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

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Restoration: How to get from here to there...


I came across Outpost of Freedom yesterday, and particularly his plan for Restoration.  I've added the blog to my links below, and I'll include a link to the Restoration PDF at the end of this post.

I commend the Restoration piece to you all for consideration. 

The author took the time to do some very important work.  Not only has he laid out a plan to actually achieve Restoration, he has also taken the time to document every action he proposes with the historical precedents of the Revolution.  For instance, when he calls for X act, he shows you in history where our Founders took the same action.

I have held that our Founders left us a blueprint and the author of this piece did the hard work of illustrating that blueprint.  Of course there are nits that can be picked in the plan, but remember, none of us will ever agree about every detail of any plan.  What is important is that the author took the time to do the work, and he employed a LOT of common sense as he put the plan together.

Read it when you have the chance to sit for a while.  Soak it in and consider where it may be tweaked, and how.  I suggest a discussion on the paper here online, and I will also bring it up at our PatCom.  I may have just found my topic for Brock's event.

Here's the link.

Kerodin
III

52 comments:

  1. From the paper: "Since our purpose is to Restore Constitutional Government, as intended by the Framers..."

    How many times do we have to go through this? The Framers of the Constitution DID NOT WANT anything like Rightful Liberty. That's WHY they snookered a meeting to "amend" the Articles and eventually blow the whole thing off. Those were the "Founding Lawyers" and they INTENDED to have a country just like this. When was the Whiskey Rebellion?

    This goes with my email earlier. Imagination is a wonderful thing; fantasy has its purpose. But this is life and death now, and the time is here. For crissakes, how can anyone expect to fix ANYTHING if they're proceeding as if gravity makes things fall up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, I simply don't buy into the paradigm that it was some wonderful and elaborate hoax, ala Boston T. Party.

      It is an imperfect system that relies upon decent men to implement it properly, there was a struggle from the moment it was ratified (even before), and for the most part the Bad People (Federalists) won. The wounded animal was killed finally by Lincoln.

      Your conspiracy roots are showing, JK.

      Delete
  2. LOL. Conspiracy roots? What, are you kidding?

    Was Patrick Henry a conspiracy theorist? Why did the man who stood up and said, "Give me liberty or give me death," stand against the Constitution? You can say he later switched, but we all turn into Pragmatists eventually. That's not the question---WHY WAS HE AGAINST IT? Did he not understand as well as modern "Patriots"? Is that it, IYO?

    He understood, lots of men understood and most importantly of all, WE can understand. Answer the question in the email---why do you seek to restore that which you explicitly acknowledge as always having been evil?

    Answer THAT forthrightly, and I'll be done with it. And don't tell me of your imaginations, desires, principles and so on. We are in complete agreement about all of that. Answer the damn question. It's all on the record...you agreed with Bill that FedGov has "always been evil," and the Constitution is the charter document of FedGov. I know how you WISH people would behave; we all wish that. That's not the question. The question is...well, you got the question.

    We're on the Express Bus to Hell, and our good intentions just ain't gonna cut it. In your CQB class, how much time do you spend on analyzing the philosophical intentions of your attacker? And how many of the drills are about persuading that attacker to adopt righteous principles?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you are such a student of history, then you know, also, that once the Constitution was ratified, Patrick Henry accepted it and agreed to work within its framework.
      It is important to understand that total consensus is nearly impossible in even a small group of people. Thos who criticize the Constitutional Convention fail to recognize that it was simply a piece of paper with bunch of ideas -- addressing entering into something that had no precedence a written constitution whereby the government came into existence at the will of the people. Never before and never since has then been achieved. However, at that point it was still just a piece of paper.
      Then, each of the states held conventions. Those conventions were peopled by the peopel of the respective states. Many states even removed some restrictions on voting so that the participation of selecting delegates was even greater than what would be allowed to vote for someone to office. Many of the delegates went with instructions to reject the Constitution. Eventually, they asked for a recess so that they could return to their constituents and asked to be relieved of the obligation to vote against, and returned able to vote for ratification. Within a couple of years, 9 states had decided that they preferred that new government over the Articles of Confederation or the alternative of each state being a nation unto itself. Soon, two more states opted into the new government with two holding out only until such time as amendments would be assured to rectify what was perceived as problems with the Constitution. Once amendments were proposed. they, too, joined in the new government.
      So, to argue the secrecy of the Conventions, which was, from a reasonable standpoint, the only way that they could conduct their business and avoid interruption by others (non-delegates) wanting to get their "two cents" in and probably making the task impossible to achieve, the completed their work, still; only a piece of paper, and left it up to the people, in convention, to decide whether they wished to go with it, or without. If you want to really understand what really happened, instead of parroting the "secrecy" BS, I would suggest "Ratification - The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1789", by Pauline Maier.
      Further, if you read the Plan, as has been suggested, you will see what is proposed to amend the Constitution to assure that abuse and usurpation can be excluded. We have, now, the insight into the machinations of those in power that the framers did not.
      As far as what our relationship with the federal government is, I might suggest Habeas Corpus - The Guardian of Liberty (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/hh06.htm).

      Delete
    2. Sorry, Gary, I've unintentionally misled you. I'm not a student of history and I'm not arguing about the Plan in question. K has found himself in a contradictory ethical position, and I used this post to pursue it. That's all. It was inopportune spot for me to choose.

      I don't like people I care about walking around with contradictions. They're very bad for one's own health and happiness, and not so great for others'.

