By Peter G
Barack Obama won the election fair and square. That means that not only is he *the* President, he is *my* President. No, I didn't vote for him, nor did I contribute one red cent to his campaign. I am, first and foremost an American and a passionate believer in our Constitution, and as such, I am duty bound to embrace him as my President. No, I don't agree with his positions on most things, and I believe that so far as the Second Amendment is concerned he's a bald-faced liar.
In 1962, as a five year-old riding in the back seat of my parent's 1958 Mercury traveling through Chattanooga, I saw the Freedom Marchers. I also saw them being fire hosed. That during my lifetime we as a country elected a black man to our highest office redeems my hope in the promise that our Founders envisioned. That we might finally be getting over this self-inflicted madness over skin color also gives me hope for the future of our Republic.
Nevertheless, it's going to be rough going for at least the next two years, and the mid-term elections of 2010 will only make things less bad. President-elect Obama is more intelligent than Jimmy Carter, and is more disciplined than Bill Clinton, so prepare yourselves for two terms of President Obama. And please remember also that the President doesn't make laws, he can merely sign or veto them. The real problem resides at the other end of Constitution Avenue, with Congress. As well, let us not forget the old saw about the decisions being made by those who show up. Barack Obama showed up, he built up a network of supporters, raised the money, and did all the things necessary to win the election. Are there better choices out there? Sure there are, but they didn't show up, or they didn't make it to the end. That's our system, and if one is truly serious about being a Citizen, one must accept the unwanted results along with those that one might agree with.
For my part, I will continue doing what I have been doing. This past Monday, I bought another rifle, more ammunition, a scope, and some spare parts for one of my Mausers. Should the worst forecasts of a Democratically dominated Federal Government come true, I will resist those results as a free man. This is not a call to revolution, far from it. It is my sincere wish to be left alone to live my life as best I might. However, should my 'betters' in DC decide to violate my Constitutional Rights, I will fight until they kill me. I can do no less, not while I self-identify as an American. I will never fire the first shot, but shoot I will if attacked.
I will continue to network with my like-minded e-friends, and will continue to send articles and notes of interest to David Codrea, Paul Grant, Jeffersonian, and Mike Vanderboegh, amongst others. Gunfire is the last resort, not the first, and if I can protect my freedom and country by a profligate expenditure of pixels and electrons, then I'll happily write that check to the electric company and consider it a bargain.
This has been quite a journey: it all started because I wanted an 1858 Remington and didn't want to pay list price, so I hit Google. One link led to another, I started reading and then thinking about what it is to be a Citizen, what the responsibilities entail, and not just the benefits. I don't regret the time nor the effort. If nothing else, it has kept me off the streets and out of the arms of strange women.
In closing, Ladies and Germs, the immediate future is pretty bleak. However, it's not permanent, nor is it unchangeable. I could write more, but I need to get off my overpadded behind and put some miles on the bike. Physical conditioning is just as important as the mental kind.
III
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
The president can issue executive orders which have the force of law. He also can order agencies to issue regulations. He has more power than most people think.
Gag. You first, Peter, I ain't embracing any such crap.
1) The house is held by the dems. We will see an AWB brought up, since it's been brought up every year previous (last year we had two, I believe). Last year it died on the floor. In 2010 there is an election, but the turn-over during these elections is always low. Expect the dems to control the house until 2012. That means 4 years of this bill being tried, by an all-dem congress and a dem president. Odds are strong it WILL pass, the devil is just in the details. At this point I'm pinning more hopes (and prayers) on the Supreme Court than on the legislative branch.
2) "I will never fire the first shot, but shoot I will if attacked" is going to be the death-cry of free men. As long as we say this, we'll be picked off easily, one by one. Apologies to Vanderboergh, but a single man is unlikely to take out even a single attacker if his house is invaded by an organized police force. And since most likely no one will be shot at by the police, but rather arrested, one by one, nice and civilly (and thereby also losing their right to vote), it won't even go that far. Remember, even Hitler gathered up his victims primarily by polite people in uniform who never had to fire a shot. I'm not saying it's time for revolution, but everyone needs to realize, the "I'm ready to shoot, but only when the government breaks down my door" is ultimately naive and even suicidal.
Embracing a marxist as "my" president is disgusting and treasonous. No wonder the Fudds are winning and the Constitution is a dead letter.
Oh, and I ain't accepting any unwanted results. That's not being responsible. You go right ahead an be "accepting". I got other ideas, because yours is going to get you whatever comes along. Have fun obeying the law and getting whacked.
"I'm ready to shoot, but only when the government breaks down my door" is ultimately naive and even suicidal.
