Saturday, June 20, 2015

Statement by Mike Vanderboegh at the opening of the Arms Expo, Yakima WA, 20 June 2015

I'd like to speak to you about the uniqueness of what we are doing here today and the efforts we are making to deal with this unprecedented event and how it effects the way we're handling the competing interests of the participants and the press.  First of all, I'd like to thank y'all for coming and taking your courage in your own two hands and braving the uncertainties to be here.  In looking out at you I see the Founders descendants, only the Founders didn't have to deal with the modern surveillance state.  There were no cameras at the Boston Tea Party, the Green Dragon Tavern where the Sons of Liberty met was not bugged by the secret political police of Ministry of Homeland Security, the Committees of Correspondence did not have their communications photographed by the Royal Mail, General Gage did not possess surveillance drones and Captain Parker was not plagued by agents provocateurs within his own ranks working for the King and determined to discredit the Patriot cause by goading them into firing first.  It is fortunate for us that King George did not possess these instruments of tyranny.  But the fact of the matter is that Barack Obama and his minions do possess them.  So when you come here today, you are, I believe, exhibiting every bit as much courage as the Founders, for you do face these threats and still you refuse to comply.  By your very presence here today, you are sending the message: WE WILL NOT COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUMENTS OF OUR OWN SLAVERY.

But how does this new reality impact us?  You are here.  The press is, or will be, here.  But the fact of the matter is that there's gonna be some good old fashioned Sons of Liberty tyranny-breakin' goin' on here today and the event organizers are doing their best to balance the competing interests of the participants and the press.  How?  Well, first of all we have a First Amendment area set up for the press.  We will be providing folks for them to interview throughout the day but they will not be allowed to roam freely in the event area.  They will, I am sure, try to interview folks going in and coming out of the venue.  Whether you talk them or not is strictly up to you.  But I would urge caution because remember, there's going to be some tyranny-defyin' goin' on here and anything you say, your identity, even your presence, may later be of interest to an unscrupulous state prosecutor who wants to enforce unconstitutional laws.  The other thing is that there are groups out there -- and the Southern Poverty Law Center comes first to mind -- who specialize in masquerading as press, or who circulate through crowds at these events, asking provocative questions whose answers they can later use out of context to discredit people.  Pretending to be participants, they take surveillance photos that they will later provide to their symbiotic agents of social control in the FBI and the DHS.  This should come as no surprise.  It is what they do.  It is not for nothing that we in Alabama call them the Southern Preposterous Lie Center.  But you should expect that.  They are collectivists therefore they are liars.  It is who they are.  You might as well blame a rattlesnake for biting.  But the thing is, they are not as noble as the rattlesnake because they give you no warning before striking.  These folks are copperheads, people, pretending to be what they are not, so be advised.

As for the real press, this situation puts them at some risk as well.  Anything they do here today, interviews, picture taking, video, may later haul them before a grand jury.  This is a direct danger to their First Amendment rights to do their job without threat or interference.  So as much as they might chafe under the restrictions of the First Amendment zone, I hope they understand that we're trying to look out for their own interests as well as yours.  After all, at the Bundy Ranch the press agreed to a First Amendment zone so it's not the first time they've experienced this.  So it's not as great a challenge as, say, asking Hillary Clinton a serious question about Benghazi, or anything.

So, that being said, we will proceed as best we can to have a great event today, to celebrate our rights and responsibilities as free American citizens, and to nullify with our defiance Mike Bloomberg's hateful unconstitutional law, purchased at the cost of his millions.  American jurisprudence has long held that an unconstitutional law is null and void.  But by your presence here today, you will nullify I-594 more directly and immediately.  If it is later found to be "officially" unconstitutional, it will be redundant -- FOR YOU HERE WILL HAVE NULLIFIED IT LONG BEFORE.  And may God bless you for having the courage to be here.  Somewhere, Sam Adams and all the Founding generation are smiling.


Joe said...

Thank you sir.

Anonymous said...

I am not convinced that ALL the patriots would disapprove of our current government nor of the great economic, military, industrial, and scientific world center that we have become.
But who could blame you for simplifying their goals to justify yours.

Anonymous said...

All the Patriots would disapprove of todays fallacy called "government"....but plenty of the Loyalists would approve with clapping hands the pathetic nature of todays tomfoolery masked as "government".

PO'd American said...

Anonymous spewed...

"I am not convinced that ALL the patriots would disapprove of our current government nor of the great economic, military, industrial, and scientific world center that we have become. But who could blame you for simplifying their goals to justify yours."

I personally think that all "PATRIOTS" would be or are appalled by our current government. As for the great economic, military, industrial and scientific world center.....well, this group of clowns had nothing to do with it's construction and are busy along with our so-called industrialists in selling the US down the pike. I think Mike stated it most correctly. Go away you troll.

Patriot: "a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion."

"a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government."

Anonymous said...

Great speech Mike. Please post video if you get it.

I see google news is giving this great coverage... 3 results (0.26 seconds)

Dakota said...

Seems a bit strange for our side to do what the enemies of the Constitution a First Amendment Zone. I remember my own disdain for even the concept of such a ridiculous idea. So now I am a bit confused .... but ...I do trust what you are doing Mike ...still a bit confused though.

Anonymous said...

As well versed as the Founders were, they were men with faults as all men are. Madison believed that people would follow the rules laid down by the Constitution to such a degree that a Bill of Rights would be absolutely unnecessary. Hamilton believed that the Constitution was a set of guidelines that could be interpreted in ways that allowed the actions that he felt were needed. We have never had enough men like Jefferson who believed that the language meant what it said, no more and no less. The Roosevelt New Deal administration broke everything open with politicians promising the bank to voters who then felt entitled to the free stuff they had been promised.

