Google Custom Search

Saturday, December 08, 2012

Musings After Midnight--Strategy Considerations in Moving Forward to Depose Tyranny and Restore the Constitution

Good evening, and welcome. Time for another fireside chat with your congenial host, Anthony G. Martin, also known on Twitter as Welshman007.

I invite you to pull up a chair, warm yourself by the fire, have some coffee, tea, or hot chocolate. I always have some scones around too, if you wish.

This being the Christmas season, I want you to feel at home, welcomed, comfortable. "Peace on earth, good will toward men" is a worthy goal, although in our day to day lives we may feel that it is impossible to implement it. But still, we can try.

Be that as it may, events in the political and social realm continue to unfold around us, no matter which "holy days" we happen to celebrate. The same is true with Christmas. In spite of the fact that we may turn our attention to the Babe in the Manger and His message of salvation, love, and forgiveness, the world as a whole is still held firmly in the grip of sin, evil, violence, and war.

The entire Middle East appears to be on the brink of implosion. Syria has chemical weapons of mass destruction that apparently it intends to use on its own people. The best intel we have indicates that these WMDs came directly from Iraq, which sent its weapons of mass destruction to Syria just prior to the U.S. invasion.

The Muslim Arabs living near Israel somehow got the United Nations to declare them to be a nation. But rather than this being an indication of moving closer to peace in the region, in reality it only makes war inevitable. Their goal, and they have said so many times themselves, is to wipe Israel off the map. These 'Palestinian' terrorists live right in the doorstep of Israel. And they now have nationhood status.

And then there is the ongoing disintegration in Egypt, Libya, and Iran, all pointing to colossal foreign policy failures on the part of Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration.

Here at home we continue to face dire circumstances due to the mind-boggling debt load the nation carries to the tune of $130 trillion when Social Security, Medicare, and the prescription drug program are added in.

Some question my formula for adding in the three so-called "entitlement" programs. Most place the debt at $16 trillion--still ridiculously high--which excludes Social Security, Medicare, and the drug program. I firmly believe that it is imperative to add in those three items to the debt for one simple reason--the U.S. does NOT have the money to pay for them. That means the gov't must borrow the money to honor its commitment to citizens in those three realms.

But many citizens protest, saying, "But, I paid into those programs all my life. That is my money. It is not an entitlement and has nothing to do with the debt. All I want is my money back."

If you are willing to actually listen to the truth about that, my friend, here is the reason you are wrong. The government raided those funds and spent every penny you ever put into them. That's right. It is all gone. You do not have a bank account in a locked box with the federal government with your name on it where they are carefully guarding all the money you sent them. Once that money went to the coffers of the national treasury, it immediately ceased to be yours and it is now being used for whatever the federal government wishes to spend it on.

The way they have justified their theft is a "promise" that they will put the money back. But since we are now so deeply in debt, the only way that money can be put back is for them to borrow it from China, Japan, the Federal Reserve, and other countries.

Thus, we do not get a truthful picture of the nature of the debt unless we add in Social Security, Medicare, and the prescription drug plan.

And since this president and the Democrats who control the Senate are not serious about doing anything to address this debt by making deep cuts in federal spending, it's off to oblivion we go, sooner rather than later. Greece, Spain, and other European nations are the proof.

So, regardless of it being Christmas, these realities are still with us, though we may not pay attention to them much due to our focus on gift buying, holiday parties, and musical programs.

When it became clear that nothing would be done to address any of these problems, given that Obama was reelected and the U.S. Senate was consigned to Democrat control yet again, many patriots opined on the fact that the nation is surely headed to collapse, destruction, anarchy, and then war. This is probably true to a much greater degree than anyone wants to admit. The divide among the populace is deep and volatile. Deep feelings motivate each side, and both sides are determined to implement their vision for the country--two visions that are as diametrically opposed as they can get.

Some have suggested a separation. A divorce. Some states would secede, forming a new nation, while others would remain with the status quo. Such an option may not be as far fetched as it seems, given that the country has been down this trail once before. And that event perhaps is a foreshadowing of what will happen should it go down that trail yet again. The forces of the central government would not tolerate it. And such a thing would be considered an act of war, which would mean that the Leviathans would unleash the full force of its arsenal against those areas that declared their independence.

Various and sundry militia groups and patriots say they are prepared for such an eventuality. I have no reason to believe they are lying. Americans have been arming themselves to the hilt for five years, and as time passes they continue to buy large quantities of guns and ammo, more so now than when Obama got elected the first time.

While I am deeply sympathetic to the sentiments of these groups (after all, I am a Jeffersonian, which should tell you something), I loathe the idea that I may be forced to fight a war in my senior years, at a time when I had hoped to slow down, enjoy what little I have been able to accumulate, and nurse my various maladies in peace. I don't want to engage in a war on our own soil.

