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

Monday, November 26, 2012

III Congress: SitRep

When I laid out my thumbnail for a model for building a national organization to connect local dots, I explained very early that I had 2 pre-requisites: TL, and CA must agree to participate, and the standard American Constitutional Oath is mandatory for all Members and Delegates.  I have the infrastructure in place to make it happen legally: I have the companies, the bank accounts, the PayPal accounts, the tax-free 527, and any Treasurer could be appointed to oversee the money.

After talking with TL and CA in email, we will not be able to satisfy my two requisites for participation.

The goal is noble and as Sandman says, it is overdue.  The method is sound: The original Continental Congress is a proven method for getting the job done.  The no ad hominem rule eliminates the factional problems.  It means K and AP and MBV and Baugh and Bill Nye and every other "faction" with static could sit at the same table.

But the three of us will not get there, today.

I would suggest anyone who wants this to continue should reach out to CA and TL and ask them to go forward without me.  If you think it is important, make it happen.  This is your Liberty, your Life.

There is no "blame".  Three men standing on Principle and none willing to move.  That is all.  I'd rather have such a nation than a nation of people who compromise deep Principles.  I am proud to know both men.



  1. I did not comment on the prior thread. Sam had laid out his conditions for participation very clearly, and nothing I could say or contribute would have done anything one way or another. But I have been following it very closely.

    He stated that he only wanted two questions answered:

    “Does the proposal improve our odds of success, or not?  Do we move forward on this path, or not? “

    Question 1 was self evident, and rhetorical in nature I think. Of course it improves the odds of success, because it increases exposure, which brings more people in. Even if the effort were to ultimately fail (ye aren't going to VOTE liberty back in, folks) the exposure would be worth it.

    Question 2 was answered by Sam's already existing prerequisites. If both TL and CA didn't sign on, then it would be a no-go regardless of what anyone else said on the matter.

    Thus, there wasn't anything for me to comment on that thread, other than adding unnecessary clutter.

    I only know of TL through a few blog posts, and I don't know of CA at all, so I'll refrain from commenting on those folks, other than to say obviously someone didn't want to play ball for some reason or another.

    Sam took the high road, and I commend him for that. I don't think my words would have been near as courteous, all in all. I've run out of patience for all the endless mental masturbation of the so called 'patriot' movement, which is why I stepped away years ago to begin with.

    People talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, and when the time comes for DOING, they waffle.

    Everyone is so zeroed in on the minutiae that they fail to see the larger global picture.

    And people misuse the word 'compromise' endlessly. Especially when stating that they refuse to 'compromise' their beliefs.

    It's not 'compromise' to be able to set aside personal differences to work on a shared goal.

    There are plenty of lifestyles and behaviors that I don't agree with. But I'll work with ANYONE on restoration of Liberty and fighting for our rights. Some folks seem to think that if you don't agree with other people 100% on everything that you are selling out your beliefs. This is lowbrow ignorant BS. And folks who subscribe to that are going to be very, very, alone.

    Just because you agree with people on one thing does not mean you have to agree with the on everything. Many years ago now, I worked with some folks from the Pink Pistols to get information and word out about shall issue CCW in Colorado. Does that mean I endorse their lifestyle? Nope, sure doesn't. But it does mean that we agreed that the right to self defense was an inalienable right that EVERYONE needs to have access to. So did I 'compromise' my beliefs in order to work with those folks? Nope. I set aside my differences to work on the BIGGER PICTURE. (And realized that living in Rightful Liberty means that whatever anyone else does is NONE of your business whatsoever, as long as it doesn't infringe upon YOUR particular liberty, regardless of whatever belief system you subscribe to.)

    (Second part to follow, character limit hit.)

  2. Part II:

    Look at the concept of restoration of the Constitution. There are all kids of folks who agree with that. That doesn't mean that we have to agree with these folks on ANYTHING else, other than the end goal. We don't have to like them, we don't have to agree with them on 99% of whatever else they profess to believe in. There is no reason that we cannot work with other III on this as long as folks agree to abide by the ground rules, but apparently those simple things 'compromise' their beliefs too much. Bollocks.

    This is something I think far too many people miss. It's a forest for the trees kind of thing.

    Sam, I salute your willingness to work with folks to make things happen. It's a pity that others just can't seem to get over themselves and see the 'larger picture'.

    The minimums that were outlined were simple, basic, and very common sense. I don't see how ANYONE could legitimately have a problem with them. And the provision of no ad hominem would mean that folks could be invited to the table as long as they agreed to adhere to the rules, that would otherwise not find themselves sitting around a table. It's about putting personal differences aside for the greater good.

    In the prior thread someone (I think it was Klein) noted that we are taught that we must sacrifice ourselves for the 'greater good', and he explained why he thought that we've been... 'snookered' I think the term was.

    I'll just respectfully disagree with that.

    If there is no 'greater good', there is nothing. Nothing but temporal gain, in exchange for no future.

    My own self interest? If that was the case I'd go hide out in some million acre national forest and tell you all to pike off.

    Does anyone think I'm doing this because it's in my own self interest? I'll likely be dead before we see Rightful Liberty restored, whether by the slow creep of time, or by the tyrant's bullet. Heck, even my children might not live to see it. If we're lucky, maybe our Grandchildren will.

    Without something worth believing in and fighting for, there will BE no restoration of the Constitution or our Republic. That goal of possible liberty for our loved ones, is what will keep our feet marching through freezing snow and rain when we just want to give up. It's what will sustain us when the going gets tough and when food is scarce as hen's teeth. Those without a belief in the 'greater good', are doomed to fail before you've even taken your own first step.

    I do it because it's the right thing to do. Because countless of our forebears have dropped the ball, which is what has allowed us to get into this crappy position in the first place.

    And because *I* will not allow the buck to be passed, as my recent ancestors, and your recent ancestors did. Passing the buck is weak, folks. It's time to man up.

  3. "Look at the concept of restoration of the Constitution. There are all kids of folks who agree with that. That doesn't mean that we have to agree with these folks on ANYTHING else, other than the end goal."

    That's right, but there is widespread disagreement throughout the "freedom movement" about Rule of Law itself, and hence the Constitution.

    If you're not familiar with zerogov.com and especially the forum there, you should check it out. Very nice folk and Bill Buppert, the owner, is an expert about all things constitutional, as well as the military and about a zillion other topics to boot. Remarkable chap.

    Yes, most people have been snookered about sacrifice, but I said I wouldn't ramble here for a while, so maybe we can take it up another time. Errors in politics are derivative of errors in ethics, especially that one.

  4. Perchance events will overtake egos?

    "We must hang together or surely we will all hang separately."

    B. Franklin

    It' a small sandbox people.....



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