The power of III

Summum ius summa iniuria--More law, less justice

30 October 2010

Story about psychiatrists having a diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder...

And applying it to freethinkers, anti-government types, and bunk. This BS is making the rounds in the blogosphere.

The assertion about ODD applying to anti State types holds no water whatsoever;  if you read the 3 pages of the DSM -IV manual linked to at the website, free thinkers, antigovernment types, and constitutionalists are not mentioned.  The diagnosis is made when the person has impaired function of their social or professional life secondary to an oppositional behavior pattern that even a layperson would notice as inappropriate or over the top.  

Now, if you tell me that a government employed psychiatrist conspired to keep someone locked up with this diagnosis, or a conduct disorder diagnosis, I suppose that could happen anecdotally...but this story is making the rounds in the right wing blogosphere and, I believe, keeps getting posted without someone vetting it properly. I recommend deleting the story, and getting word around to other sites that published the links to the original that someone mis-read the source. It makes us look bad, and I for one don't want that.

How do you think of your Rights?

I often see people refer to the Bill of Rights as if the government is the one that guarantees the rights.

Those individual rights, as envisioned by the Founders, and as I see them myself, are innate, Natural rights that I have (granted by G-d, the Creator, Nature, etc.,) because I am a living Man.  The Bill of Rights is simply a government statement that such specific rights as listed shall not be infringed upon.

The current local and federal government employees like policemen, FBI, ATF, TSA, etc., do not have this concept at the forefront of their minds when they start dealing with a citizen, do they?  We need to re-educate them.

Quote of the Day

Democracy broke downnot when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent Statesbut when it was upheldlike any other Empireby force of arms.” –The London Times1865.

Democracy is mob rule of 50.1% over 49.9%;  Socialist democracy is when the current representatives that got at least the 50.1% of the votes transfer the wealth of the productive elements of society to whomever are their friends.  A Republic, which we no longer have, has representative democracy, with specific individual rights that are never to be infringed upon by government.  

Do you feel represented by the House member from your district?  I dont.

People in this country keep swinging from Democrat to Republican hoping for some magic "change".  They keep hoping the next administration will "turn things around", "fix the economy", "create jobs" and other BS staple phrases of the MSM.

The government is incapable of creating anything other than lawbreakers with every new law they pass.  

Oh sorry, I was wrong, the government also creates debt.

Oh yeah, and corpses of anyone who opposes them.

Two excellent blogposts to check out.

This may be old school to some of you, but since this blog is new to me, maybe you've never seen it either.

Zerohedge is written by Tyler Durden  (the character name from the movie The Fight Club).  His articles are also seen on

This guy blogs so often, it makes my head swim.  He is really smart, and very well informed.

Of particular interest to those of you who have been watching our wealth drain away by out of control government spending and purposeful devaluation of our dollars (read:  I make the same salary, but my money doesnt go as far), check out this blogpost of his dated the 27th, but linked to today at

This one blew my mind.  Between the election and the Fed meeting next week, we are truly witnessing significant history in the making.

Also at is an article today by Gary North, who has a knack for explaining complex economic issues in plain English.  I really enjoy his articles.  He has many great posts archived at LRC.

Today's entry is an article called "The Police State is doomed".

Great stuff, enjoy.

29 October 2010

Hope you've been buying gold...

I've been buying as much as I can afford, like a savings account, of small approximately 1/4 oz foreign numismatic coins, like the Mexico 10 peso gold coin, or the Colombia or Uruguay 5 peso, or the UK gold Sovereign, since late 2008.  Wish I had been able to afford more than I've got.  Better storage of wealth than anything else, although tools and ammo are pretty good too.  The gold is more portable, and probably easier to exchange...