But the reality is this may come to us whether we want it or not.

At some point the forces of government control cross a line so crucial, so sacrosanct, that no red-blooded American patriot can let that go without thinking that the Leviathans must be made to pay for their despotic violations of basic human liberty. This has been building ever since the middle of the 20th century. It has now reached a fever pitch. The consensus I am picking up is that the electoral process has failed us due to a citizenry that has been indoctrinated and dumbed down to the point to where they cannot be trusted to make sound decisions in the voting booth.

William F. Buckley, Jr. was famous for having once said in the late 50s that he would rather be governed by the first 500 people in the Boston phone book than the people elected to Congress. Back in the 1950s, perhaps that was a prudent thing to say. But even Buckley was forced to admit when he became much older that such a thing would no longer work. And indeed, in the years since Buckley's death it has reached the point to where many patriots, myself included, trust NO ONE in the electorate as a whole to do any better than the imbeciles we send to Congress and the White House. "The people" are the ones making these terribly unwise decisions.

How does Nancy Pelosi manage to get elected to the House year after year after year? Because "the people" in her district in San Francisco vote for her. How does self-avowed Socialist Bernie Sanders get elected to the Senate year after year after year? Because "the people" in Vermont vote for him.

"The people" voted for the government that gave them Adolf Hitler in Germany in the 1930s.

Thus, when a populace has become so muddleheaded, corrupted, brainwashed, and feebleminded that they can no longer be trusted to cast their votes in a rational fashion, what then? Are we doomed to the path of Nazi Germany or Communist China just because a majority of voters want it?

Well, Jefferson said no. HELL, no.

His solution was a civil war, a revolution, a purging, every 20 years or so...not to overthrow the government but to make sure the Constitution remained the ultimate rule of law in the land.

Are we at that point today? I admit I don't know. I am very slow to admit that we are, but that may be due to my own internal reluctance to accept the fact that we have actually allowed ourselves to get to this stage in my lifetime. I had hoped I would be long gone before I witnessed the disintegration of my own country.

There are those who insist we ARE, indeed, at that point and that we are long overdue. I suspect they are right.

So, as we move closer and closer to the critical moment of decision regarding our nation's future, it is important to think about strategy considerations in moving forward in our attempt to depose tyranny and restore the Constitution as the ultimate and final rule of law in our land.

And here I am talking about philosophical and political strategies, not military ones. I will leave the military strategy to those who are experts in such things.

But if the long dreaded moment of truth arrives, and we find ourselves fighting a war to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, we must not forget that philosophical and political strategies are every bit as important as the military ones. Unless we have a plan in place, we will descend into complete anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, and ultimately find ourselves with a dictatorship every bit as dangerous as the one we supposedly went to war to prevent. If a vacuum is created without something to fill it, a "something" of our own choosing, then a different "someone" or "something" will most definitely take advantage of our neglect, with deadly consequences.

Given these unavoidable facts, here are some strategic factors that must be considered.

First, we must make sure we develop a clear message to the public at large concerning what it is we want to accomplish. The political and media machine will most definitely paint us as traitors and insurrectionists who wish to "overthrow the government."

Nothing could be further from the truth, and we must make sure we clearly state who we are and what we are about from the outset, and continue to state it often as we proceed.

Conservatives, libertarians, and patriots do not wish to overthrow the government. And those who say such things are barefaced liars.

Now, I know that a few kooks run around the country, claiming to be patriots, who obviously wish to overthrow the government. They have said so. We must disavow such people, distance ourselves from them, and make it clear to the populace that this is not what we are about.

For example, let me personalize this for a moment so that it can be more readily understood.

I want to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which has mandated three distinct branches of government that must be kept--the legislative branch (the Congress), the executive branch (the presidency), and the judicial branch (the Supreme Court). THAT is the federal government as prescribed by the Constitution, and that is what I wish to preserve, protect, and defend, along with all of the rights enumerated in the Constitution.

There is no way I would align myself with any movement that would depose the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. That is our uniquely American system of government, and that is what I am committed to protecting and restoring.

Therefore, those who say that people like me wish to "overthrow the government" are either (a) lying, (b) ignorant, or (c) some combination of both (a) and (b).

I have no intention of aligning myself with people who wish to overthrow the government created by the Constitution. But what I AM committed to overthrow are many of the PEOPLE who occupy the offices of that government. The government structure is not the problem. It is the people who have somehow managed to get into that government structure.

We the people have the right to decide who occupies those offices. And when the wrong people get in, and the electoral process fails us in getting rid of them, then Jefferson's reset button kicks in. We remove them by force.

That is not sedition, or treason, or insurrection. That is our system of government as created by the Founders! It's right in the Declaration of Independence.

