Back To Basics GOV 101 For Flint

Paul Milne

Contributing Member
A constituion is an agreement. No more and no less.

Let's say that you have a men's club. It is a fishing club. They form the club and they set down the rules of the club. 75 men join the club. The club is centered around setting up fishimng expeditions for the menbers, hiring guides, providing for accomadations, like that. One of the rules is that each man pays $10 per month into the club treasury. The club stes up a small representative body of 5 men to vote on expenditures.

One day one of the members proposes that $100 be spent to contribute to a World War II memeorial being built in the town.

Now, in the club's constitution there is NO language, whatsoever, devoted to donations or charity work of any kind.

The representative committe votes to donate $100.

Only one man in the club objects.

The one mans says, during the discussion, that the purpose of the club and the agreement of the members does not in any way encompass donating money for the purpose of stauary or war memeorials at all. It is not part of the purpose of the club. It was not in any way part of what he AGREED to pay into the club for. He further argues, that expenditure of money should never have come to a vote because it is NOT even within the appropriate topics of discussion. He maitains that the representatives were NEVER empowered to even DISCUSS such a thing much less actually vote on it.

The other memebers want to know why he is so unpatriotic. All the other clubs in town are donating money. Why is he so anti-American and stingy about a lousy $100? They want to know why everyone else is happy with the decision and he is the only one who is not. They ask him if the war memeorial is beneficial to the community. They ask him if it instills pride in the town. They ask him if it inculcates good citizenship in the youths. They ask him if it helps foster a group spirit of thankfulness for our fallen heroes.

The lone man can not believe his eyes and ears.

The president of the club says that the majority has prevailed and that it is good that the money will be donated. The will of the memebers of the club has been served properly through a good and fair democratic vote by the duly elected representatives to the spending committe.

-------------------


The point is this. This is a tyranny. It is the tyranny of the majority over the one. The purpose of the club and the agreement of the mebers had NOTHING to do with donating members money to a war memorial. It has nothing to do with Patriotism or uncharitability or what other clubs are doing.

The club is literally stealing the money of that man against his will to spend it on something that he never agreed to do.

He can leave the club if he wants to.

That is where the club differs from our country.


Our constituion was an agreement. For our collective benefit we agreed to allow a government do certain things on our behalf and NO MORE.
They were delegated the authority to do a highly specific FEW things.


We did not authorize a government to even discuss taking money from one man and give it to another to pay his medical bills yet alone to vote on it.


We did not authorize a government to even discuss taking money from one man and give it to another to pay for his retirement yet alone to vote on it.

We did not authorize a government to even discuss taking money from one man and give it to another to pay his unemployment benfits yet alone to vote on it.

Not for food stamps, not for medicaid not for madicare not foar Social Security, not for any of it.

There is not one section of the constitution that authorizes or empowers or delegates authority for the government to do this.

Where then do they get their alleged authority? From the 'general welfare clause'.

Here is what the Constitution says...

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Does this 'general welfare' clause purport to mean that whatever representatives think is in the general welfare, they may do and say it is for the general welfare? Absolutely not!

Because that would mean that ANYTHING a majority decided to say was 'general welfare', they could do. That would mean they could do virtually anything at all at any time.

Thomas Jefferson on the General Welfare Clause

"[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."


What Jefferson is saying is that general welfare did not apply except to ONLY those things SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the constituion, those things that were SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED.

Congress has NO lawful right to appropriate my money and give it to another man except fro ONLY those specifically enumerated reasons.

Medicaid is not one of them, nor public assistance welfare, nor unemploymnet, nor Socila security. NONE of those things were made as amendments to the constituion. They were unconstitutional laws passed by congress in open and flagrant contradistinction to the plain meaning of the words.

Madison ridiculed the notion that the government could do such things.

In Federalist Paper No. 41, Madison argued at length that the general welfare clause was merely a “general phrase” which was explained in detail by the sentences following it, enumerating the specific powers granted to Congress. The idea that the term “general welfare” would take precedence over the specific limitations he described as “an absurdity.”


Madison was the principle Author of the Constituion. He ridiculed any notion that the Federal governemnt could one day operate a Social Security or Welfare system.

"Think about it. If the general welfare clause of the Constitution allowed unlimited federal powers, why bother with Article I, Section 8, which sets forth the specific powers and duties of the federal government?"

Larry Elder


Precisely.


The bottom line is that ignorant but well meaning people have radically overstepped the boudaries of their delegated authority.

When I say, radically, I mean radically. They are STEALINg from you and from me EVERY DAY of our lives.

----------

More From Larry Elder...