      Delete
    3. Jim, Your comment, "The Framers of the Constitution DID NOT WANT anything like Rightful Liberty. That's WHY they snookered a meeting to "amend" the Articles..." is in error, regardless of your purpose in writing it. They were venturing into a realm that had not been entered, before. However, if you read the Convention Notes by Madison, you can see that they changed their thought process from what was status quo at the time to the ideals of "Republicanism". They realized that what they were writing would take away from the "gentlemen" and allow anyone to represent the people in Congress.
      So, if you are going to attack an "ethical position", perhaps you should remain "ethical".

      Delete
    4. Jim, Patrick Henry stood with his good friend George Mason. Mason saw several issues with the Constitution drafted in 1787, I would say the 2 biggest being that the delegates refused to offer a Bill of Rights (Mason almost single handedly wrote the Virginia Bill of Rights) he believed this was paramount to keeping government in line. Second, he believed that strict guidelines should be added in regulating taxes. Without these guidelines, the central government would dominate taxation causing the people suffrage, leading to war. Neither man was necessarily against a constitution, they both leaned heavily towards confederacy which we already had. Mason believed that if a federal government was able to concentrate power it would, from Mason's argument before the Virginia Legislature (Virginia Ratification 1788): "The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments."
      That last sentence really sums up both Mason and Henry's fears, states would no longer have the right to govern without permission from the fed, the rights of We the People would be lost.
      You can read their arguments here: http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/eamerica/media/ch7/resources/documents/henryandmason.htm
      Both Henry and Mason give compelling arguments, especially considering current events.

      Delete
  3. Forthright answer: Be rid of the Bad People who would abuse their fellow countrymen, and the document will work just fine.

    Our Founders and Framers fuk'd up and left too many wannabe Masters on the continent.

    Patrick Henry should have cut Hamilton's throat instead of simply walking away, and we'd have been in a different world. :Liberty or Death" is a great speech - but putting his own words into action would have helped the republic more than walking away.

    I'll stick by my gut that says Benjamin Franklin would have never signed if it was a plot. I'll stick by my understanding of Human Nature that tells me not one single signer ever penned in his private notes about how they had pulled the wool over the eyes of every American for generations (smug fucks, like you claim they were, simply CAN'T help themselves from blabbing about how slick they were.) I'll also trust the many, many people across the republic who ratified it in their states.

    For fux sake, not everything in the world is a damned conspiracy, especially a conspiracy designed by men that won't kick-in for generations to come. People are too damned selfish for that kind of delayed gratification. Sometimes Bad People win the fight and do Bad Things. It happens often. It is the natural state of things, in fact.

    The Constitution, as ratified and intended, remains the best governing document ever written by Man.

    Just like anything else, if it is ignored or used improperly by Bad People, it will not serve its intended purpose. Here, apply this argument: "Guns aren't bad! Bad People do Bad Things with guns!" We all believe that argument - now change the word "gun" to "Constitution", and perhaps a bit of common sense can be restored to this conversation.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am only about 3/4 of the way through the document but I have seen one section that raised some red flags.

    When the author is referring to Monsanto and the "energy industry" there is a specification of a profit limit of 10%. I don't know how that can be squared with the Constitution. There's no historical reference given in the paper for controls such as that, and there isn't an authorization in the Constitution that I know of for similar controls other than the much-maligned "interstate commerce" BS.

    If a company is capable of making more than 10% profit, what grounds do we have to prevent that? It sounds like there is a push for price controls which is antithetical to free economy. I do understand the perils of crony capitalism but I'm of the opinion that situation is created by government regulation.

    I'm not trying to be overly critical; overall what I've read so far is an excellent plan. I'm glad someone has taken the time to articulate all these points. It's been quite an eye-opener.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a nit I would pick at also. I see what he's trying to do, not sure if this is the best mechanism, for it sets a bad precedent. I think his position is that Monsanto has acquired a dangerous monopoly and that shutting them down cold turkey could cause food shortages.

      K

      Delete
    2. That situation remains only during the course of Restoration (duration). It is, you might say, punitive, since they have given us GMO and created grief for farmers who have had Monsanto seeds blow into the farmer's field.
      To get back to heirloom seeds and assure the food production continues, action is necessary on our part. Hearts and Minds has failed in foreign lands, though it is absolutely necessary in the process of Restoration.
      Corporations used to have to abide by their corp[orate charter. If they failed to do so, their charter would be revoked. Now, they can get away with anything, including buying other corporations and then letting them go belly-up for the tax benefits. Further, corporations are not people and should not be treated as such. It is argued as freedom of speech, though it amounts to a board having a very loud voice, not subject to approval by all of the shareholders. This leads to one of the very significant problems that has to be addressed. To understand this, read
      What happens when you turn Congress over to market forces?
      (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=625)

      Delete
    3. Kerodin,
      Back to historical models. During the Revolutionary War, there wasn't much to take over, though foraging allowed the Americans to take food and supplies and leave a receipt, to be paid in the future.
      If we look at the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression), we see the government taking over railroads and the cotton industry, as they moved south. There was no compensation for the cotton, unless the owner was present, then he got a receipt for what the government determined the value to be, not open market value (which was higher).
      As for the railroads, they were taken over, absolutely. They made no profit; most of the passengers and goods were military, and travelled without cost. Due to the effects of war and in some cases for poorly designed or maintained roadway (railroad), repairs and improvements were made by the government, on some lines often in the tens of millions of dollars. At the end of the war, Congress had to determine what to do with the railroads they had seized. They finally decided that they should be returned to the owners and the question remained, should those owners compensate the government for repairs and/or improvements made by the government. In most cases, the railroad was finally returned to the original owner and no charges assessed against him. Obviously, any consideration of profit was not on the table, rather the loss to the owners was an exigency of war.
      I think that the offer of a 10% profit (since there are shareholders, not just owners) is a rather generous consideration and holds us on the moral high ground. However, as everything in the plan, it is a starting point. The objective is to operate the Plan, with revisions as necessary, as experience or need will dictate rather, to operate the Plan, not to debate it. Each area will have its own leadership to determine what course they shall take.