Agreed, nezumi. Which is why that's not a tactic I'd recommend for someone wishing to prevail and survive.
In Mike's book so far, a remarkable character does prevail but does not survive. Other remarkable characters take the fight to their oppressors.
Creativity and innovation...
---
Anon, while I strongly disagree with that aspect of Peter's essay, he has a history here that belies your accusations on his character and motives. He is neither Fudd not treasonist.
I would like to make it clear though--I've posted guest essays in the past where people came unglued on me for doing so. Peter himself didn't appreciate an essay I posted a while back written by another guest contributor.
It happens.
I'm not trying to disassociate myself from this, just to clarify that opinions expressed are those of the author. I choose to post them because I believe they present thoughts we should consider and discussions we should have.
Passion is welcome and even anger can be instructive, but I sense this might devolve, so I'm just raising a flag here...
"Not firing the first shot" doesn't have to mean "wait for them to knock down your door". It just means "no Fort Sumters"
"A Dream Fulfilled" (and a nightmare begun!)
"Historic Election" (at what cost?)
These are headlines I've seen, and I added my own take.
The people did not elect Barack Obama; the MSM did, thru lies, propaganda, and manipulation. We "elected" Obama because, in large part, he was black. When someone questioned his character, associations, and/or political beliefs, the very things elections SHOULD turn on, he and his lapdog press played the race card, and enough people bought that lie to get him in.
Charlie Gibson played "gotcha" with the Sarah Palin interview, and no one raised an eyebrow (well, I, did) But when two stations asked Joe Biden about Obama's "spreading the wealth" comments being Marxist in origin, he waxed indignant but never answered the question. Then the Obama campaign cut these stations off from any more access. The rest of the media knew their place then, I reckon. Suffice it to say, the MSM's credibility is gone, and they will not get it back.
David and Peter, I am often not wordy enough, need lessons from Mike, should have added that embracing it would be disgusting etc to me and I don't understand those that do. However I understand this is an honest opinion that Peter expressed and I don't accuse him of treason, borderline Fudd maybe. Wish I could see some light at the end of the tunnel, but the republic was lost many years ago, the Constitution is a dead letter, and a marxist will be at the helm. I owe nothing in the way of allegiance or loyalty to a marxist regardless of his title. Those that admonish us to be good peasants and work with the system are certainly entitled to their opinions. 97% agree with that approach.
the wording was "I will never fire the first shot, but shoot I will if attacked."
death-cry of free men? do you not return fire when fired upon? how did you select "breaks down my door" instead, exactly?
the argument became semantic the minute you failed to offer the benfit of the doubt. let it go. you would indeed defend yourself, and you understand where your line is. his sentiment is expressed vaguely precisely because he knows everyone's line is different.
whether you survive is just a matter of having read farnam's books or not. :)
That quiet simple polite arrest is not the end of resistance. It is the beginning. If a swat team kicked in my door and swarmed through the house, they would win that encounter. Shit! Even I'm smart enough to understand that. With my family here and no reason to expect any such thing should occur, all the advantage would be with them if for some stupid reason they should decide to do so.
But that is the last instant in which they would enjoy all the advantages.
If you can't figure out the rest, I'm not telling it publicly. Just in case, by some unforseen combination of events, I actually survive such a thing or even this coming administration, let them use their own words against me, not mine. I have some serious concerns about that. I don't have any back up left in me. I think that will not be tolerated.
Divided and isolated as individuals we are guaranteed to fall. The question is what do the rest of us do after that first lone individual is taken out by the storm troopers?
Mike V. is right, to retain the moral high ground we have to give them the first move. Once they have set the rules of engagement, it's a whole nother story.
... not only is he *the* President, he is *my* President. ... I am, first and foremost an American and a passionate believer in our Constitution, and as such, I am duty bound to embrace him as my President.
Oh, like hell. These people don't talk for me, and they're not the boss of me. Period.
As for the Constitution...
"... whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner, 1867
"My president" = "Mein Furher". No freakin' way, be it a (D) or an (R) trying to violate my rights.
I am not a "citizen", but instead am a person with all my rights intact no matter what the Rulers may prefer.
I value the Constitution only as an illustration of the illegal nature of the current fe(de)ral government. I didn't sign it, so I never agreed to be ruled by those who would obey (or ignore) it.
I hate to be nasty, but it is thinking like this that keeps the tyrants feeling safe. "People should not fear 'their' governments; governments should fear their people."