Did the Founding Fathers envision an intrusive, heavy-handed Internal Revenue Service that collects a disproportionate percentage of taxes from "the wealthy," often the hardest-working and most innovative of Americans?

Did the Founding Fathers envision a Congress that pays farmers not to grow crops?

Did the Founding Fathers envision a government-operated Amtrak, run less efficiently than private sector rail companies?

Did the Founding Fathers envision taxpayer funding of sports stadiums and arenas?

Did the Founding Fathers envision Congress, through the use of the interstate commerce laws, deciding to pass laws mandating minimum wages, or dictating work rules from the Potomac?

Did the Founding Fathers envision a Department of Education attaching strings to federal funds earmarked for education, a function that should be local in nature?

Did the Founding Fathers envision the federal erosion of the Second Amendment, a provision providing a right to keep and bear arms?

Did the Founding Fathers envision a federal government that hires teachers and police officers, a function the Founding Fathers expected local authorities to handle?

---------

The government means well. But that is not enough. It is stealing. It is stealing no different than any common criminal. it is wholly 100% illegitimate from the ground floor up in virtually every single thing that it does.


Flint refuses to see this. It is juts little mistakes that have 'been corrected'.

You see, Flint does not understand that the government that we had under the agreement we made in the Constituion is gone. It has morphed into an extra-constituionla legislative tyranny of the well meaning ignorants.

Flint is content to live under that. I am not.

I am willing to go to war with the 'state' over it.

I do not let a pickpocket steal from me. How much worse and more serious and grievous when the Federal government does it under the guise of law?

The Federal government does not understand why what it is doing is wrong. It is no less evil becuase it does not understand. Flint does not understand. He is no less wrong. He is merely ignorant.

It is no less evil and should continue because it has been in place for so long. Stealing is not made right becuase the public sanctions it by majority vote.


The Federal governemt of the united States is a criminal and unconstituional entity.

It is the enemy of liberty and freedom. It gives lip service yet steals. It gives lip service extracts unconstitutional levies at teh point of a gun.


People like Flint say that we should reform the system from the inside if we think it behaves wrong.

I say that this CAN NOT be done.

No tyranny can be reformed from the inside and no tyranny has EVER BEEN reformed from the inside.

In our case, it is impossible because it is IMPOSSIBLE to educate an ignorant apathetic public. It is impossible to break down the monied powers of special interests at this late stage. It is impossible to affect the two main parties.

The ONLY way that the Federal Government will be 'restored' to its PROPER sphere is through other than a peacful democratic process. No democratic tyranny can vote to reform itelf. it very LIFEBLOOD is tyranny.

It will come to bloodshed. period. Maybe it will come from without. Maybe it will come from within.

I hope that wherever it comes from, it comes soon, and tears down this pernicious tyranny that calls itself a 'free country'.

Amd if that means that the people who cherish their God given rights and their liberties go to war with people like Flint, Americans in name only, then I am all for it.

If there was ever a cause that was worthy of war, that would be it.
 

INVAR

Sword At-The-Ready
I agree with your sentiments Paul - but then how does this square with your posts previously about Tim McVeigh being wrong to attack a government target that had civvies inside?

Amd if that means that the people who cherish their God given rights and their liberties go to war with people like Flint, Americans in name only, then I am all for it.

If there was ever a cause that was worthy of war, that would be it.


McVeigh thought that retribution for the slaughter of 80 men, women and children at Waco by govt. thugs - and the President 'declaring war' on Americans by the Assault weapons Ban was a cause worthy of 'going to war' - how does his motives for war differ from your motives?

I'm just playing Devil's advocate for clarification - I agree with your sentiments expressed above - I think we differ on what constitutes an act of aggression against us.
 

Paul Milne

Contributing Member
Invar, I respond below in parenthesis...

I agree with your sentiments Paul - but then how does this square with your posts previously about Tim McVeigh being wrong to attack a government target that had civvies inside?

(I said before that deadly force can only be legitimately used AGAINST deadly force. McVeigh did not have deadly forced used against HIM. The citizens of Waco could have picked up arms, at the time and attacked the government troops. That is what they should have done.)

McVeigh thought that retribution for the slaughter of 80 men, women and children at Waco by govt. thugs - and the President 'declaring war' on Americans by the Assault weapons Ban was a cause worthy of 'going to war' - how does his motives for war differ from your motives?

( Retribution is NOT a call for deadly force. Especially against civilians. Even if those civilians are like Flint. I would not go out and murder Flint because he is a TORY. A war is a war. And there are homorable rules. Pearl Harbor was wrong. They had not yet delivered a declaration of war. McVeigh's sneak attack was wrong. It was murder of civilians, non-combatants.)