      Delete
    4. If we get rid of our central bank, delete 99% of our current regulations created by bureaucrats, delete that stupid commerce clause, and return to a free market, I think this becomes a non-issue. Go back and study, Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, and all the railroad barons. You will find them in bed with politicians. Those politicians passed regulations that paved the way for their massive enterprises and wealth.
      IMHO, it would be better to out law political lobbyist, who pad corrupt politicians pockets for "regulation favors". Out law bureaucratic organizations created by congress and the president. These organizations receive, virtually no oversight and historically have been left to self-govern. Predominantly, they are the ones who have laid the ground work for companies like Monsanto, by creating regulation that makes it almost impossible for anyone else to compete.
      If we allow government to set limitations on profit on private enterprise, then we have left the door open for other government intrusion.

      Delete
  5. I'm NOT trying to prove that the Constitution is bad or that it was some giant conspiracy. I'm trying to get you to realize that you have boxed yourself into a huge contradiction. You believe the Constitution is necessary and you also believe that everything that happened pursuant to it, is evil. Those are incongruous beliefs. I understand that you're saying it doesn't have to be that way, and I agree with that. Nothing has to be any way, in the human realm. But that's rather off the point. IN FACT, you agree that what came pursuant to the Constitution is and has always been evil, and yet you believe that it's NECESSARY for (what you consider to be) the good to happen.

    All I'm asking is that if you agree that C has always produced E, then why are you so convinced that C will in the future produce not-E? Worse, really...you believe that C is NECESSARY for not-E, even though it's ALWAYS produced E.

    You wanna tell me why C can produce not-E anyway, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking why you believe it's NECESSARY for not-E.

    ReplyDelete
  6. For inlookers, I understand that my opening comment in this thread makes it look like I am indeed trying to prove that the Constitution was a conspiracy. K has the benefit of an additional email that was too long to post, and it's THAT which I am trying to get him to face.

    The relevant question, in logical form, was the one I just posted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh. Well, it was much earlier in the day. I'll send you a copy; it went out to a couple others too. Anyway, the problem is really simple. Currently you are holding the following beliefs...

      1. The lone piece of evidence demonstrates that the Constitution creates something that is not-good.

      2. I desire something good.

      3. Therefore, I conclude that the Constitution is necessary for what I desire.

      That's it; that's the syllogism. A premise MUST change. You're not changing #2, and since the Constitution has only created one government ever, there's not too much you can do with #1.

      Again, I'm not trying to prove the Constitution is bad or that your principles are wrong or anything like that. I am proving that you are working with a false (invalid) conclusion in your mind, that the Constitution is NECESSARY for what you desire.

      "Necessary" means "can't exist without it," and you have exactly ZERO evidence that this is true with regard to the Constitution and a decent society. And in fact, 100% of the evidence goes against that, though that doesn't prove it's impossible.

      Is this much of it at least clear now?

      Delete
    2. JK: Sorry, you don't have what you think you have, and I am certainly not in a contradictory position. From your email: "As to Bill's position that FedGov has always been Evil: I don't disagree."

      Alright then. So your position parses to, "My fundamental political goal is to restore that which I forthrightly acknowledge as always having been evil." That's it; that's what you're saying.


      A few nuances that most readers will recognize: The word "Government" is simply a label. It represents individual people we have tasked to do X or Y in our names. Of course, that premise has been abused, but that is another topic.

      Nuance 2: While I think as a whole our federal experiment has been bad, that is NOT because the Constitution is bad. (How can the Constitution be bad, it is an inaminate object) The "bad" is a result of Bad People using it for bad ends. That's it. Full stop. Change the people and you will change the outcome. As with computers, garbage in, garbage out. But the computer doesn't have any influence on the operator, can't make the operator good or bad, and it is not Good or Evil in any manner.

      I can put this to rest simply, again by going back to simple word replacement.

      Your position is that the Constitution is bad because of bad results.

      I contend the people are bad, and those same people will always provide bad results, with or without the Constitution.

      Just because Beretta made pistols for the Nazis, when a new pistol was born it was not "evil" just because it was used by a Nazi, any more than it would be "good" if used by a GI. Nor was Beretta "evil" for providing weapons to Nazis. "Beretta" is merely a label. We can have that discussion about the individuals who actually made the firearms and facilitated their production, but not the company or the firearm.

      And while the FedGov experiment has produced evil from day one (quantitatively more evil than good, I would contend), it has also produced considerable good, when good people used it.

      Staff the "Government" with Jeffersonians and FedGov will be all it can be.

      It is your job and my job to police who gets into "Government" and what they do while there. Afterall, the premise is that they are working in our names.

      We have failed. We have failed (as a people, for more than 200 years) to keep the Bad People out of "Government". It's that simple.

      And it will be an eternal struggle - we can never fix it and then rely on autopilot. Bad People will be born in every generation, and seek to do Bad Things with all the tools they find in this world, whether a hammer, a firearm, or a governing document.

      K

      Delete
    3. "Your position is that the Constitution is bad because of bad results."

      Ugh. You can scroll up and see that's not my position. Doesn't matter anyway, because at essence we're in agreement about everything you wrote in this reply.

      I am trying to show you that you are using one false (or at best arbitrary) foundational premise. Unless I'm mistaken, you believe

      The Constitution is necessary for Rightful Liberty.