28 October 2010

Nullification vs. Secession, from a man who knew

It is known to Senators who have served with me here, that I have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of State sovereignty, the right of a State to secede from the Union. Therefore, if I had not believed there was justifiable cause; if I had thought that Mississippi was acting without sufficient provocation, or without an existing necessity, I should still, under my theory of the Government, because of my allegiance to the State of which I am a citizen, have been bound by her action. I, however, may be permitted to say that I do think she has justifiable cause, and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counseled them then that if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when the convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted.
I hope none who hear me will confound this expression of mine with the advocacy of the right of a State to remain in the Union, and to disregard its constitutional obligations by the nullification of the law. Such is not my theory.

Nullification and secession, so often confounded, are indeed antagonistic principles. 

Nullification is a remedy which it is sought to apply within the Union, and against the agent of the States. It is only to be justified when the agent has violated his constitutional obligation, and a State, assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of the agent thus to act, and appeals to the other States of the Union for a decision; but when the States themselves, and when the people of the States, have so acted as to convince us that they will not regard our constitutional rights, then, and then for the first time, arises the doctrine of secession in its practical application.

A great man who now reposes with his fathers, and who has been often arraigned for a want of fealty to the Union, advocated the doctrine of nullification, because it preserved the Union. It was because of his deep-seated attachment to the Union, his determination to find some remedy for existing ills short of a severance of the ties which bound South Carolina to the other States, that Mr. [John C.] Calhoun advocated the doctrine of nullification, which he proclaimed to be peaceful, to be within the limits of State power, not to disturb the Union, but only to be a means of bringing the agent before the tribunal of the States for their judgment.

Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever.   

[Emphasis mine--Honourablemeans]

From the last address of then U.S. Senator Jefferson Davis (Mississippi), January 12, 1861

Read the entire speech here.

27 October 2010

Five reasons I don't vote

Here are five reasons why I don’t vote:
1. I don’t live in Ron Paul’s district.
2. I have a greater chance of slipping in the bathtub and cracking my skull than my vote counting.
3. The Republicans are not the lesser of two evils.
4. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
5. “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil” (Exodus 23:2).

From Laurence Vance at today.

I won't sanction the system that consumes more than half of my wealth each pay period by legitimizing the system with my vote. Voting for Predator R instead of Predator D implies you actually agree with the statist agenda, even when you don't in reality. Wait for a real third alternative.

24 October 2010


I have read several articles in the media this week, some through Drudge, and some linked by the blogs I like to read.  The ones that inspired this post are here, here, and here.

Since last year, when Gerald Celente predicted the Second American Revolution, I have been waiting to see that prediction play out. I have not been displeased. I have seen success or near success of candidates running on platforms of states rights, interposition, and nullification. I have seen those terms and concepts brought back into near-common usage in the blogosphere and sometimes in the mainstream media. I have enjoyed watching the Obama inspired run on guns and the flood of applications for concealed carry permits around the country. I read with interest each time a citizen aware of his constitutional rights refuses to cooperate with the TSA or with a border control checkpoint set up in the middle of Texas (not anywhere near the border). I love and gladly joined the Oathkeepers organization.

I was grateful to read of bricks being through the windows of Democratic offices after the Looters voted to pass Obamacare. I applaud the stand being taken by those who consider themselves three percenters.

Those of us who stand against strong central government authority believe that a second American Revolution, as in the definition of a Revolution,is a returning to the starting point of the Republic. It must be a return to not only the original intent of the founders of the Republic, but to the Jeffersonian original intent.  The only mandate of government is to protect an individual's life and their property.   If you share this goal, you may be uncertain what one person can do, or what you in particular should do.  Each person has to judge for himself what his tipping point is.  At what point do I change from passive to active?

I believe in proactive self defense and passive resistance to what has become onerous and unreasonable government authority. Above all, don't give the government an excuse to come down on you. You dont give the TSA guy lip when you are standing in line at the airport with your wife and kids.  That is a lose-lose situation.  If you and four buddies have the opportunity to tar and feather an IRS man, then run him out of town on a rail, without revealing your identities, maybe you got something there.

The government is, by definition, the essence of Statism, and since the Congress and the Executive branch of the government now openly defy their Constitutional Oath, it is up to each of us to do what we can to try to preserve what we believe to be our birthright.