I'm just playing Devil's advocate for clarification - I agree with your sentiments expressed above - I think we differ on what constitutes an act of aggression against us.

( Of course. There are a myriad of ways that one could take the offensive without murder, hypothetically, of course. If the government struck back at someplace with deadly force, then deadly force could be used in self-defense. Being that the resources of the 'patriot' would be far less than that of the government he would be wise to strike where the government could not locate him to retaliate or even identify him, hypothetically, of course.)
 

INVAR

Sword At-The-Ready
Paul -

For discussion sake - and not to be simply argumentative, I'm struggling with the distinction between what you term "Go to war" and McVeigh's term.

You wrote in conclusion about the permissive tyrants that make up our populace It will come to bloodshed. period. Maybe it will come from without. Maybe it will come from within.

I hope that wherever it comes from, it comes soon, and tears down this pernicious tyranny that calls itself a 'free country'.

Amd if that means that the people who cherish their God given rights and their liberties go to war with people like Flint, Americans in name only, then I am all for it.


....GO TO WAR WITH PEOPLE LIKE FLINT


Are we talking 'war' in the rhetorical sense such as a 'war of words and ideology' - or do you mean war as in "The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants"?

If it's the latter - I assume you mean to await a 'trigger' event before opening fire on tyrants - I don't see clearly how your motives are vastly removed from McVeigh's. McVeigh determined that event to be Waco and Clinton's all-out assault on the 2nd Amendment. He I think, rightly determined that the U.S. Gv't considered itself at war with Consitutionalists and saw the citizens as hostiles if they did not support the govt's policies. There was no declaration - but the evidence was found at Waco, Ruby Ridge and dozens of other incidents - no different than surveying the wreckage at Pearl.

Had the propaganda from Reno's Justice Dept. not demonized the Branch Davidians in the eyes of the public, perhaps you may have had some folks take up arms against the govt. forces arrayed against them - but I doubt it. Like most dimwits that make up the majority - they were eager to bite at the propaganda fed them. McVeigh saw that, and the kangaroo court trial of the survivors - and saw Justice denied and the raw hand of tyranny and war being brought to the doorsteps of soverign citizens with everyone else cheering it on.

You cite that we should only 'defend' against an armed attack by government with deadly force if deadly force is being used against us, yet the Colonists by all accounts opened up on the British at Concord Bridge while the Redcoats (the legitimate governmental authority) were simply marching to secure the munitions they thought could be used against them.

We fired first.

Mcveigh saw the government as having fired first and continually with impugnity at selected "dissident" factions for examples sake.

While we no longer have armories to store a communities weapons - is not the LEGISLATIVE march to regulate and confiscate arms in the same category?

McVeigh thought so. In fact I think it's outwardly more sinister and cowardly to incrementally regulate than marching a column to impose a government edict.

From a purely strategic point of view - if Americans wait until tanks are amassed against them before opening fire on the obvious threat - which will surely be spun to make the citizens out to be some kind of danger to the populace - is it not already too late?

Will Constitutionalists not become the new Judens of an American Reich? We saw what the Govt. deemed patriots and militias after OKC. How much more 'proof' do we need that there is a war being waged against us and our liberty?

Clearly the solution to this noose we find our Republic in is given in John Ross' book- but like all fiction - in this climate of apathy and ignorant Tories - such a premise is impossible.

I think I'm of the opinion that while most of us have been waiting for the "obvious" line to be crossed (that being gun confiscation) - our Aware tyrants have implemented more subtle means of depriving liberty without igniting the powder keg, mainly by instituting mob rule by media propaganda and emotional rhetoric coupled with incremental regulations.

Tighten the noose - get the public used to the pressure, and convince them it feels good to be secure.

In such light, since McVeigh's motives and actions have been soundly attacked and disavowed by even staunch patriot groups - and folks like yourself - it is clear that no one has the stomach (myself included) for the kind of boldness and risk needed to put the fear of the people back in government.

McVeigh saw Waco and the Assault Weapons ban as no different than watching Recoats marching to the armories at Lexington and Concorde, yet we consider the Minutemen that opened up on the british heroes - and McVeigh a cowardly terrorist.

Had we lost the War of independence - the Minutement and Colonists that waged war against England would today be called terrorists and insurrectionists.

What's the difference?

I hold that there is absolutely no hope of restoring our birthrights - and only a matter of time before we 'dissidents' are eliminated by various means.

By the time an armed ATF or cop squad hits my door for whatever reason they fish for - it's too late for for me, and I will be but another whacko nitwit that was a 'dangerous, seperatist, extremist/racist/homophobe/religious gun nut' that posed a danger to the community.

