubicon in many as-yet unawakened minds. ObamaCare was the first limited test of this new passing of unknown legislation. In that case, we were told we'd have to pass it to know what was in it. But this new legislation is even more obscene - they passed it, and even now you and I are not allowed to know what is in it.
You see the difference, yes?
This is not the same as some agency simply claiming regulatory powers unto itself. This is not even the same as governing documents for agencies that legitimately work in the shadows. This is not even a unilateral "Executive Order".
No, this is the entirety of the Political Class passing legislation in the full light of day, telling Americans to suck it, with zero regard for optics.
Who among us is part of a new 'criminal class' because of this legislation?
We won't know, until the stack arrives.
This is the definition of tyranny - and they are not even worried about the optics.
What does that tell you?
Here's the WaPo link.
You might think this argues against our recent discussions of political parties. I contend the opposite. This makes it even easier to stand tall on a platform against the mad bastards in power who now are guilty of not only secret back-room deals, but also the High Crimes associated with passing legislation that is only available to the Political Class.
This makes it more important to have as many Patriots as possible in 'legitimate' political offices before the discussion enters the two-way kinetic phase. Our Founders had their own governments in-place when they told the King to suck it. You and I should do the same.
As an administrative/organizational point: I would consider elected (and even bureaucratic) Patriots to be part of the "Auxiliary".
Kerodin
III
Our Founders had their own governments in-place when they told the King to suck it. You and I should do the same.
ReplyDeleteThis statement is so essential that it deserves to be specifically called out. This is a no-holds-barred, winner takes all fight. And if we aren't prepared to immediately consolidate each and every community we "win" by establishing a Constitutional government run by well qualified local citizens... then we haven't "won" at all; all we will have done is create a power vacuum, and invited evil to come fill said vacuum, enjoying the fruits of our blood and sweat for free.
There is only one way we even have a shot at winning, and that is for us to have a better answer to the question, "and what comes afterwards?" than our enemies.
And remember, our enemies are really good at promising "peace and security", even though they never deliver it.
If we can't beat them on the field of ideas, then our rifles are useless at best, and *serve their purposes* at worst.
Stop, right now, and contemplate that simple fact. Don't move forward until you have full absorbed this realiy, and at least begun processing all the 2nd order implications it carries.
If we don't win, we have done nothing but feed the anarchy they are counting on having. The anarchy which is the playing field they absolutely need to achieve heir "fundamental transformation".
WIN or LOOSE. There is no middle ground.
they have been planning, practicing, and refining their tactics for an entire century. Most of the populace will NEVER resist them, which means they will always support them, ar least passively.
WE HAVE BEEN WARNED
LT it just boggles the mind by the shear scope of what will be need. Not just governance but the supply logistics. I can only think it must be kept as simple as possible. This leads me back to the idea of Clan and Tribe for local government and support, then joining those to a national structure. A true Constitutional Republic may then evolve from this structure once stability has been achieved. You are absolutely correct that time will be one of our biggest enemies, once we win we only have until people start starving, after that there will be no civilization. Please understand, we do not need politicians, we will need leaders, elders and good council. The mountain is before us, worry not how high the peak, take but one step at a time.
DeleteIn victory, there should be tolerated among us no politicians, nor any cultivation of division. What we shall be in dire need of in every community are true Ambassadors, veteran Captains at arms, gifted Healers of the body, and patient Teachers of the young; all of them wise men and women, not by any attribution of men, but by the grace of God.
DeleteWere everyone who fears God to pray ferverently for these to arise in their own community, then our victory would be secured.
>>> Our Founders had their own governments in-place when they told the King to suck it. You and I should do the same.
DeleteThis statement is so essential that it deserves to be specifically called out. <<<
C'mon, LT...I know that you know better. Once again, the statement is plainly and provably false. The Founders DID NOT have any government in place. The Continental Congresses--well the first two anyway, prior to the AofC--were no sort of government. No statutes were passed and they had no enforcement mechanism whatsoever.
As to the governments of the States...well, those were at the direct behest and control of the King, which is what the Founders were fighting AGAINST. The very first line in wikipedia's overview of the topic---"Government in the colonies represented an extension of the English government."