      This can be translated any number of equivalent ways. "Rightful Liberty is impossible without the Constitution," "If there is no Constitution, there can be no Rightful Liberty," and so on.

      And I'm trying to get you to see that you have NO BASIS for that WHATSOEVER. IOW you have ZERO EVIDENCE for THAT PARTICULAR CLAIM. The only evidence you have is AGAINST the claim. That doesn't make your overall view wrong, since your overall view involves the ideals and principles and all that.

      What's wrong is one particular detail...your belief in the NECESSITY of the Constitution in order to have Rightful Liberty. In another context, it wouldn't even be that important..."I think the Constitution is the best way to attain Rightful Liberty." There's nothing wrong with that; it's an opinion, a judgement.

      But in THIS context, TODAY'S context, it's mighty important. You and others are talking about eradicating people who don't share that view. And all I'm trying to show you is that you're using an arbitrary premise and evidence-wise, a false one. Frankly, it's not at all important to me, but it sure ought to be important to you IMO.

      Is any of that clearer? Forget about the goodness of the Constitution, whose fault it was that it failed, or any of that extraneous stuff. The focal point is whether or not it's NECESSARY, because THAT'S the premise that you're using to judge anyone that doesn't go along, as automatically bad.

      Delete
  7. That situation remains only during the course of Restoration (duration). It is, you might say, punitive, since they have given us GMO and created grief for farmers who have had Monsanto seeds blow into the farmer's field.
    To get back to heirloom seeds and assure the food production continues, action is necessary on our part. Hearts and Minds has failed in foreign lands, though it is absolutely necessary in the process of Restoration.
    Corporations used to have to abide by their corp[orate charter. If they failed to do so, their charter would be revoked. Now, they can get away with anything, including buying other corporations and then letting them go belly-up for the tax benefits. Further, corporations are not people and should not be treated as such. It is argued as freedom of speech, though it amounts to a board having a very loud voice, not subject to approval by all of the shareholders. This leads to one of the very significant problems that has to be addressed. To understand this, read
    What happens when you turn Congress over to market forces?
    (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=625)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Meanwhile BTW, it's worth noting that this thread has degenerated into figuring out how much profit companies may make and how food will be produced and distributed. Sorry, but I can't find even the loosest reference to that in Jefferson's Rightful Liberty statement. [Hey Gary, shielded liability is just a centuries-old scam to protect the wealth of the powerful in the first place. "There are nothing but individuals out there."]

    Personally I think these are the times to clear these matters up, since things may get pretty busy for FREEFOR. Is that what the III means to you? I happen to know it isn't, but I don't wanna put words in your mouth. Is the plan to put another gang at the turnstile and just use "better" standards to determine who goes through and who doesn't?

    What's the FOUNDATIONAL GOAL? Is it to "restore the Constitution" or is it to build a world where EACH person may engage "unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

    Don't get me wrong; I'm a big believer in, "Can't we have both," and that's fine. But all things cognitive are hierarchical, and this is no exception. If it came down to a choice--and it may or it may not--which is the higher value TO YOU, the Constitution or Rightful Liberty? That's an important question...mostly for yourself, but also for others because you're influential. Here's some simple logic:

    ~ [(A > B) & (B > A)]

    "It is NOT the case that A is greater than B AND B is greater than A." Disagree with that and we're in even worse trouble than I thought!

    So which is a greater value to you...Rightful Liberty or the Constitution? That's your decision and yours alone, which was the point of the email.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are mistaken - I do not think the Constitution is a requirement to achieve Rightful Liberty.

      I think the Constitution is the best document ever written by Man to help ensure Rightful Liberty in a world with Bad People.

      But when good people lie down and fail to do their part, we get what we have now.

      K

      Delete
    2. Thank you. Generally, the deeper the issue, the easier the resolution! FWIW I agree with all three sentences.

      I'd only add, "Apparently, the best there's ever been isn't good enough." That doesn't scare me because I know that rational humans can create new things.

      Delete
    3. JK,
      I doubt that Jefferson had all of the answers, though I do wish that he had been at the Convention. He did, however, accept it, for better or for worse.
      That being said, apparently you grew weary of reading the Plan. Your next comments seem to fail to have understood (read) both at state and federal levels, what laws would be in place once an area came within the control of the Constitutional forces, how to reestablish government on that level of local government. how new laws could be both recommended and enacted, and also that consideration be made to proposing amendments that would fill the gaps left by the original constitutions, both state and federal.
      The greatest omission in the current federal constitution, at least as I see it, is punishment of members of the House or Senate is left solely to the respective body. It was assumed that the election process would be our means to remove "bad" members. However, the bad guys learned that if they brought money to the state, people would return them, without regard to where the money came from, or if it even existed. When I was travelling around the country in the early nineties, often the conversation came to the subject of representation. Most of the people in the conversations agreed to remove all incumbent politicians -- except mine, cause he brings money to the state. Hell, even Harry Reid was popular in Nevada, in 1994 -- among the patriots.
      To address your next point, we can have both rightful liberty and the Constitution. Do you know what your relationship to the federal government would have been if you were around in say, 1833? If you would like to know, I would suggest that you go to "Habeas Corpus - The Guardian of Liberty" at http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/hh06.htm . Scroll down about a quarter of the way (page 6 if you get the PDF) and find Barron v. Baltimore. You may be surprised on the distance between a person in Maryland and the federal government.
      Then, we can look at what William Rawle said in "A view of the Constitution of the United States: (1829), wherein he says about Habeas Corpus:
      "It is the great remedy of the citizen or subject against arbitrary or illegal imprisonment; it is the mode by which the judicial power speedily and effectually protects the personal liberty of every individual, and repels the injustice of unconstitutional laws or despotic governors."
      See, you only assume, based upon your world view (lifetime and experience) that we have no Liberty (which was the objective of the Framers, not Freedom, as we are taught in government school). The Constitution provided for it, though it has been, over the past century and a half, been slowly and imperceptibly, eroded away. It was with the intention of restoring that which was, and then providing additional safeguards, based upon experience, that lead me to wrote the Plan.
      Unfortunately, most who begin to read it do not finish reading. Similarly, many think that Constitution is bad because they heard so many others say that this was so.
      Finally, given all that exist the world, today, and that have existed throughout history, which form of government would you suggest?