And Americans will cheer my elimnation at the hand of armed government stormtroopers with extreme predjudice.
 
W

WFK

Guest
I have enjoyed this forum without Flint, so why do you drag him back in here? Food fights don't help anyone.
 

Paul Milne

Contributing Member
Invar,I answer below in parenthesis...


Paul -
For discussion sake - and not to be simply argumentative, I'm struggling with the distinction between what you term "Go to war" and McVeigh's term.

You wrote in conclusion about the permissive tyrants that make up our populace It will come to bloodshed. period. Maybe it will come from without. Maybe it will come from within.

I hope that wherever it comes from, it comes soon, and tears down this pernicious tyranny that calls itself a 'free country'.

Amd if that means that the people who cherish their God given rights and their liberties go to war with people like Flint, Americans in name only, then I am all for it.


....GO TO WAR WITH PEOPLE LIKE FLINT

Are we talking 'war' in the rhetorical sense such as a 'war of words and ideology' - or do you mean war as in "The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants"?

( The latter)

If it's the latter - I assume you mean to await a 'trigger' event before opening fire on tyrants - I don't see clearly how your motives are vastly removed from McVeigh's.


( depends what motives you mean. I think you understand why I think the government is a criminal conspiracy. i don't know exactly what McVeigh thought, only bits and pieces.)


McVeigh determined that event to be Waco and Clinton's all-out assault on the 2nd Amendment.


( yes, but HE was no assaulted, neither was he PRESENT at any assault. )


He I think, rightly determined that the U.S. Gv't considered itself at war with Consitutionalists and saw the citizens as hostiles if they did not support the govt's policies.

( He may have thought that. I don't believe the government is at war with 'constitutionalists' consciously because that would ascribe sentient behavior to the government. It believe the governemnt does almost ALL that it does out of ignorance.)

There was no declaration - but the evidence was found at Waco, Ruby Ridge and dozens of other incidents - no different than surveying the wreckage at Pearl.

Had the propaganda from Reno's Justice Dept. not demonized the Branch Davidians in the eyes of the public, perhaps you may have had some folks take up arms against the govt. forces arrayed against them - but I doubt it. Like most dimwits that make up the majority - they were eager to bite at the propaganda fed them. McVeigh saw that, and the kangaroo court trial of the survivors - and saw Justice denied and the raw hand of tyranny and war being brought to the doorsteps of soverign citizens with everyone else cheering it on.

( Mcveigh did not have to beging what he felt was retribution by murdering innocent civilians. children in a day care center.)

You cite that we should only 'defend' against an armed attack by government with deadly force if deadly force is being used against us, yet the Colonists by all accounts opened up on the British at Concord Bridge while the Redcoats (the legitimate governmental authority) were simply marching to secure the munitions they thought could be used against them.

( In that case it is not a matter of which opposing side lined up against one another fired first. It ws patently obvious they were there to do battle.)

We fired first.

Mcveigh saw the government as having fired first and continually with impugnity at selected "dissident" factions for examples sake.

( Again, two DIFFERENT situations Mcveigh was NOT at the place where deadly forces used. It is not appropriate to sneak up and murder innocent civilians months or years after the fact.)


While we no longer have armories to store a communities weapons - is not the LEGISLATIVE march to regulate and confiscate arms in the same category?

McVeigh thought so. In fact I think it's outwardly more sinister and cowardly to incrementally regulate than marching a column to impose a government edict.

From a purely strategic point of view - if Americans wait until tanks are amassed against them before opening fire on the obvious threat - which will surely be spun to make the citizens out to be some kind of danger to the populace - is it not already too late?

( I am not saying that anyone should wait that long)

Will Constitutionalists not become the new Judens of an American Reich? We saw what the Govt. deemed patriots and militias after OKC. How much more 'proof' do we need that there is a war being waged against us and our liberty?

Clearly the solution to this noose we find our Republic in is given in John Ross' book- but like all fiction - in this climate of apathy and ignorant Tories - such a premise is impossible.

I think I'm of the opinion that while most of us have been waiting for the "obvious" line to be crossed (that being gun confiscation) - our Aware tyrants have implemented more subtle means of depriving liberty without igniting the powder keg, mainly by instituting mob rule by media propaganda and emotional rhetoric coupled with incremental regulations.

Tighten the noose - get the public used to the pressure, and convince them it feels good to be secure.

In such light, since McVeigh's motives and actions have been soundly attacked and disavowed by even staunch patriot groups - and folks like yourself - it is clear that no one has the stomach (myself included) for the kind of boldness and risk needed to put the fear of the people back in government.