Sean: We have been spending a lot of time portraying ourselves as the responsible grown-ups. That means playing by the 'rules' for so long as the rules have any meaning. Those meanings have been greatly diminished, by they're still there. This fight has to be waged on different levels, not just the shooting part. Wander over to any of the Nazi/White Supremacist boards. You'll notice that they use the same words as we do: Constitution, Patriot, American, etc. This is a major problem for us, as the very same MSM that was in the tank for the Obamination will not hesitate to smear us with that same brush. We have to dance on the knife edge. I don't like it one bit, but those are the cards we've been dealt. As well, I'm sure you're aware of the Leftards who have been screaming about GWBush not being 'their' president, and that he 'stole' the 2000 election. We're better than that, remember? We're Americans first and foremost, no matter how much we might disagree amongst ourselves.
We cannot fire the first shot(s). The tactical advantage has to be on the Gummint's side. They get to dictate the opening moves. I cannot act until they show up in my driveway. It would be far better if they set up roadblocks, alleging drunk driving checkpoints and/or Terry stops. That sort of fluid tactical situation favors me far more than it does them, but I cannot count on that. I wish it were otherwise, but there it is. Do you realize how easy it is to find the home addresses of my local officials, including the Sheriff? As tempting as a pre-emptive strike would be, it'll still be a disaster. I am, personally, counting on my relative anonymity to protect me from the opening moves. I've written to my Congresscritters a bunch of times, so I have to assume I'm on the List, but I'm betting (my life) that I'm not near the top of that List. I have measured out sight lines and possible egress routes from my house, along with LBE, ALICE gear, etc. My area is pretty built up, so burying a cache of supplies is a problem for me, one that I still haven't solved. None of my neighbors has the faintest idea of what or how much 'stuff' I have here. I've chosen silence about all that as my personal OPSEC. That might prove to be a lifesaver, or it might be personally disastrous, I just don't know. You pays yer money and you takes yer chances.
Anon: it might be disgusting, in fact it is, but it's not treasonous. It's our law, and if we presume to be Constitutional Patriots, those are the rules we have to live by. I've had numerous discussions with folks who seems to think that Jeffersons and Madisons are born to each generation, and merely need the proper situation to rise to prominence. I'm nowhere near that optimistic, and as such, we need to fight while maintaining the goal of a restoration of strict Constitutional goverment after we're done. The Law Of Unintended Consequences is always in effect. Contrast the original intent of the RICO statute versus how it is being used currently for one example. Or the so-called War On Drugs and the dismantling of the Fouth Amendment as another.
One of the problems is us. We're individualists who won't readily group together without a clear and present danger. I, for one, won't easily take orders from anyone, just ask my wife :) This is a potential situation that almost demands an organization, yet we're the sort of people who resist that sort of thing, hence a bazillion lines in the sand, and angry sniping in various Comment sections of the pro-RKBA blogs and boards. Our opponents don't have that issue: they've occupied the halls of goverment and the media while we were all busy elsewhere. We, you and I, gave them that ground, and now we have to figure out a way to deal with that. It's gonna be a b*tch with both sides claiming to be in support of the Law, whilst claiming the other side is in violation of that Law.
My opinion isn't the last word, nor is it the only word. Those of you who disagree with me can try to convince me otherwise. Write to David and ask him for my email. I'd be more than happy to hear from any of you.
Lastly, I'm working on another contribution to this blog concerning how best to manage the propaganda/information portion of all this. Randy Weaver was called a White Separatist. The Branch Davidians were portrayed as child molesters and religious crazies. Our guns are the measure of last resort, and we need to be able to get our side of things out to the general public, particularly before the SWAT teams and APCs start showing up in our driveways. Part of my networking with the various pro-2A folks was undertaken with just that goal in mind. None of the people I cited live anywhere near me; in fact, Mike Vanderboegh is the closest, and according to Yahoo Maps, he's 711 and change miles from here. I'm looking at satellite wi-fi and offshore servers, anonymous proxy servers for starters.
Joel: He might not speak for either of us, but he is the boss of us. Like it or not, he won the election. By all means be angry and upset: I am. But after your ire cools a bit, you need to figure out what's next. That's what I'm trying to do.
Kent: That's one of the biggest problems. They've stopped being afraid of us, and we need to reinstill that fear. Writing letters hasn't worked, civil disobedience hasn't worked. Unless I'm wrong, we need to keep our powder dry and be prepared to fire when they, in their seemingly limitless arrogance, think that they can move against us. And Kent, as one e-friend to another, please consider how you're both an asset and a hindrance to our goals of freedom and liberty. As do I: it's entirely likely that I'm too prepared to be pleasant and accomodating, and that my line in the sand hasn't been drawn deeply enough. Please advise, OK?
Peter, show me some evidence that politics can make me more free.
Um, the politics at the Constutional Convention that got us the Bill of Rights?