      Delete
  9. I can't decide which is more compelling, the Restoration paper or the links.

    I think this says it all in a nutshell:

    The foundation of this country, then, rests upon an understanding that the purpose of the Constitution, and the country, is to provide a home for those of the class, "We the People". That others who choose to assimilate into the American Culture do so with that understanding, and the understanding that they are the beneficiaries of all privileges and immunities, though only those rights specifically granted.
    It can also be concluded that any who have designs contrary to the support and continuation of the United States, as intended by the Framers, and described herein, are inconsistent with the purpose of the country, and, as such, are against the Constitution and should be deemed unacceptable and unwanted visitors.
    If the United States is to return to its former stature as the beacon to the world of freed enterprise by a free people, we must return, also, to the concept that allowed such concepts of freedom to prosper, and grow, in a rather short history, to what it had become by the end of the Nineteenth Century.
    It can return to that stature only if we do return to those principles that made this nation great. Absent a dedication to that purpose, we are destined to be nothing more than a footnote in history. And, that will be our rightful place, if we fail to act to secure that which we hold so dear.

    Okay, a big nutshell, but there it is. I don't want to be a footnote, do you?
    Miss Violet

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Miss Violet, You are a Rose.

      Thank you,

      Gary

      Delete
    2. You're very persuasive, Professor! A little too much focus on what the citizens have to do for my tastes, though. Oddly, that makes my POV more in line with the original Constitution than yours.

      After all, the Constitution was specifically about what the government may or may not do, not the citizens. Except for treason, there's not even a single crime mentioned, unless you count the Ninth Amendment, which nearly every politician violates nearly every day.

      I get the point. It has "failed" because of what the people have failed to do. I agree with that, but I'm not sure the answer is to therefore figure out what the people should be required to do. Just prima facie, that sounds sort of un-American, or un-Constitutional if you will.

      Oh well...maybe some other time we'll go over the phrase "consent of the governed."

      Delete
  10. Sam,

    Check your email.

    Hello Gary,
    Glad to see that you joined the debate. Just a cross-reference for your interactions here. Some of the III are uniformed Militia members, and all Militia outfits I am in contact with, support the III% Movement. Though as I am sure you are aware, most continue to operate in the background.

    Some of them have prior experience with you at Liberty Tree, and the CLC. The consensus style debate and decision making that goes on among the leaderless groups of the III% Movement mirrors that of many state Militia outfits.

    While I will not publicly support or condemn your plan, (that is for the political wing of the movement to do)
    I will advise that the militant wing of the movement is watching closely.

    You can still contact me thru the channels I gave you back in 2010.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sandman, I don't have my .pst file from 2010. All I have for you is at ovmmatg. Is that still good? If not, email me. Link at top of http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com by RVN ribbon.
      Gary

      Delete
  11. Gary, I appreciate the insight. As I wrote, I'm NOT a student of history and I seek to learn all the details I can. I did NOT read the Plan; something like that deserves time. What I did read was a comment implying some 10% limit on profits and then this...

    "That situation remains only during the course of Restoration (duration). It is, you might say, punitive, since they have given us GMO and created grief for farmers who have had Monsanto seeds blow into the farmer's field.
    To get back to heirloom seeds and assure the food production continues, action is necessary on our part."

    I'll trust you can understand how in these times, those tidbits don't sound like the cure for what ails us. On the slight chance you don't, I'll be happy to go over it in whatever detail you'd like.

    On the Constitution, I didn't mean to imply some giant conspiracy theory with horseriders carrying messages from bankers being hit by lightning, but OTOH I have been under the impression for a long time that the Articles were usurped by somewhat underhanded means, for underhanded purposes.

    Right now, I'd say I obviously have the right impression. You've entered George Mason AT THE TIME saying, "The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments."

    I don't know if you're saying he was lying or if you're saying what he said doesn't matter because of what ended up happening. I find both unpersuasive, though maybe you've got a third explanation.

    Anyway, that reads pretty straightforward. The first sentence says the Constitution "is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us." I notice the word "principle" and I don't know what could be clearer.

    And the second sentence is an EXPLICIT affirmation of the wilder side of the "conspiracy theory," unless you wanna say that "calculated" meant something different then, than now.

    But again, none of that really matters to me. I'm living NOW and so is everyone else. I glanced up and saw, "We would allow" or "I would allow." I don't know what that's about, and I'm scratching the rest of my comment in order to not jump to any conclusions. So if you'd care to clarify--mainly who's going to do the allowing and what they're going to be allowing and not allowing--I'm all ears.

    If your answer is, "Read the Plan," then I will as soon as I have sufficient time to read it closely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JK,
      Perhaps context of the quotes provided would have answered your questions. If you don't have time to read, why is it that you find so much time to respond?

      Delete
    2. Oh for Christ's sake Klein. You're not a student of history and you didn't read what the man wrote? Then you proceed to write as much as you did?

      You do understand that you epitomize part of the problem, yes?