( Mcveigh was no hero. He was a coward. He murdered defenseless innocent people in pursuit of his cause. No one in his right mind could justify that with Waco or Ruby ridge. )

McVeigh saw Waco and the Assault Weapons ban as no different than watching Recoats marching to the armories at Lexington and Concorde, yet we consider the Minutemen that opened up on the british heroes - and McVeigh a cowardly terrorist.

( I don't care what he 'saw' it as. It was not the same thing. McVeigh WAS a cowardly terrorist.)

Had we lost the War of independence - the Minutement and Colonists that waged war against England would today be called terrorists and insurrectionists.

What's the difference?

I hold that there is absolutely no hope of restoring our birthrights - and only a matter of time before we 'dissidents' are eliminated by various means.


0 probably, but I will take a lot of 'them' with me if they come)


By the time an armed ATF or cop squad hits my door for whatever reason they fish for - it's too late for for me, and I will be but another whacko nitwit that was a 'dangerous, seperatist, extremist/racist/homophobe/religious gun nut' that posed a danger to the community.

And Americans will cheer my elimnation at the hand of armed government stormtroopers with extreme predjudice


( Invar, It is inappropriuate as a tactic to kill non combatants. More so children. If you justify McVeigh blowing up children then you could justify anyone doing that again right now. Would you do that? Would you justify killing defenseless non combatants years after the fact? Could you justify anyone today blowing up a building full of people in Atlanta for Ruby Ridge? This is ridiculous. Look, if you had advance notice that the feds were going to ;attack' somewhere and you felt it was a constitutional violation, go JOIN in against them if you think that is right. That is where the deadly force is being used. I don't think this is really a 'time' issue if you were talking about a day or two. but years later is nuts.)

( I think that anyone is free to act on his conscience. If they truly believe that a government is acting unconstitutionally they may act against it. They must be prepared to pay the consequences if they lose like in any war against any enemy. )
 

INVAR

Sword At-The-Ready
Paul,

I in no way think McVeigh a hero - if anything he was an abject idiot if he did indeed blow the Murrah building with little help as he claimed (which I don't buy - the term Reichstag comes more to my mind when I think of OKC - when you add-up who had the most to gain from the bombing - that analysis points to that theory).

IMHO, he chose the wrong target.

What I'm unsuccesfully trying to point out is that to our imbecillic populace his MOTIVE for going to war against a tyrannical government is as criminal as the bombing itself in most folks eyes. Look at how Flint looks on your take about illegal taxation - and I think you'll see my point.

If he had chosen say - the ATF office involved in the initial Waco raid - would he still be the cowardly terrorist he is considered when that office hardly gave the Branch Davidians warning they were going to attack when they did?

To answer your question: If you justify McVeigh blowing up children then you could justify anyone doing that again right now. Would you do that?

I don't justify WHAT McVeigh did, and that he killed civilians and children is abhorrent to me. Targeting innocents to institute terror is indeed cowardly. As Lee pointed out - that is no way to draw support for your cause - which MUST be prominent in any campaign. But in warfare - when civilians are used as shields or in the production cababilities of the enemy - collateral damage has to be acceptible if it means saving lives on your own side as in the case of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I do not think that the people and children in OKC were in that category.

Would you justify killing defenseless non combatants years after the fact?

Well, I said I think the wrong target was chosen. Had Clinton remained in office under Emergency orders after say another of his Reichstag fires - then targeting places of command, control and production are totally legitimate targets - even YEARS after the fact. I mean we bombed Tokyo long after Pearl Harbor, so I'm not sure time is such a critical factor if your objective is to overthrow a tyranny and win a war. Many innocent non-combatants make up the mechanisms of an enemy tyranny - from auditors in an IRS cubicle to armed agents ordered to confiscate your kids - to the Judge sitting in a chair that orders you jailed for having a pocket Constitution on your person during a roadblock check.

With that said - I have no clue what McVeigh's objective was aside from plain retribution, but at some point the govt. has to know there is a line - or they will simply walk all over us without any fear whatsoever...and that prospect frightens me more than China on our doorstep does.

Could you justify anyone today blowing up a building full of people in Atlanta for Ruby Ridge? This is ridiculous.

No, I couldn't see the merit in leveling an entire building unless we had another all-out civil war. But if Horiuchi has a trial and it's so obviously rigged as to exhonerate him and the actions of the agents at Ruby Ridge, then I would not have any harsh feelings towards those that played sniper on those directly responsible for the farce and the action there at Ruby Ridge itself. I'd put that kind of action in a Bowman league. Now I'm not advocating anything - I'm explaining how I would view those events if they ever happened - which as I've said before - I don't think is going to happen in our apathetic gimme gimme culture.