And so here we are.

We have met the enemy and they are us.

Anonymous said...

I see, it is clear that the TRUE Patriots, among the founders, and among us today, would not, and do not, agree with the way our government operates. This is so, because you define the TRUE patriots as those who agree with you.
But my point is that this likely does not include many of the founders, esp. the Federalists, who were quite pragmatic.

It is unlikely that many of the merchants and landowners among the founders would wholeheartedly approve of the III% cause.

PO'd American said...

To Anonymous and his lack of understanding of the term Patriot (even when supplied with the definition in my response).

Here's an extract from Federalist 46: "The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents."

Now Mr Anonymous...what part of this current government meets the intent of the quote above?
Was it: The secret court for reviewing captured "private communications both phone and internet (courtesy of the NSA)?"
The so-called tax imposed by the SCOTUS for Obamacare?
The un-elected and unchallenged bureacracies that now abound (IRS Lerner and et al) ATF, DHS???

When has this current government listened to the will of the people?

I would profer that Madison, Hamilton, and Jay would puke if they saw what we have become. Using your inference: The next "transparent" form of Federalism by today's standards is the "secret" TPA or Fast Track legislation that the sell-out bastards are trying to pass. We will all see how that works out tomorrow. Let's see if there are any real Patriots left in this government.
One Pissed Off American

PO'd American said...

To all readers;
While I'm on a federalist rant, here's another extract from Federalist Paper 84 (Hamilton); it is rather chilling since it's "most" appropriate to today's tyranny.

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

I for one am eternally grateful to the folks that demanded a formal "Bill of Rights." Simply because this feral government has changed, amended, distorted, usurped, and controled our liberties outside of that not specified by the US Constitution. If these rights were not enumerated and approved, this government would have taken them long ago using the opposite argument made by Hamilton. Again, I encourage you to read the definition above for Patriot.

PO'd American said...

With further regards to Federalism and the Bill of Rights, read George Mason's Bio.

Anonymous said...

Merchants and landowners understand that it takes defense of liberty if they are to keep their land and peddle their merchandise. LOL @ the idea that they wouldn't approve of defending Liberty, of refusing to back up another inch, of refusing to fight BACK but holding the line at not firing FIRST, that they wouldn't approve of stopping and turning back the governments overreaching hand into areas gubmint wasn't empowered to enter, much less abridge.

So then...just what part of the III cause is it that YOU are claiming those folks would have been against or at least not approved of?

Id like to see such a LIST, thus supporting the generalized CRAP posted above...

Roger said...

Responding to Anonymous at June 20, 2015 at 6:26 PM

Yeah...well at one time your statement “...great economic, military, industrial, and scientific world center that we have become” was true. However, the following links don't seem to agree with your current assessment. Perhaps you could post your statistical data? Or did you just pull it out of your …?
12th Overall. Rule of Law; Limited Government; Regulatory Efficiency; Open Markets;
Headline: Military Leaders Report Concerns on Long-Term Readiness
“The country ranks ninth in the world in nominal GDP per capita and sixth in GDP per capita at PPP.”
Ease of Doing Business Category – 7th overall
Scored highest in the ‘Getting Credit’ category; Scored next highest in the ‘Solving Insolvency’ category.
‘Paying Taxes’ and ‘Getting Electricity’ categories were the U.S. worst scores.
Here's The New Ranking Of Top Countries In Reading, Science, And Math
U.S. ranked below average in all categories.

As a Patriot I love my country...but I fear my government. I have no doubts this government is ruining my country.

Anonymous said...

Which parts/list: The part leading to war, impacting the nation's business, the citizen's freedoms, etc. And bellicose threats of war, hangings of citizens, etc., etc.

My point is not that nearly all of the patriots would not be sympathetic to those demanding or in defense of greater freedom (including yours, which I respect). They would be. It is that the patriots were a diverse and pragmatic group, some of whom would be defensive of the current government's role (admittedly chaotic/half-hearted/and of limited success) in promoting the nation's world leadership in trade, science, etc. Evidence of this: the reaction to Shay's and other rebellions, the early sympathy, and eventual cringing at the French revolution, and especially the very pragmatic attitude of some (notably Jefferson, likely many others) to walk a different talk and look the other way when slavery greatly benefited his businesses. I'm not putting them down, they gave us our freedoms!
My larger point is that efforts to demand and fight for freedom need to come with patient (and maybe not so patient, but continued anyway) teaching of those who are skeptical. That even patriots may be skeptical.
Otherwise your fate may be similar to that of Shay's or worse.

PO'd American said...

I'll kick this dead horse one more time for good measure.

I was not surprised by the actions of the traitor bastards in the Republican Party the count stands, there are exactly two senators that remain patriots and trustworthy (they are the two senators from Alabama). The rest of the stinking filth are forever marked with the sign of Satan (the Boeing logo). Follow the money leads straight back to the Ex-Im Bank and wishes of the majority of tax-payer to let this institution close. This action today is nothing more than bought and paid for influence on the easy to swing Senators from the states that have big Boeing sites. They are WA., S.C., OK. and TX.

BTW, Cruz gave his lame excuse of being duped by McConnell and that changing his mind to not vote for this disaster is laughable at best. He's just another turd that voted "for" it before he voted "against" it. To me, the Repubs have shown their final hand. Not one of these cork suckers will ever get any more of my support. Vote the entire lot of them out. Outsource their jobs to newbies, and then outsource the newbies jobs. We need to cycle all of these turds on a one term in office basis.