Thus, it is not the government we wish to overthrow. Far from it. We want a change in leadership in the top offices of that government.

Second, should a state or a group of states succeed in withdrawing from the union at some point, it is important to move quickly to implement at least the broad structure of government outlined in the Constitution. Even if there are no "central offices" or building to house these branches, it is important to have in place the structure for them, which will be filled by patriots willing to serve in the interim as the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary...until such time as elections can be held.

Why is this important? When instability ensues from such a gargantuan upheaval in society, it is too easy for personal egos to get in the way, leading to discord, and even to a one-man monarchy of sorts, where a single individual calls all the shots. Strong men (and women) often feel that they know what is best, and they have the ego strength, fortitude, and power of personality to dominate.

But we must resist that temptation at all costs.

This we can do by making sure at the outset that the structure of government we accept and wish to implement is that which is mandated by the Constitution, which describes shared power that is limited, as opposed to concentrated power on the part of an individual or small group of individuals. And the shared power that is limited in scope must remain limited. We must be intentional and proactive in insisting that the power of any one individual be strictly limited.

The example of George Washington provides a good lesson in this regard. Washington was a war hero who was able to successfully lead a fledgling army of citizens to fight off the British in order to gain independence. Some citizens wanted to make him king. He refused, and was even embarrassed by such sentiments being expressed. After all, we had just fought a war to throw off a monarchy.

Washington, thus, retreated to his home and was content with tending to his own business ventures. But it was decided by the patriots that no one was better suited to fill the office of president as prescribed by the new Constitution.

Washington resisted. He did not want to be president.

The patriots persisted, however. Finally, they convinced him that his country needed him, that his wisdom and guidance would help solidify, unite, and put the new nation on a even keel. And besides, as far as patriots were concerned, the best qualification for public office was the very fact that Washington did NOT want to serve. His personal ambition would not get in the way.

Washington was a great choice. He served with dignity, honor, and observed the strict limits placed on his power.

Even if we never have to go to war or secede from the union, these are invaluable lessons for patriots as we seek to restore the original spirit and intent of the Constitution. If ever there were a mindset sorely needed in Washington at this hour, it is the humble manner of a George Washington, who detested arrogance, who abhorred being treated as a king, and who recognized and affirmed the strict limits placed on his power, and the power of the legislature and judiciary.

Third, if the worst-case scenario occurs, and we find ourselves at war to defend our right to form our own government in opposition to the tyrants who have taken over Washington, there is another consideration that must be taken into account that is of immense importance. In the short term, there will be hard times as never before in the modern era. In spite of the fact that many patriots have stocked up on guns, ammo, food, and other supplies, there are other patriots who believe 100% in all we stand for, but for reasons beyond their control they may not have had the opportunity to make such preparations.

Here I am talking about the chronically ill and disabled, the elderly, and those who live in poverty.

The reason why capitalism worked so well for so long in this country and others is that people by and large lived by certain moral and ethical absolutes, most often due to the teaching they heard at church. Thus, when a neighbor fell on hard times, the community of individuals came together to help, voluntarily. There was no law requiring it. There was no government program mandating it. They simply did it out of the goodness of their own hearts, voluntarily opening up with wallets to their neighbors in need. Food was taken to them. Their barns were rebuilt. Their fields were plowed and tended until they themselves were able to do it again.

Gradually America lost this spirit of voluntarism, and thus, a gap was created which made it very hard for the poor to get anything at all. This led to cries from "progressives" to implement broad, sweeping government programs that we refer to today as "the nanny state." I maintain that had the citizens continued with their basic moral and ethical duty to help their neighbors in need voluntarily, then we would never have gotten in this shape where the government nanny makes infantile dependents out of people from the cradle to the grave.

There is going to be unimaginable suffering on the part of citizens caught up in the coming upheaval, whether the United States remains intact or not. The question is, will you open up your storehouses to provide food, water, medical care, and sometimes, even shelter, to those elderly and chronically impaired who cannot care for themselves?

If you believe as I do that voluntarism, not government programs, are the answer to making provision for the needy, then that will be the time to prove it. We cannot and MUST not go into this with the attitude that "I have made provision for me and mine alone, and you have to live with the consequences of your failure to do so." Well, in this instance it won't be because they failed to do so. It will be due to circumstances beyond their control.

This will be the time for you to remember your upbringing. For some it may mean going back in your minds to a time in your youth when you heard a preacher quote Jesus saying, "If you have done these things for the very least of these my brethren, you have done it unto Me." That statement referred specifically to voluntarily helping the sick and the poor. For others it may mean starting to actually live what you have claimed are your core values, that government should get out of the business of taking care of people so that individual citizens can do it voluntarily. If this is your belief, then that means YOU!