What this all boils down to I think is that there is no longer any fear of the people in the halls of government, only contempt, coddling and suspicion. We now have militarized police stormtrooper units ready to do their gestapo-best at the request of said government.

I think we suffer willingly under far worse tyranny than the colonists of 1775 ever imagined.
 

Paul Milne

Contributing Member
Invar, i answer in parenthesis below...


Paul,
I in no way think McVeigh a hero - if anything he was an abject idiot if he did indeed blow the Murrah building with little help as he claimed (which I don't buy - the term Reichstag comes more to my mind when I think of OKC - when you add-up who had the most to gain from the bombing - that analysis points to that theory).

IMHO, he chose the wrong target.


( yes)


What I'm unsuccesfully trying to point out is that to our imbecillic populace his MOTIVE for going to war against a tyrannical government is as criminal as the bombing itself in most folks eyes. Look at how Flint looks on your take about illegal taxation - and I think you'll see my point.

If he had chosen say - the ATF office involved in the initial Waco raid - would he still be the cowardly terrorist he is considered when that office hardly gave the Branch Davidians warning they were going to attack when they did?


( If he 'murdered' anyone he would not be right in my eyes, no matter what his motive was.)


To answer your question: If you justify McVeigh blowing up children then you could justify anyone doing that again right now. Would you do that?

I don't justify WHAT McVeigh did, and that he killed civilians and children is abhorrent to me. Targeting innocents to institute terror is indeed cowardly. As Lee pointed out - that is no way to draw support for your cause - which MUST be prominent in any campaign. But in warfare - when civilians are used as shields or in the production cababilities of the enemy - collateral damage has to be acceptible if it means saving lives on your own side as in the case of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.


( The people in the Murrah building were not USED as shields. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are UTTERLY different. there was DECLARED state of war and those people were WARNED to get the hell out of dodge.)


I do not think that the people and children in OKC were in that category.

Would you justify killing defenseless non combatants years after the fact?

Well, I said I think the wrong target was chosen. Had Clinton remained in office under Emergency orders after say another of his Reichstag fires - then targeting places of command, control and production are totally legitimate targets - even YEARS after the fact.

( I agree. But that is NOT deadlt force against PEOPLE years after the fact. If he wanted to blow up facilities and structures and the like, i find that legitimatae. but not people until there is what amounts to a declared state of war OR and actual use of deadly force by the government.)


I mean we bombed Tokyo long after Pearl Harbor, so I'm not sure time is such a critical factor if your objective is to overthrow a tyranny and win a war.

( you miss the point. We bombed Hiroshima years later but in a DECLARED state of war.
Japan publically declared war and we publically declared war. Did McVeigh PUBLICALLY declare war. No he did what he did in secret. He hid. THAT was why he was wrong. if he had declared his intentions publically, it would have been a different matter. of course he probably would have failed then, too. )


Many innocent non-combatants make up the mechanisms of an enemy tyranny - from auditors in an IRS cubicle to armed agents ordered to confiscate your kids - to the Judge sitting in a chair that orders you jailed for having a pocket Constitution on your person during a roadblock check.

With that said - I have no clue what McVeigh's objective was aside from plain retribution, but at some point the govt. has to know there is a line - or they will simply walk all over us without any fear whatsoever...and that prospect frightens me more than China on our doorstep does.

Could you justify anyone today blowing up a building full of people in Atlanta for Ruby Ridge? This is ridiculous.

No, I couldn't see the merit in leveling an entire building unless we had another all-out civil war. But if Horiuchi has a trial and it's so obviously rigged as to exhonerate him and the actions of the agents at Ruby Ridge, then I would not have any harsh feelings towards those that played sniper on those directly responsible for the farce and the action there at Ruby Ridge itself. I'd put that kind of action in a Bowman league. Now I'm not advocating anything - I'm explaining how I would view those events if they ever happened - which as I've said before - I don't think is going to happen in our apathetic gimme gimme culture.

What this all boils down to I think is that there is no longer any fear of the people in the halls of government, only contempt, coddling and suspicion. We now have militarized police stormtrooper units ready to do their gestapo-best at the request of said government.

I think we suffer willingly under far worse tyranny than the colonists of 1775 ever imagined.

( of course. But that is always the way with ignorant people who no longer value liberty but only give it lip service. Like Flint.

--------------------
 

INVAR

Sword At-The-Ready
This is a good discussion.

Your rebuttal raised another question, and I'm curious as to your take.

Your position is that honorable warfare and combat happens AFTER publicly declared states of war.

