"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy
"Son, let me explain something to you. You don't poke a wolverine with a sharp stick unless you want your balls ripped off." -- Grandpa Vanderboegh's Rule of Life #32.
This election cycle has seen much pulling of media hair, gnashing of RINO teeth and rending of collectivist garments over the concept of what Sharron Angle called "Second Amendment remedies."
As Josh Horwitz, the El Guapo of citizen disarmament moaned in a column back in June:
In January, she told conservative radio show talk host Lars Larson the following, "You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." She reiterated this idea just two weeks ago, telling the Reno Gazette-Journal that a recent increase in gun sales nationwide "tells me that the nation is arming. What are they arming for if it isn't that they are so distrustful of government? They're afraid they'll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways ... If we don't win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?"
Seems a reasonable and prudent question to me, sitting as I do over in the ignored and despised part of the country where careful people who wish to remain free are buying beans and bullets, cleaning their rifles and awaiting events. But El Guapo, wetting his pants over the Founders' solution to tyranny, almost shrieked:
The Republican Party has two options: 1) Firmly denounce the ridiculous idea that there are "Second Amendment remedies" to questions of policy, or; 2) Own up to their role as co-conspirators in the rising level of insurrectionist violence we see in our country today.
Well, it seems that (at least in Texas) El Guapo got his demands satisfied. Not that the GOP will benefit from denouncing Stephen Broden.
The Dallas Morning News reports in high anxiety that "Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on the table.'"
In the interview, Brad Watson, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort Worth in which he described the nation's government as tyrannical.
"We have a constitutional remedy," Broden said then. "And the Framers say if that don't work, revolution."
Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive government is to "alter it or abolish it."
"If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary," Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain's King George III.
Watson asked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current government.
"The option is on the table. I don't think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms," Broden said, without elaborating. "However, it is not the first option."
Of course the Founders would have heartily concurred. But the local head of the GOP isn't having any of that:
That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County GOP, who called the remarks "inappropriate." . . . Jonathan Neerman, head of the Dallas County Republican Party, said he's never heard Broden or other local Republican candidates advocate violence against the government. "It is a disappointing, isolated incident," Neerman said. He said he plans to discuss the matter with Broden's campaign.
Stating the obvious, that "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" in Kennedy's words, is now a mortal sin.
Now I could spend a lot of time and effort recalling original sentiments of the Founders on this subject, but our enemies view them as discredited dead old white guys.
So let me put it in a way that is contemporary and direct.
If anybody, ANYBODY, tries to take any more of our God-given, inalienable liberties we, the Three Percent, will kill them.
Or, if we must personalize it for the Horwitz's of the world, "If you try to take any more of our liberty or property we will kill you."
Is this ambiguous? Is it so hard to understand? It is the wolverine's growl from deep in the brush. It is the rattlesnake's rattle.
Angle and Broden are merely stating the obvious. Indeed, they are warning against the possibility of civil war -- trying thereby to avoid the inevitable carnage. And for this they are denounced and despised by people who are supposed to be on their side.
The Angles and Brodens of the world -- who see things clearly yet are denounced both by their political enemies and alleged friends for doing so -- are not a danger to this country, if by "this country" we agree that it is the same one that the Founders crafted. But the collectivists and their corrupt fellow travelers do not represent that country, that vision of America. They represent another twisted, evil vision, another country run under their "benevolent" tyranny. It is the country who commands, with a straight and kindly face, "We insist on securing your 'health care' even if we have to kill you to accomplish it."
Given that we, the Three Percent, exist, the Angles and Brodens are really just trying to save the Horwitz's of that country -- with whom we share a language and a border but little else -- from the darker angels of their nature, from the unintended consequences of the collectivists' voracious appetites for our liberty and property.
Instead of denouncing them, the Horwitz's should humbly thank them, and back away slowly from the wolverine they have been poking with a sharp stick for a very long time.
For the wolverine is just about out of patience and somebody's balls are going to get ripped off. And that's what the Founders would have called a "Second Amendment remedy."
Well spoken as usual,Mike.
Unfortunately,I don't think they are willing to listen,as usual.
Heaven help us all...
Excellent, Mike. I might add that Pastor Broden is going up against Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, she of the famed "handing out Black Caucus scholarships to her own relatives" scandal. And interestingly, Pastor Broden is also black. All of the local conservative talk show hosts are really backing him. The libs will hammer him over this. It just remains to be seen how much his district agrees with him.
The United States of America is not now, nor has it ever been, and will never be in the future, America.
America can alter or abolish the United States of America whenever it becomes a danger to our freedom and liberty. We will have to do that.
Mike, it's obvious you're learning, the hard way, what we Southrons have known for 150 years.
The sleeper awakens.
When they came for gun rights... "Eh, so what? Don't believe in 'em"
When they came for the auto industry ... "Well, they made too much money anyway."
The financial industry ... "buncha insider-trading robber barons. They deserve to get taken down."
The health-care industy? "I GOT insurance. Not my problem."
"And then they came for MY 401(k), and I got VERY interested in those gun rights."
I stopped by Food4Less (local big-box warehouse with multi-ethnic deep stock at low-low-prices) and bought myself 100 pounds of food for the price of a days minimum wage.
I got a 50# sack of long-grain California rice for $26.50, 25# of black beans for $13.50, and 25# of pinto beans for $12. At home, they go into a clean galvanized garbage can with a few pounds of desi-pac to stay dry and keep any stray rodents out. As we get food-grade buckets and mylar liners, these may get rotated and re-packed.
Hungry people will fall for anything. One of Mao's slogans for the people was "Communism means food for the people", without informing them that this "truth" includes an addendum "...who are allowed to survive." Very few had the wealth or inspiration to flee to Formosa or overseas, and over 100M died, mostly of starvation/forced labor.
Stored food like beans and rice need fuel to prepare. A Coleman double-burner stove with a propane adapter kit will let you run from a 20# tank. It costs less to keep your tanks full than to have to try to get them filled when needed.
A vintage travel trailer (16-21') can be had for less than $1000 in decent shape. A travel trailer can be outfitted to carry much more water and fuel than is typically installed. That's a field kitchen (stove/oven/refer/sink/lighting) as well as gear shelter for a squad. Don't forget that a TT or a 23' class-c RV (approximately a 16' trailer on a van chassis, most frequently a Dodge with 360 cubic inch V-8) is a ubiquitous part of the suburban and rural landscape, and in factory trim, invisible.
The helicopters you hear aren't coming to deliver pizza, ice cream, and pallets of ammo for your paper target shooting enjoyment.
I think two certain people deserve our thanks.
Amen from CA. We're everywhere. Even CA! ha!
They will continue to push through our doors until we are forced to hold our ground.
We will be cut down while taking a couple of them with us. But the first shot will have been fired, and what they unleash on an otherwise peaceful, free and prosperous people will be a crime that has been committed over and over throughout history.
I'm 45. I've lived well. If I die in this fight, that's o.k. It's worth it to me.
I think there is some subtle deception here and we should consider it carefully. Notice Mike's title for this post - it includes: "If you try to take any more of our liberty or property we will kill you".
Now look at what "certain people" are saying, and I paraphrase: "If we don't win at the ballot box we will kill you".
There is a big difference between those two statements (like the difference between self-defence and murder), and I hope most of us identify with the first and not the second. But are we seeing an attempt to replace the first with the second in the public eye?
OTOH, we could just be seeing the ignorance of politicians. In either case, they are not helping the Cause - but obscurring and misrepresenting it.
Post a Comment