Joel: He might not speak for either of us, but he is the boss of us. Like it or not, he won the election.
Forgive me, but you're mistaken. If you read the Constitution you've sworn your fealty to, you'll find that the *constitutional* president is a rather colorless executive with virtually no power over the day-to-day lives of Americans - as opposed to the omnipotent fool-king he has been allowed to become.
Peter- I said "me", and I meant today or tomorrow or even next year. Sorry I wasn't clear about that. The past is the past.
The Bill of Rights didn't work as it was "supposed" to. Probably it would have been better to have left those rights unenumerated. That way there wouldn't have been all these distrations over what this or that amendment "really" means or tyrant wanna-bes saying that if a right isn't specifically spelled out in the BoR, it doesn't exist. I think the BoR actually hurt rights in the long run. If you don't agree, that is fine.
I am sorry if you think I am a hindrance to your goals of freedom and liberty, but since I think liberty is an individual pursuit, I can't help "our" liberty; only mine. And I wish for each person to do the same for their own liberty. All I can do is either speak up according to my values or shut up. My values, for the record, are: Liberty for ALL, everywhere, for all time.
Well, the more I think about it I was right the first time, if we "presume to be Constitutional Patriots" the embracing of a marxist for pres is indeed treason. Not only a marxist but a congressthing that has sworn to uphold the Constitution and has violated that oath numerous times by his statements and votes(enemy-domestic). If your loyalty is only to the titular head of government regardless of actions then remember that everything Hitler did was legal too. Sieg Heil!
I would like to respectfully disagree with the author of this guest editorial.
I say 'respectfully' because I do believe he is on our side and is a true Patriot.
However, I strongly disagree with the notion that adherence to the Constitution requires that we embrace 'the man,' the human being' that occupies that office. Nowhere does the Constitution require such a thing.
The ONLY thing required, in my opinion, is to respect the Office--the Chief Exective of the Executive Branch.
I can have the utmost regard for the Office and still hold the deepest disdain for the person holding that office, particularly when that person has shown himself to be totally antithetical to that Constitution.
Thus, the sworn oath of all patriots to 'uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States' may well mean it is absolutely necessary to oppose, work against, condemn, and call for the removal of an individual who so thoroughly shows his contempt for Constitutional principles.
I will never recognize Obama as my President, although I respect the Office he will hold. I will never compromise or embrace Marxist/Socialist principles, even if 95% of the electorate 'voted for it fair and square.'
One of the reasons we have a Constitution to begin with is to PREVENT the electorate from doing some things...mainly, embracing individuals for public office who are the enemies of liberty.
These people are illegimitate representatives of our Republic, no matter how many people 'voted for it fair and square.'
Kent: I misunderstood you. Sorry. And you're not a hindrance, certainly no more than I might be. I'm trying to find a path here, and to deal with the situation we now face. If we all knew exactly what to do, this would be a whole lot easier.
Anon: if all you've got is Hitler references, then you have even less of a clue than I do.
Mr. Lloyd-Morgan: your opinions have great weight with me. Perhaps I'm wrong to try to accept the man despite my misgivings about his agenda. And perhaps I've conflated the man with the Office he's been elected to. It's not the first mistake I've made so far, and it probably won't be the last. I remain worried though, both for the Republic and for my own sorry hide. I also think that echoing the Left's denial of Bush by doing the same to Obama is both a tactical and strategic error.
I simply don't have the confidence that there is a group of gifted individuals that can recreate what the Founders did, and no matter what we do, we have to preserve the Republic even as we prepare to fight the office holders.
Well golly gee Pete, if you don't understand the relevance of the Fuhrer being voted into office, his being supported by the people, and him using the rules so that everything he did was legal, you really don't have a clue.
Peter,
I appreciate your kind words, but remember I am far from infallible. I am just as prone to overreact as anyone.
While I do believe we can respect the Office of the President while at the same time holding in contempt the person who occupies that office, it remains to be seen what Obama will actually do.
If he is willing to move away from his core principles, recognizing that most Americans aren't Socialists, then perhaps we can live with it for a while.
But I will tell you this, his early choices for posts in his Administration appear to indicate that he will take a hardline, partisan approach to issues--not a good sign.
Anyway, thanks for your insightful comments. You certainly gave us much food for thought.
As for myself, I took an oath many times over 20 years of military service to defend, protect and preserve the United States Constitution. Nowhere did the oath say anything about Exective Orders or the interpeted Constitution. I am now a retired military member that will resist any infringment of my rights that I served to protect.
I am not a violant person but will use whatever means necessary to protect this country, my family, my life and my property.
Post a Comment