In the clutches of a powerful enemy that has either imprisoned, encroached or invaded - it has been common practice to attack without warning - the enemy, WITHOUT any declaration of war. The only reality being that hostilities can exist.

The seven or so Jews that opened up on the Krauts in the Warsaw Ghetto come to mind, as does the French underground against the Nazi's, the Afghani Rebels in the '80's and the Chechen rebels agains Russia today. I think guerilla is the term and war was not oficially declared in any of those instances to my recollection. The only difference in principle between them and what McVeigh did was the existence of a hostile environment. Perhaps that's the significant difference?

The Chechens have perpetrated multiple McVeigh-style attacks in Russia, yet clearly it is Russia that is the primary agressor. Is Chechnya within it's rights in opposition to conduct such warfare?

From a practical and strategic point of view - if a powerful enemy has taken control, and a small group declares itself at war with said entity BEFORE attacking targets - is that not a suicide death sentence to call the powerful enemy down on you before you can act against them?

I'm thinking specifically of our own behemoth government. Should say... these roadblock seatbelt checkpoints become permanent with many, many incidents of opressive harm and fear being perpetrated on citizens by armed police thugs with their own agendas and no regard for Constitutional rights or process - should some declare that an act of war on Americans and declare that such violations will be met with force, our gestapo government will have those folks rounded up in a New York Minute.

Would surprise not be a better weapon to defend aggainst what already is an act of war against us?

The initial battles of own War for Independence is an example of the point I'm trying to make. We did NOT declare war on England - we declared a 'seperation' and Independence from them almost a YEAR after hostilities began. There was no declaration of war by the Colonists when they opened-up on the British at Bunker Hill, we attacked them without warning - the only difference is that the POSSIBILITY of hostilities was present.

The same thing holds true with the Confederacy - they wanted a peaceful split, the fedgov. said no and marched troops South to Fort Sumter. Boom. And then we had Sherman burning a path to the sea.

Your position Paul is noble and right. However, the strategic reality is that the government is already at war against us. They are at war with liberty. They are domestic enemies of the Constitution, as is the dimwitted population that supports our new American brand of Fascism. Our own govt. has shown it will use deadly force to impose it's unConstitutional will - even against women and children, hold a kangaroo court trial to exhonerate the stormtroopers and demonize the victims in the public eye.

Against an enemy so entrenched, and in such total control - the strategic reality is that hit and run attacks ala the French Resistance or a Bowman-style assault is about the only option open for success. If anyone declares hostile opposition against what is truly institutionalized UnConstitutional terrorism by govt. against it's own citizens, is going to be sqashed like a bug in a manner so fast as to be deemed foolish and stupid.

Just to be clear, I'm discussing the principles and strategies of defending Liberty - I'm not excusing or rationalizing McVeigh's actions or suggesting any violence whatsoever.
 

Paul Milne

Contributing Member
Invar, my response is in parenthesis below..
This is a good discussion.
Your rebuttal raised another question, and I'm curious as to your take.

Your position is that honorable warfare and combat happens AFTER publicly declared states of war.

( Not quite, but that will be cleared up below.)

In the clutches of a powerful enemy that has either imprisoned, encroached or invaded - it has been common practice to attack without warning - the enemy, WITHOUT any declaration of war. The only reality being that hostilities can exist.

( What I am saying is that in the face of an overwhelmingly powerful enemy it is still not right to sneak up and MURDER. I did not say that attacks could not be made against physical installations to undermine their ability to function. look, if it came to hostility, the bottom line is that the opinion that 'win's is the one of the side that wins' It would have nothing to do with reason but with might. Sometimes the mightiest prevails and his opinion is wrong. Like the North in the Civil War. But, since in the face of hostility it becomes ONLY a matter of teh strongest, then take out the opponents ability to function. I do not believe that that encompasses murder of non combatants.)

The seven or so Jews that opened up on the Krauts in the Warsaw Ghetto come to mind, as does the French underground against the Nazi's, the Afghani Rebels in the '80's and the Chechen rebels agains Russia today. I think guerilla is the term and war was not oficially declared in any of those instances to my recollection.

( Look, you do not need a piece of paper to have an official war. A publically declared war is evident form an announcement OR from an ACTION. Yes, i believe that the event at WACO was tantamount to a declaration of war. But that does not mean that McVeigh can go and murder civilians. No more than immediately after Peral harbor we ought to have bombed the civilian population at Hirishima)

The only difference in principle between them and what McVeigh did was the existence of a hostile environment. Perhaps that's the significant difference?

( Pretty much)


The Chechens have perpetrated multiple McVeigh-style attacks in Russia, yet clearly it is Russia that is the primary agressor.