      Delete
    3. Gee...sorry Alan, I missed this. No, I don't understand that at all. Go right ahead...is it about "dischord" or something like that? Not going along? Hurting the team?

      No, not in the least do I understand that in THIS context. If we were on a bowling league, or even worse what's likely to come, then yes I understand it.

      Blogs are about IDEAS, and which ideas should turn to action. There's nothing personal here. I've read some of Gary's stuff in the past and I've looked over his blog recently. It's great stuff; he's a devoted guy; he's got lots of good ideas.

      But what does that have to do with any of this? I just reread the thread, at least to here, and I stand by every damned word I wrote. And if I wrote anything FALSE further down, I'll correct it if I haven't already.

      BTW when I glanced over the Plan, my immediate gut response was, "Love the tactics, little doubtful about the strategy."

      So what's your point, Alan? Tell me how I'm part of the problem...oh no, how I EPITOMIZE the problem.

      On the personal level, everything's cool. I accept your apology already. Now can we turn around to some principles, before we all wake up dead one day?

      Delete
  12. Gary,

    Yes that box is still in use.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr. Hunt
    You're welcome.
    Also did you realize the link about the police being constitutional is gone?
    Miss V

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have provided the missing file (Are Cops Constitutional?) so that the link in the PDF will no work properly.
      Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
      Gary

      Delete
  14. "Finally, given all that exist the world, today, and that have existed throughout history, which form of government would you suggest?"

    Gary, another comment of mine hasn't gone through yet. If it doesn't show, I'll repeat the gist of it later.

    As to this question, I'm not sure I understand it. But you can be sure I hear it a lot. Offhand it looks like, "So which group of people do you believe should have overwhelming power over which other group of people, and how should that be organized?" Obviously I don't believe in that sort of approach at all; that's why I believe the 2nd Amendment is so focal to what this country has been and will be.

    That does NOT translate to, "Therefore there should be no rules" or "Therefore nobody should do anything about the ne'er-do-wells among us." All human interaction is by "rules" of one sort or another, though I'd prefer to call them agreements since I'm a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist who sees the purpose of social interaction as mutually beneficial to all parties.

    My direct answer to that question usually is, "I don't really see it as encumbent upon me to figure out how you want to live your life." Now naturally, if we're going to coexist, then we're going to have to figure out some way to do that, as well as some way to defend ourselves against the tiny fraction of sadistical humans who want us to live as THEY want us to live.

    But see, I always focus on the FACTS of the matter. And the fact of this matter is that you're going to live as you decide and so am I. And everyone else too, duh. So to me, there's only one fundamental issue---is that going to be determined by one party overpowering the other, or by mutual agreement?

    As my yet unposted comment notes, I haven't read the Plan at all. But I do think there's a very fundamental problem with all such plans. Most people think all we need is a good Plan to figure out who should force whom to do what, and for what purpose. I think that's folly, and ultimately the source for all the problems we face today. There's no shortage of plans on the commie side, eh? Humans are VOLITIONAL creatures, and ANY plan which doesn't take that into account as very, very basic, is doomed to fail eventually.

    I know that's not what you're looking for, but it's the best I've got for now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JK,
      If you have not read the Plan, then I would suggest that my previous presumption -- that you didn't have a clue of what we were discussing -- was absolutely correct.
      I always get a kick out of people that jump into a conversation/discussion, acting with an air of superiority, when they don't have the foggiest...
      So, unless and until you have read the Plan, which has taken many hundreds, if not thousands, of hours to prepare, I see no reason for me to waste my time in providing piecemeal that which I have already put together in its entirety, to appease your desire to critique that which you do not understand.
      Short5ly after the Plan was written, in another discussion, someone asked if I could explain the Plan in a sentence or two. My first reaction was, well, I think that after all of the time I put into the Plan, you can imagine that reaction. However, it did occur to me that I could provide something that would encapsulate the concept behind the plan. That can be found at "A Simplified Explanation of "The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government"" (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=410)
      However, unders5tand that the simplified explanation will not qualify you, from a comprehensive standpoint, to discuss the Plan, itself.

      Delete
    2. Hopefully my penultimate comment from yesterday will show up for K and be posted. And I'd prefer not to waste time going over stuff that's already on the record, so anything you could do to avoid that in the future will be appreciated by me.

      I did not "jump into a conversation;" I started it. Just look above. I made a claim about the intent of the Framers and you graciously offered some evidence that you believe show that it's wrong. As my unposted comment says, and as one of my posted comment also says, "I'm NOT a student of history," so I was grateful for your insight.

      The thing is, you MADE MY POINT. You entered George Mason speaking AT THE TIME saying,

      "The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments."

      Amazingly, that makes BOTH points that I offered. It says that converting to a consolidated government is totally subversive of "EVERY PRINCIPLE" what has hitherto governed us.

      And then, if that weren't enough, he even says that it was "CALCULATED" to do just that, to annihilate totally the state governments.

      None of that makes my charges true, and it so happens I don't care very much anyway. But it sure seems to matter to you, so maybe you ought pay closer attention if your goal is to offer carefully considered Plans for what Americans ought to do.

      I happen to enjoy being shown wrong; I find it refreshing. So by all means go at it, but you won't show me wrong by quoting George Mason saying exactly the same thing as me.

      K, I'd appreciate it if you'd check for an unapproved comment floating around there; maybe it'll take the edge off this.

      Delete
    3. Nothing in the queue or in spam. Did you copy it?

      Delete
    4. Gary, K was kind enough to answer my point directly, so maybe you will too.

      In YOUR value system, and so presumably in the Plan as well, which is the hierarchically superior goal---Rightful Liberty or Restoration of the Constitution?