Y'know, even I agree that there MIGHT be a principled argument for "Restoration," although I haven't seen one yet. But even if there is, misrepresenting the FACTS about the founding, is not the way to persuade anyone of it. IMO.
JK: Once again, the statement is plainly and provably false.
DeleteOK - Prove it.
Proof? Take a look; that "government in-place" ain't there.
DeleteThe first two Continental Congresses were not governments. I don't know what else you want. If that's wrong, then some examples of the Continental Congresses (the first two) governing will be sufficient and I'll gladly admit my error. I don't mind being wrong, you know; I like occasional variety. Hey, nobody's perfect.
Or maybe you've got something else in mind. It's like the "founding" question itself, only that's even easier. You should know by now that I want you to have what you want--I want that for everyone--as long as it's earned and not forced from others. Do you really find that an evil position or something?
Whatever happened to Rightful Liberty anyway? It's like "poof."
Does that answer your question? Do you currently believe this claim to be true or false---"Our Founders had their own governments in-place when they told the King to suck it." If true, then just point to it, that's all.
Who ever said the "Continental Congress" was a "Government in place"?
DeleteYou are the only person taking that position on this site, especially on this post.
To assert such nonsense you once again twisted the plain-English words I had written.
Your words: C'mon, LT...I know that you know better. Once again, the statement is plainly and provably false. The Founders DID NOT have any government in place.
There was a legislature in every colony, JK. The first in North America was the House of Burgesses in Virginia - with the lower house elected by the colonists That was 1619, JK. And in 1774 the King dissolved that Virginia institution, because his lapdogs couldn't control the elected officials within. So Virginians went to the Virginia Conventions, leading to Patrick Henry's Liberty or Death speech, the constitutional republic of Virginia, etc - all PRIOR to the DoI in July 1776.
While Virginia was the most advanced colony on such matters, the others had elected representation as well. That was kinda/sorta one of the reasons the Colonists were so ticked. "Taxation without representation" became an issue BECAUSE they had grown quite accustomed to REPRESENTATION.
And when Patriots of the time knew a fight was imminent, they reinforced those governments (to counter the Loyalists) with Committees of Safety, Correspondence, et cetera.
So I will ask you once more to articulate the false nature of my assertion. Prove your assertion that I put forth a falsehood, or it is time for you to leave for good.
I'm done dealing with people who refuse to let facts get in the way of their positions.
I don't know what you want. The claim was that the Founders "had their own government in place," and AFAICT they did not. If they did, then I'll be happy to acknowledge that, and fast.
DeleteSeems to me you made MY point with the House of Burgesses. You say the King dissolved it, because it wasn't "lapdog" enough. Sounds right to me...so whose government was it?
Here, lemme help. Wikipedia's got this..."the conventions served as a revolutionary provisional government until the establishment of the independent Commonwealth of Virginia in 1776."
I guess you could say, "There, that's the government I meant. Wikipedia even calls it that." Thing is, it wasn't any government because they were CONVENTIONS. And while they "banned commerce and payment of debts with Britain, and pledged supplies," that wasn't some statute that applied to the citizenry, let alone had any enforcement mechanisms. It was a pledge of intent by the participants; that's what conventions DO.
IOW it was no sort of government. Are you denying this and saying it WAS a government? I think that would be nearly crazy, but if that's what you're saying, then we'll just have to disagree about what a government is. Or maybe they did govern, in which case I'll be quick to note my error just as soon as you point it out.
"Taxation without representation" became an issue BECAUSE they had grown quite accustomed to REPRESENTATION."
DeleteSee, now this is news to me. I didn't know that and, on the assumption it's true, I'm grateful to learn it. I thought the Colonists never had representation for taxation.
Could I trouble you for a cite that verifies this? TIA.
I remain amazed you are one of the VERY FEW to even post on this issue!!! The ambivalent silence on the subject, not just on the Internet blogs but, across spectrums of society is a horrifying portender of the Matrix.
