Tuesday, November 10, 2009

"No Fort Sumters" means exactly that.

Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor. THIS is where the South lost the War Between the States, right at the beginning.

Let me explain.

First, Oath Keepers CAN'T fire first. It would be a violation of their oath. To do so would muddy the differences between them and the real revolutionaries, the real usurpers, the real tyrants.

Second, the moral high ground is lost by the side who fires first.

This does not mean that one side cannot set the stage so the other side discredits themselves by firing first. Indeed, this is what our enemies are hoping. Why else have they provided all the provocations?

The entire unconstitutional federal leviathan which has been erected to supplant the Founders' Republic in the past 75 years rests on one assumption, which the leviathan uses at every turn to achieve their purposes: if you defy us we will destroy you, either economically or with deadly force. As long as these usurpations were in the least bearable, we did not resist by force of arms, counting upon the political system and courts for redress. But these usurpations are no longer bearable, any hope of political redress hangs by the smallest of threads in 2010 (assuming we have another election) and the federal courts have demonstrated their inability to check the leviathan on the most outrageous federal misconduct. Just ask David Olofson.

My earlier outburst at Obama's simpering disingenuousness comes from the fact that he knows, as does everyone, that

a. whether the Intolerable Act in its final form provides directly for jail time, or for a fine which, if you refuse to pay it will land you in jail, is a distinction without a difference, and

b. if you refuse to pay the fine and they come to house to force you to go to prison as a result and you resist, they will kill you.

He knows how the federal government exercises its power and he could care less. He believes he has the right to force us to his will. He will wrap his arguments in lies and good intentions, but in the end, absent the Constitution and the rule of law as codified by the Founders there is only force.

But even with these latest federal constitutional crimes about to happen, it must be the collectivist federals who fire first and that is simply achieved by our refusal to knuckle under. If, for example, in the case of "health care" we refuse to pay the fines, they will seek to arrest us and jail us as an example to the others. Their entire system would collapse if someone successfully resists, as it is based upon the illusion of omnipotence, omniscience, and inevitablity.

If we simply REFUSE to cooperate in our own oppression, eventually some federal thug is going to feel compelled to kill one or more of us for our temerity, likely on our own doorstep, in our homes, with our family watching (or, made casualties themselves).

This is the gambit. If we take it, they are lost. If they take, they are lost.

Lincoln hoped and prayed that the South would fire on Fort Sumter, just as these tyrannical bastards are hoping to get the same reaction from us. Lincoln got his wish. We should not give the present day tyrant wannabes theirs.

If we refuse to bow to their tyranny, however, eventually it is they who lose patience. Time is against them once people start defying them. They MUST scare the rest of the sheep in order to maintain power.

And so they will come to us with deadly force. Then we can resist with deadly force. En masse. Together. And we will finish these domestic enemies of the Founders Republic by giving them incentives to leave or die.

AFTER they start it.

In legitimate self-defense.

Seems simple enough to me.

Why there is such confusion over this principle I do not understand.



augustarichard said...

I am standing, with all who are willing to resist, in Condition 1.

answers or not said...

Confusion exists because there have been numerous cases where government has used its force to confine or kill one or more of us. Olafson is in jail, a mayor and his family are set upon and their dogs killed, babies get stepped on while lying on a couch, reporters are harassed and jailed for filming police, EMTs are put in choke holds while doing their jobs, police routinely are exonerated after beating and killing innocent civilians.

The list could go on for page after page and it does. Read David Codreas site. Day after day after day after day David links to stories about out of control police at one level or another. A prime example was the NOLA police after Katrina. Nancy Pelosi recently... Barney Frank... The FDIC is going to set pay limits for banks under their control.

How long does the list have to be? The line in the sand has been drawn not by you and I but by the lawmakers and it is behind us. It is they who have the leisure of waiting. They are the ones writing the rules of engagement. Ours is a reactionary plan which means we are on the defensive from the start. You don't defeat your enemy without going on the offense. You only hope to outlast

Jim said...

Very succinct Mike. I didn't agree with this philosophy before, but as stated here I'm inclined to.

Just as long as we DO resist somehow.

TJP said...

Amen, Mr. V. The invisible hand of the market is becoming a fist, and many of us will become "willful" resistance by doing nothing in particular. I certainly can't afford to pay a new federal tax. If I did, it would be at the expense of the things that keep me alive. Fining me will produce the same result. Throwing me in prison will also prevent me from paying the tax. So will killing me.

I am not unique, and unlike many of my peers, I spent the last decade paying down my debts, not running up new five and six-digit ones.

Here comes the train wreck, and it will be accompanied by the incessant bleating of hyphenated economists, every apologetic assessment including the words "unexpected" and "unforeseen".

Dedicated_Dad said...

Why there is such confusion over this principle I do not understand...">>

I don't believe there IS any real confusion.

There are - no doubt - a few misguided individuals itching to start something they really don't understand, there always are.

As to our Domestic Enemies, and their media lap-dogs (matthews, Olbermann, mad-cow, etc.) -- THEY are MOST CERTAINLY not confused, they're deliberately denigrating and attempting to marginalize us through cynical slander.

No reasonable, sane man could ever wish for what is probably coming.

In fact I truly believe most - like me - would do almost anything to avoid it -- anything except allow tyranny to subsume what's left of our great Republic.

Defense, not offense.

Ultimately, it's like I told my wife after my previous soul-sucking, hellish marriage: "I'll never hit you, but I WILL hit you BACK!"

I think that about sums it up.

God Save Our Republic!


Anonymous said...

Let me make sure what you are saying, Dutchman.

First off I have been saying and posting for months that there must be no Fort Sumters. I did a blog to that exact effect on the Patriotic Resistance website in May so I have been preaching this message a while.

Now, Dutchman, I want to know if I can resist the black-BDU-gang BEFORE they actually kill one of us or do I have to wait for them to actually kill one of us first.

I figure they are gonna pass a major anti-2nd amendment measure and start rounding up privately owned firearms before they start arresting/prosecuting people for not getting health insurance. I am not gonna give up the paltry few guns I own just because some oath-breaker shows up at my front door and tells me to.

If I meet such a one with a locked/loaded weapon and ultimately discharge said weapon, will that constitute a "Ft. Sumter"?

Bill Mullins
Cyborg at large.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you BUT for one small problem.

They can change the playing field and create a situation where we wither and die on the vine, force a situation where our children are already lost and gone, and never fire a shot.

Anonymous said...

It isn't confusion so much as it is a desire not to see one's wife and children murdered in or kidnapped from the house you worked your whole life to build and/or pay for. Assuming, of course, that the house isn't burned down in the process.

There are those who want to be proactive. We aren't there yet. We have to be strong enough to take the first blow and remain standing. Then, and only then, can we step forward and free ourselves.

There's also the fact that this day has been coming since at least the time of Lincoln. In some quarters there is a desire to have at it and be done with it. That option in unacceptable. We have to win this time. We will not have another chance. Last time the Republic limped on in a crippled state. This time it will burn out entirely.

fuzzys dad said...

Well said.

Anonymous said...

I would violently resist being kidnapped by unknown criminals - I'm not sure why there's confusion over a similar response to *known* criminals.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death"?

Oldfart said...

Just this evening a woman asked me what the "Threeper" patch on my arm meant. I thought for a few moments before I answered. "Itm identifies me as one of those who will shoot back."

I said it that way to differentiate me from those who might start something, who might fire on "Fort Sumter." She looked at me oddly then seemed to brighten, as if she understood what I was saying and walked away.

As I see it though, that's the essence of the question: We will shoot BACK!