( i think the Chenchens were probably mistaken to take the course they did.)


Is Chechnya within it's rights in opposition to conduct such warfare?


( When the Russians Physically come into their country, yes.)


From a practical and strategic point of view - if a powerful enemy has taken control, and a small group declares itself at war with said entity BEFORE attacking targets - is that not a suicide death sentence to call the powerful enemy down on you before you can act against them?

( It is clear with the advance of COMBATANTS into Chechnya that a State of war existed.)

I'm thinking specifically of our own behemoth government. Should say... these roadblock seatbelt checkpoints become permanent with many, many incidents of opressive harm and fear being perpetrated on citizens by armed police thugs with their own agendas and no regard for Constitutional rights or process - should some declare that an act of war on Americans and declare that such violations will be met with force, our gestapo government will have those folks rounded up in a New York Minute.

( The problem is that even a seat belt check is whiolly unconstitutional. but, people do not care and will let it slide. THAT is the whole problem. Because the people themselves do not care they MAKE THEMSELVES enemies of liberty. Another problem is that at NO tyime will you be able to garner enough support from the population to wage 'war' over seatbelts even though it is a FLAGRANT violation)

Would surprise not be a better weapon to defend aggainst what already is an act of war against us?

( Yes. Hitting their installations hard and without mercy would be the best thing to do. But, avoid murdering innocent civilians))

The initial battles of own War for Independence is an example of the point I'm trying to make. We did NOT declare war on England - we declared a 'seperation' and Independence from them almost a YEAR after hostilities began. There was no declaration of war by the Colonists when they opened-up on the British at Bunker Hill, we attacked them without warning - the only difference is that the POSSIBILITY of hostilities was present.

( Not really. When Britain sends in troops, then they know what they may face. 'WE' did not declare are because there was no 'we' until 1789 when the constitutio was ratified. There was no United Staes of America fo another deacde and more.)

The same thing holds true with the Confederacy - they wanted a peaceful split, the fedgov. said no and marched troops South to Fort Sumter. Boom. And then we had Sherman burning a path to the sea.


Your position Paul is noble and right. However, the strategic reality is that the government is already at war against us.

( I agree)


They are at war with liberty.

( I agree)

They are domestic enemies of the Constitution, as is the dimwitted population that supports our new American brand of Fascism.

( I agree)

Our own govt. has shown it will use deadly force to impose it's unConstitutional will - even against women and children, hold a kangaroo court trial to exhonerate the stormtroopers and demonize the victims in the public eye.


( I agree)


Against an enemy so entrenched, and in such total control - the strategic reality is that hit and run attacks ala the French Resistance or a Bowman-style assault is about the only option open for success.


( I agree)


If anyone declares hostile opposition against what is truly institutionalized UnConstitutional terrorism by govt. against it's own citizens, is going to be sqashed like a bug in a manner so fast as to be deemed foolish and stupid.


( I agree. But if a Mcveigh wants to blow up the a federal building he has an obligation to warn innocent non-combatants. Now he would not have been able to do it the way that he did then. Well then, he should have picked another way or another target. What he did was wrong.)


Just to be clear, I'm discussing the principles and strategies of defending Liberty - I'm not excusing or rationalizing McVeigh's actions or suggesting any violence whatsoever.

( OK. I believe that it is up to the individual to make a decision. It is not up to a group pf people to decide if MY liberties habvve been destoyed. I am perfectly capable of making that decision rationally and thoughtfully. It would be better to discuss your ideas with other people. if you are wildly off base, at least you will hear that and can reconsider the arguments. Flint makes a rebuttal but does not answer ANY of the issues at all. He does not explain in the slightest where the government gets the authority to do the things it does and yet say that it is OK. That is no rebuttal at all. Any Federal action MUST come from a clearly enumerted power. 99.9% of what they do, does not. I am fed up. I have had it. It is not worth living as a slave. Let me put it another way....It becomes a threshhold issue. if a bully comes up and pushes you, you may be 'violated' but you also may be willing to suffer that violation to keep some peace. if he is a really big and powerful bully, you may be 'willing' to suffer more. At some point, if you have any dignity, any self respect and regard fro your values, you won't take it any more no matter what the cost. It has gone too far. The Flints have high thresshholds. As long as they can drink beer and watch wrestling on TV they think they are free. They took the blue pill. A high threshhold is partially synonymous with a LOW opinion of freedom and liberty. It is also an estimation of the power that the government weilds.

Big government is SYNONYMOUS with tyranny all by itself, not merely because it is big, but becuase nothing can grow to that size and still honor liberty. It is not possible.)
 
Top