      Yes, I know that ideally you'd like both, and I'm not saying that's impossible, but one MUST be ethically superior. Otherwise you're saying that it MUST be both, which could prove to be equivalent to saying, "I give up," at some point in the future. And I gotta hunch giving up is in neither of our futures!

      So if you don't mind sharing, which is it for you?

      Delete
    5. JK,

      You said, " I did not "jump into a conversation;" I started it. Just look above. I made a claim about the intent of the Framers and you graciously offered some evidence that you believe show that it's wrong. As my unposted comment says, and as one of my posted comment also says, "I'm NOT a student of history," so I was grateful for your insight."
      However, let us revisit the origination of the discussion (apples) and see where your "conversation (oranges) fits into the equation.

      "I came across Outpost of Freedom yesterday, and particularly his plan for Restoration. I've added the blog to my links below, and I'll include a link to the Restoration PDF at the end of this post.
      "I commend the Restoration piece to you all for consideration.
      "The author took the time to do some very important work. Not only has he laid out a plan to actually achieve Restoration, he has also taken the time to document every action he proposes with the historical precedents of the Revolution. For instance, when he calls for X act, he shows you in history where our Founders took the same action.
      "I have held that our Founders left us a blueprint and the author of this piece did the hard work of illustrating that blueprint. [snip]
      "Read it when you have the chance to sit for a while. Soak it in and consider where it may be tweaked, and how. I suggest a discussion on the paper here online, and I will also bring it up at our PatCom. I may have just found my topic for Brock's event.

      Let me repeat, "I suggest a discussion on the paper here on line"
      You, then, entered with both ad hominem and disruptive (sophistry), irrelevant to that original post. You took sentences and construed them into arguments that had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion intend by the post.
      I have referenced Vortex, yet you have not taken the time to read it. I have offered the "Simplified Explanation" (and, it is unusually brief), though not demonstrative of the Plan, at least an assessment of the underlying concept, and you have not even read that. It appears that you feel that your comments are worthy of our time and consideration, though ours are not worthy of yours -- except when you can evade any consideration of the original; distract from what might be a constructive discussion; demonstrate your ability to deviate and obfuscate; and, generally disrupt any meaningful discussion of the matter at hand.
      Bottom line, you are here for a purpose, whether in opposition to the Patriot cause or to bolster your ego, I do not know, albeit it is disruptive. So, rather than conclude my discussion with you with the previous implied post, I now direct, for cause, my objection to my participating in any meaningful discussion with you.

      Delete
    6. Nah, but thanks for checking. Half of it was the point above about George Mason anyway. Apparently I'm in good company, with a first-hand witness. A part of it was thanking Gary.

      But no matter, cuz I don't care very much about then. I care about now. Your focus currently is physical defense; mine currently is philosophical defense. Clearly, it's going to take both.

      Contrary to so many charges against me, I'm all for teamwork, organization, planning, discipline and on and on and on. I don't expect to change the world by screaming by my lonely on the top of some mountain.

      But I damn well won't give up my mind, because THAT'S my basic means of survival. It should be obvious that I'm prepared to die over this, but that's my choice and it is what it is.

      But I'd much prefer to LIVE, and I figure it can only be a good thing to try and pass along what "living as a human" means. In reality it's all good, and it's only because of a bunch of two-bit intellectual scamming moochers, that decent people are convinced it's mostly bad. And the key to that has always been persuading people that something other than their minds is their means of survival. "Might makes Right."

      THAT'S why Citadel I is so important. It's about the first thing in a long while, that goes in the right direction. I'll take a breath now; thanks for all the space.

      Delete
    7. JK,
      A straightforward question that is relevant to the subject, does warrant a straightforward answer, though I will not extend that into detail, s you have yet to read the Plan.
      I don't believe, and I would suggest that history backs this up, that Liberty cannot be had without restoration of the Constitution -- as intended by the Framers.
      AS far as "Rightful Liberty", I have no context for such an object.

      Delete
  15. A bit off of the subject of the original post, however, perhaps, appropriate to the course that the discussion has taken:
    Vortex - The Threat That Keeps Us Apart http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=642
    Pay attention to a rather lengthy comment at the bottom of the article.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Gary, I've tried to answer every relevant question you've asked, perhaps in too great of detail. I don't care to defend my style, but I'm more than happy to defend my substance. So if you've got any questions relevant to the topic, ask away.

    I don't wish to argue, debate or try to prove anything...at least not presently! But there are two questions that I simply don't understand your opinion about. So if you'll clarify them, then I'll be grateful. If you won't, I'll both understand and manage to carry on anyway.

    1. You wrote, "Both Henry and Mason give compelling arguments, especially considering current events." Mason himself stated, "The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments."

    So where do you stand on this point? Was Mason right or wrong? Was or was not "the very idea...totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us"?

    Also, do you believe he was right or wrong that "this power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments"?

    I don't care what your answer is; I'm just asking WHAT it is.


    2. "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." The Constitution is the document which replaced the founding document of the United State of America and is ostensively still the Highest Law of the Land.

    So between those two--Rightful Liberty and the Constitution--which do YOU believe carries the higher moral status? I understand you want both, but I'm asking that if there were a choice between one or the other (and it very well may come to that!), which do YOU believe is more important?