We cannot afford to lose anybody in this fight for liberty in modern times, not even those who may not be able to take care of themselves but who believe with all their hearts in our cause.

These are some things we need to think about as we move forward. I have much more to say about this, but I will leave the rest to another time.

Thank you for stopping by to read this chat. I hope it at least gives you some food for thought.

7 comments:

pops1911 said...

Excellent write!

Bri2301 said...

Very good writing and reading. Thank you for the opportunity to consider these thoughts.

It's true that the people once known as Americans are more deeply divided than ever. Additionally, I feel a palpable anger just below the surface of most who participate in forums like this. In my opinion, we are headed towards some kind of separation.

Many of us aren't looking for an overthrow of the government, but a dismissal of The GOVERNMENT and formation of a new government that will operate within the bounds of the Constitution. There is a natural tendency that most of us have to yearn for what was and to try to re-create what we knew and were comfortable with. That's one of the main hurdles to gaining traction for a true change in government movement.

Unfortunately, we're moving along a trajectory that will lead us to financial ruin and a third world economy. Will the fabric of the "nation" hold together throughout that transition, as the producers are taxed at ever higher rates, having their pockets picked at every turn by a government intent on achieving "social justice"?

At what point does the conflict (which exists today) between the consumers and the producers move from the sham of legality, hidden behind governmental taxes, fees, programs and policies to a blatant fleecing of those "with" by the representative of those without? Because, at that point, I'm of the opinion that the bonds of tradition, comfort and behavior on the part of the producers will break.

There's always hope. However, when one looks to the understanding of Progressives like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and a host of others for resolving our differences and restoring a Constitutional Government, there's another sale of an AR and a couple of thousand rounds of ammunition.

Ed Williams said...

"Absolutes" indeed served to further and preserve our American way of life for a long time. Each of us has been given the opportunity to prosper since our birth. Our lives since then consist of what I call "lifestyle choices". In days of yore, the results of all these choices were known to all, there were no "do overs", and the family and church safety nets were only for those who were indeed doing their level best to toe the line. Slackers need not apply. This is very different from the current model where the slackers can trade their votes for what the rest must work for. The structure of tribes lends itself well to the old school model. Our Constitution pretty much describes how to run a meritocracy- now we just need to behave as upstanding members of said meritocracy; this includes our personal actions, as well as choosing those among us who can serve as good examples and role models for leadership positions. This is a big part of what has been neglected and brought us to our current pass. Unfortunately, unless or until cable/satellite TV and public school go away, the odds are slim at best. It is interesting that the universe of "patriots" seriously overlaps the universe of folks who have just said "no" to mainstream media's and public education's offerings. The values expressed in our Constitution are valid. Our current structure for administering it, however, is seriously outmoded, given the acceleration of life since America began. After it self destructs, the dust will settle and a new structure will arise. Until then, it's up to each of us to carry on in the manner that a meritocracy demands. Those who can do so will have a leg up in the new game...

Junius said...

One can argue, I think, that the original American Republic ended at the start of the so-called Civil War, when the several states, who joined the union voluntarily (under the premise that they could also exit voluntarily), violently learned that once you check in you can never leave (to paraphrase the Eagles).

The eventual end of American republicanism was ordained with the enactment of the Federal Reserve System, which effectively subordinated the American people to the central state and the global banking cartel, and thereafter enabled the dramatic expansion of the central state over the several states through seemingly limitless first claims on all resources of the union.

Servitude and penury were the ultimate consequences of this action, as we are sadly learning today.

It seems the end of the second republic is nigh at hand. When it collapses, and in my opinion that is inevitable, the question becomes what will succeed it? A third so-called constitutional republic, a dictatorship, or nothing?

My own opinion is that when the central state collapses, chaos will ensue, and all bets are off. Frankly, I think the end of the central state as a viable means of control and governance are about over.

The glue that held this nation together, such as a common shared culture and history, has been purposely destroyed by mass third world immigration and cultural marxism, which has been implemented in all the institutions of America including education, the church, justice, etc., severing many of the ties that bind.

It was a massive piece of real estate to hold together under the best of circumstances. It's hard to imagine holding it together with those ties effectively severed.

To me the best society is one that is organized from the community level up, not from the top down. The power structure in America is antithetical to this end, and will resist it at all costs.

Nonetheless, they will be fighting a losing battle as people look more to themselves and community to rebuild their future.

The demise of the central state will make for a better society all-round, I think.

Brock Townsend said...

Yes, 1865, the end of the Republic. Can we get it back?

Steve said...

>>> Can we get it back?

No.
Sorry, it is over.
In truth, it has been downhill and over the cliff since then.

Mike Mcknight said...

Good post, I like it.