ReplyDeleteAs an administrative/organizational point: I would consider elected (and even bureaucratic) Patriots to be part of the "Auxiliary".
ReplyDeleteCareful, K. Don't forget the warning label which goes wih those positions -
I believe you are familiar with what the Stasi did to verräter and uberläufer; just remember, there's a very big, very empty facility at Fort Knox that could make a perfect "roach motel".
My bad - I wasn't talking about current pols & bureaucrats who take any action contrary to Constitutional/Natural Laws - I was referring to those who pledge to a Rightful Liberty and genuinely Constitutional (1791 pre-Marbury/Original Intent) Platform. Like you when we run you for Sheriff in your county. ;)
DeleteI know what you mean. What I'm saying is that, very soon, the regime will begin to disappear any of their minions whom they suspect of split loyalty.
DeleteEvery tyranny, by fact if not by explicit definition, must behave so. It is the nature of evil to produce as much fear as possible...
WE HAVE BEEN WARNED
Not if I get him elected in my county first;););)
DeleteHeh ;) it'd be a true miracle if you could get me elected as Sheriff. because it would be hard to conceal the fact that I'd immediately tear through every county office and department, and obtain injunctions against every unconstitutional ordinance, regulation, and expenditure. That would instantly put half the county empoyees on a very long furlough, if they werent outright let go...
DeleteIts hard to get reelected once you start doing the hard things... so you have to get them done quick.
I'd also immediately run a psa, saturating both print and broadcast media in my county, to let all residents know that the county has no obligation to protect individuals or private property, and that (at least until the law can be changed, if that's what citizens want) I strongly recommend that every able-bodied person carry a firearm to ensure their safety, and the security of their community.
I'd actually read/publish the text of NCGS-14.51.3, which is North Carolina's "right to self defense law" aka our "Castle Doctrine", which says that a legitimate act of self-defense is immune to both criminal and civil liability; and I'd make it very clear that I am in favor of *anyone* who practices responsible self defense.
Of course, neighboring counties would have fits about such PSAs because it would 'arouse' the residents in their their jurisdictions to do the same (and Wake County is notoriously anti-gun). Mores the better, on that count. Donnie Harrison is a fat statist pig who loves the Federal trough, but the unaWake residents keep voting for him as their "sharff" anyway.
When the riots start... his county will probably burn really quickly. Where I live, no one in their right mind would dare do that crap, even today...
That looks like the beginning of a Platform to me...
DeleteNever thought about it that way, but you're right. Lots more needed to flesh it out, but its a start...
DeleteAmen brother...YOU would be the first Representative that I would campaign for...
DeleteWhen we began working on III to Liberty it was with the agenda of arguing for Restoration (each contributor to the book wrote on the topic) and as a political Platform.
DeleteI think it is time to sharpen the Platform and polish it.
Yet more campfire conversation for our gathering in July.
DeleteI am very much looking forward to it...
LT, on the Castle Doctrine...Marvin Louis Guy. I still say that as he goes, so goes the country. I guess his defense lawyers received and got a 1 year delay, even as he remains (what I would call) a POW.
DeleteSmells fishy to me; those are some defense lawyers.
"Fishy" isn't the word for that case, "Tyrannical" is.
DeleteBut that's not the point, is it, JK. We shouldn't need any written "castle doctrine" at all. It should be obvious, if your guilty of the Malum in Se, then you're guilty of the Malum Prohibitum which goes with it... and if not guilty of the principal charge, then neither is there guilt on any claimed accessory charge(s) which they might try to gin up later for CYA.
IOW, if you're a criminal, then it's reasonable to question the claim of self-defense, but when they can't substantiate the underlying charge of the no-knock warrant on you, then there is NO GROUNDS upon which to challenge the assertion of your self defense after you wax a few of theirs upon entry.
Lesson for the cops - minimize the no-knock raids. And when you are willing to do one, make sure you have done every last bit of your damn homework before you crash that door... otherwise, what you get is ON YOU.
"We shouldn't need any written 'castle doctrine' at all."
DeleteThat's right, isn't it? Hmm, maybe there's a wider principle in there.