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

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Airborne


One of the important tasks on my personal "Tactical To-Do List" is to earn my Sport Pilots License.

Even if life in America was progressing as intended in 1791, I would want to learn to fly.

Given our realities, I contend that the ability to fly a plane is a nearly-mandatory skill.  I hope every Tribe & Team out there is working to get at least one of your people airborne.  There are many relatively inexpensive STOL light planes out there.

The pic above is the new ICON.  It can fit on a trailer behind the Jeep.  It can land and take off from the water or runway.  It has excellent range.  And if their is a complete FUBAR while flying, the entire thing can come back down by parachute.

A guy can dream.

Kerodin
III

14 comments:

  1. Why "as intended in 1791"? The intention in 1791, less than two years after the Constitution was ratified, was that NO person may live in Rightful Liberty in this nation and that any group who tries, will be ruthlessly crushed by armed Federal troops..

    We know this was their intention, because that's exactly what they did.

    Wikipedia: "The Washington administration's suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion met with widespread popular approval. The episode demonstrated the new national government had the willingness and ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws." Sounds kinda familiar, eh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry Jim - your position has been addressed and dismissed on this blog and elsewhere as genuine, Grade A hokum. Here is my position, posted several years ago:

      http://iiipercent.blogspot.com/2012/02/mistakes-versus-malus.html

      I will accept that Washington was, at times, stupid. But not Evil.

      Hamilton was Evil, and was not killed early enough to save the republic from his machinations.

      The Jeffersonians knew Washington and Hamilton were taking the wrong decisions regarding Pennsylvania.

      There was a power struggle in the years immediately following ratification, and through implementation of bad decisions, the INTENT of men who drafted and accepted the Constitution was undermined. Hamilton can be found as a participant in most of those bad decisions, and Adams at many others.

      The Jeffersonians lost the critical time period immediately following ratification, and we all suffer for it now as generations of Evil men have compounded on the Evil of Hamilton and the stupidity of Washington.

      Jefferson should have mustered troops - but he didn't. Where he and his fellow travelers failed to stop Hamiltonian Evils, our generation must not.

      It is easy for people who take your position to spout unsupported nonsense about how it was all a grand conspiracy from day one. But in your arguments there is no "There" there. The many, many thousands of people who gave the Constitution the nod were not voting to impose a Ruler upon themselves. That very premise is absurd. They voted in Good Faith for the actual words that were written in the documents - not how Evil Men would abuse that Good Faith and those words.

      Delete
  2. Leave it up to Klein to take K's post about wanting to learn to fly and turning it into a discussion about the intention of the Constitution and how it is a tool of oppression.
    I have to ask, can you ever turn it off? Don't you get burnt out?
    If you don't look around and smell the roses every once in awhile you may forget what you're fighting for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I thought about that TD; I just decided it was sufficiently important. K knows he can simply request that I not post here, and he hasn't yet. Though I'm flattered that you think my commenting is worthy of a comment itself!

      K, maybe I haven't made my view clear. While it's true that the Constitution was "snookered in," that's really not a big part of my position. I don't care much either way--statists gonna state--and I have no problem with the principles spelled out in the BofR. The issue is about Rulers and/or slavery. I can well understand the pragmatic appeal of sitting at the table instead of being on the menu; I just don't go for either of those options myself. Your life is yours, duh.

      As to the Founder's intent, there is sufficient evidence and it falls on the side that Hamilton and crew was doing something nefarious and that the most fervent Patriots were against it, at least to start. I'm not sure what you think is "hokum" about any of this; it's plain historical record. Also plain historical record is what's happened along the way, right to today.

      You weren't exactly clear. Do you believe the putdown of the Whiskey Rebellion was a good thing or bad? You say you don't believe Washington was "evil," so I'm wondering if you'll make the same judgment of Commanders who lead troops against you. Will you be offering rationalizations for them as well?

      TD, I think "smell the roses" is what it's all about. I'd much prefer not to do this; I enjoy shoveling shit and stacking hay myself. But we each have our own way of doing what we believe is the right thing to do. You thought commenting about me was the right thing for you; for me trying to persuade so-called Patriots that they should resist the temptation to move AWAY from Rightful Liberty, is that. I'd hope that would be agreeable with you, but I don't occupy much of my brain time with the personal values of others.

      Delete
    2. Sometimes I wonder if he's looking for an excuse not to fight and that's why he badgers the Constitution the way he does...

      Delete
    3. I don't "badger" the Constitution, lineman. Like you, I consented to it most of my life. You don't consent either now, else you wouldn't be talking about fighting those who are in power pursuant to it. I'm just a little more straightforward about it, that's all.