    That's all. Those are simple questions, but I know they're not easy ones. We can argue about 'em another time in another place maybe. But for now, I'm just seeking to know YOUR opinions on them. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Klein,
      Let this be the end of it --- until you have read the Plan. Now, in response to your queries:
      1. I did not say that. It appears that your ability to comprehend is limited and subject to your memory rather than factor. Review the record.
      2. The first and only time I have seen the phrase "Rightful Liberty" is here on this discussion, uttered (no pun intended) from your lips. I believe that I answered the question, which brings, again, into question, your ability to comprehend. Do, let me attempt to explain things to you.
      The Constitution created a government. Though you seem, by your statement, to exclude in from the founding documents ("The Constitution is the document which replaced the founding document of the United State of America"), when, in fact, it is THE founding document of the nation known as the United States of America.
      The Articles of Confederation created union, not a nation. The first portions of that document are as follows:
      To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
      * * *
      Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
      I.
      The Stile of this Confederacy shall be
      "The United States of America".
      * * *
      That being brought to light, you want me to determine which has a "higher moral value". That is apples and oranges, for the Constitution creates a government and Liberty was the intended byproduct or consequence of that government's creation. If you revisit the Preamble (purpose) to the Constitution, you will find that among others, the intent is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty".
      Now that I have explained how things really are, based upon my reading, extensively, seeking truth, not conjecture, I leave it to you read the summation of my thoughts on Restoration. I do believe that you will find many answers to many questions within the Plan and the linked articles therein.

      Delete
  17. Gary, I'm sorry I attributed to you the comments about Henry and Mason. That was simple senility and I genuinely thought it was you. Obviously, you believe Mason was mistaken in his beliefs; I get that now. Each person must decide for himself anyway. Mason believed one thing then, and you believe another thing now. That's cool, and again sorry I misattributed.

    I really don't understand why you won't acknowledge that the United States of America was formally founded on March 1, 1781 with the ratification of Maryland. I mean, you offered the very proof yourself. I guess you're saying that the "union" called the United States of America was formed then, while the "nation" called the United States of America was formed later. Sounds like a stretch to me, but okay. The majority of sources on the Internet call the Articles "our first constitution," but I agree that appeals to authority don't mean very much. OTOH I believe you're trying to pigeonhole some distinction, union vs. nation, that isn't really there. They signed it, it declared the name, and that's that. But then, I'm admittedly rather a simpleton.

    Interestingly, from your brief overview of the Plan that you linked, it seems that a sort of "union" of ever-growing white dots, is what you seek. That sounds sensible to me FWIW, so I'm not sure why you think it wasn't so sensible back then. Well, maybe your Plan answers that too.

    On Rightful Liberty, you can scroll to the top of this page and see K's version of "The III Percent Mission Statement." While I don't take labels for myself, except Jim Klein of course, I stand completely behind K's version of that mission, and intend on doing all that I deem rational, to see that it gets done. [And maybe a little that I don't! Just kidding.]

    On the assumption that you seek what nearly everyone here seeks--call it "rightful liberty" or "peaceful coexistence" or "individual freedom"--I wish you the best and hope you succeed in achieving whatever it is that you desire and earn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Klein,
      Are you an idiot, or what? You keep trying to put words in my mouth and when I tell you they are not my words, you construct another set of words, or, project what you think I believe:
      "Obviously, you believe Mason was mistaken in his beliefs; I get that now. Each person must decide for himself anyway. Mason believed one thing then, and you believe another thing now. That's cool, and again sorry I misattributed."
      I could go on about misrepresentations, misconstructions, and outright fantasies, in your diatribe, though I won't. I tried to answer your straightforward question, and you can't even grasp what I said.
      Quite frankly, I am not sure if you are a shill or an idiot. I am, however, irrevocably, done with you.

      Delete
  18. Wow, that's something. No, I'm not an idiot. And none of this is rocket science, your attempts at distraction notwithstanding. It's 2013, Gary. Everyone knows that when someone can't address the issue, they address the writer.

    Look...Mason said, "The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us." [I'm assuming the quote was accurate. If it's not, I'll retract that too.]

    You DON'T agree with that, correct? I mean, you're not trying to restore a subversion, are you? Or do you believe that the Constitution IS "subversive to every principle" which had governed them? Do you think the PRINCIPLES ("every principle" in his words, I'm sure an exaggeration) SHOULD be subverted?

    Another way of saying this is, "You believe Mason was mistaken" in that belief, which is what I wrote. Maybe focus a bit less on me, and a bit more on your own opinions.

    Mason also said, "This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments."

    You've made it abundantly clear--which was your point in the first place--that this is NOT true, that the power was NOT "calculated" to annihilate the state governments. Another way of saying this is, "You believe Mason was mistaken" in that belief, which is what I wrote.

    I may be a simpleton, but I can damn well read and I already apologized for the misattribution. I don't know what else you want. Like I say, maybe speak a bit more for yourself and a bit less about me. What the hell DO you believe about Mason's claims? You're professing to be a student of history, unlike me, so surely you've considered the issue, yes?

    If this is your idea of rational discourse, I'm sure your Plan for "restoration" is really a hoot. Could you at least get it straight, exactly what it is you wish to restore? That would be nice, as would your realizing that with 7 billion people on the planet, some are bound to disagree with you. Maybe don't take it so personally. If your ideas are good, they'll stand up to the light of day. As you can see, mine do.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Someone should edit out JK's comments, they are way too long and he talks himself in circles, I could never remember what I said above once I finished a comment like that, feel free to delete this comment after you delete his aswell. Please no reply J.K. I'm not justkidding(jk)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Gee, I wonder who that is. I can be brief too, even witty at times. Most every blog owner at which I comment knows that I'll stop on THEIR request. Property, see? I respect it.

    "Please no reply J.K. I'm not justkidding(jk)"

    That's what freedom is all about. You get to request and I get to indulge that request, or not. No harm, no foul.

    Anything else?

    ReplyDelete

Please post anonymously and include your recognized online handle in the body of the comment.