      Why...someone here wanna defend the "intentions" of 1791? Hey, I didn't write the damn line; K did. Go badger him.

      Delete
    4. JK: Your assertion that the Constitution was 'snookered-in' is gratuitous, and may thus be gratuitously denied. The historical record is clear that your 'snookered-in' assertion is hokum. They were tasked with amending the AoC, and they did - including the title. All fair under the rules of the AoC - and the people and legislatures voted on the amended version, called the USC. It was ratified.

      Nothing 'snookered'.

      An "Evil" Washington would have killed members of the rebellion. Hamilton would have been gleefully supportive of that move.

      Washington was wrong - not evil.

      Delete
    5. The meeting was called to amend the Articles, and the Articles were not amended. They are two completely different documents, period.

      Washington ordered troops to quash the rebellion. Saying that he didn't personally kill anyone is like saying Mao wasn't evil if he didn't personally slaughter any of those millions. Leadership MEANS that he's responsible; being Commander-in-Chief just makes it more plain.

      Those are both extraordinarily weak claims for you, and you might want to consider why you'd be so out of character on both points. After all, neither are particularly critical. I already know the answer and have told you what I believe to be your "biggest enemy, by far." Still, I think I agree with ToneDeaf, so sorry about the distraction. I suppose you probably meant 1789 anyway.

      Delete
    6. Jim, I would suggest you need to brush up on your history. If you don't need to brush up, then you are being deliberately misleading.

      Congress authorized the convention. In order to amend the AoC, which by definition would include replacing it, the vote would have to be unanimous. It was unanimous. All 13 colonies, their legislatures and their people said yes. Even Rhode Island.

      No rational mind could define that as "snookered".

      As to the Whiskey Rebellion, you make it sound like Washington led troops into pitched battle and triumphed by force of arms over the distillers. He did not. And as I have said, I think he was wrong. I think the tax was wrong, upon which the entire incident was predicated. I think Hamilton was Evil for getting the tax put in place and for instigating Federal intervention. He should have been killed. That didn't happen.

      I am not 'out of character' - you simply don't understand me as much as you'd like to think.

      These historical facts matter today, so we do not repeat them tomorrow. The USC was brought forth in the sunshine, it was debated and ratified. Evil Men then set about abusing the Good Faith and Original Intent of those who ratified it. Evil men have piled on to that abuse for personal and ideological gain in the hundreds of years since.

      These are the facts. Some of us understand them, and do not feel the need to find a grand conspiracy at the bottom of every unfortunate example of base Human behavior. It is what it is, and some of us intend to fix it, and ensure that it doesn't happen again - at least as long as we are alive to defend the ideals.

      Delete
  3. "It's all dirt", as the saying goes.

    I would call Washington "dutiful" any day; but I've never once contemplated calling him "brilliant". Hamilton, on the other hand, was a crafty bastard, all day, every day. Perhaps that was why the statists didn't object to Washington as president - they knew he would be so much easier to manipulate than Jefferson.

    Regardless - there'll be plenty of time to argue the finer points of who practiced idiocy, vs. who practiced evil, once we have completed what presently needs doing.

    Until we have secured our future in liberty, sifting the past qualifies as among the most vain acts we can engage in... (IMHO)

    Hodie imponit formae corporis;
    sed corporis facit die creatum.

    The day the flesh shapes,
    but the flesh the day makes.


    What will you make of each day?
    Victory, or surrender?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That there was my point...Thanks for articulating it better than I did...Jim seemed to have missed that...

      Delete
    2. Nice...we can end on agreement. That was easy, very civil.

      K, you have an unusual definition of "amend," but IMO semantics don't matter. Sorry again about the distraction, and I appreciate not being shot over it.

      Delete
    3. At its core the word "amend" means to change. How much of a change is a subjective matter - the root is "change".

      No worries - While shooting dissenters isn't necessarily out of the playbook, it isn't Page One, either. ;)

      Delete
    4. "While shooting dissenters isn't necessarily out of the playbook, it isn't Page One, either. ;)"

      Ha. See, there's the problem with pragmatism, or the switching of the means for the end. In that manner, it does become Page One. And then before you know it, the end--Rightful Liberty--becomes but a distant memory. Examples abound.

      Don't know where you're getting your etymology, but it's inaccurate. The root meaning of amend is "fix a defect."

      All our yipyap about what happened misses the real point anyway---it was about the money and only about the money. That's how it always is with looters and racketeers. Snookered or not, one would have to be naive to think it had anything to do with Liberty.

      The BoR, yes...it's called ransom. There were still some genuine freedom fighters---"You can have the money, but you've got to give us this." More pragmatism; more compromise.

      Delete

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