What does this mean practically? First of all, we are seeing in elements of the Tea Party movement, the effort of like minded people to alter the status quo through the soap box and the ballot box.  I personally have little faith in this process, since replacing a Democratic Dark Statist with a Republican Lite Statist just to teach those darn Democrats who is boss is an exercise in futility.  Witness the progression of American politics from one progressive to another progressive administration, each increasing the power of the executive, increasing their use of executive orders, each administration pushing Congress to find more individual rights to suspend (all in the guise of protecting you from a foreign menace --

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy--James Madison)  Secondly, there are passive ways of resisting the federal government, such as avoiding military service, avoiding employment in federal jobs or really any positions that originate from tax dollars (read: someone else's productivity pays your income, for there is no other way to think of what any government job is), asserting your constitutional rights at traffic stops, at border crossings, in dealings with any government representative, from IRS to census workers.

Third, and last, there is physical resistance.  That is, physical force responding to physical force.  Government is, by definition, a "legal" monopoly on force.  Taxes, conscription, court orders and the like, are enforced ultimately at the point of a gun.  One can respond with force, or more passively like Hank Rearden at his trial for selling Rearden metal to a colleague in violation of a federal directive in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged:

 One of the judges, acting as prosecutor, had read the charges.
"You may now offer whatever plea you wish to make in your own defence," he announced. Facing the platform, his voice inflectionless and peculiarly clear, Hank Rearden answered:
"I have no 
"Do you --" The judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. "Do you throw yourself upon the mercy of this court?"
"I do not 
recognise this court's right to try me."
"I do not 
recognise this court's right to try me."
"But, Mr. 
Rearden, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime."
"I do not 
recognise my action as a crime."
"But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your Metal."
"I do not 
recognise your right to control the sale of my Metal."
"Is it necessary for me to point out that your recognition was not required?"
"No. I am fully aware of it and I am acting accordingly."

He noted the stillness of the room. By the rules of the complicated pretence which all those people played for one another's benefit, they should have considered his stand as incomprehensible folly; there should have been rustles of astonishment and derision; there were none; they sat still; they understood.
"Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?" asked the judge.
"No. I am complying with the law - to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no 
defence is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice."
"But, Mr. 
Rearden, the law provides specifically that you are to be given an opportunity to present your side of the case and to defend yourself."
"A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice 
recognised by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well. Do it." "Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of the public good."
"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to e their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."

One can willfully cross the line from law abiding citizen to felon when you reach the point that the laws passed are unreasonable, unconstitutional, and are essentially a threat to your life and property.  When in a situation where you are confronted by the legal system that backs up unconstitutional seizures of personal property or enforces nonvoluntary labor, make sure you don't sanction their act or cooperate with their system by trying to defend yourself.  You have become a political prisoner for defending your person or property.  Your arguments in their courtroom are irrelevant to them.  Just try to communicate with the people, tell your story to someone you know will get it out to the internet.  

One can paint grafitti on federal signs or let the air out of the tires of federal vehicles, or put a brick through the congressman's window.  I dont necessarily agree with each of these things, I am simply listing options.  Whatever you think you must do, make sure that there is some gain to be had by committing the act.  If there is no tangible gain, dont stick your neck out just because you feel you cant sit still any more.

As far as responding to force with force, it has to be under the right circumstances.  It cannot be one guy committing suicide by federal cop, or the group equivalent thereof.  It must be in response to obvious violations of personal physical rights or violations of private property by federal officials, particularly if the violations are occurring because of a person's political beliefs.  Force should be initiated when there is a reasonable expectation of piecemeal and compartmentalized victory.  Maintain your anonymity whenever possible so that you can fight the next day as well.

The hot phase of a Second American Revolution would have to be a war of attrition and noncompliance.  We, I would insist, should never initiate a hot war against the US government. That is, no large coordinated attack should initiate the conflict.  That was the mistake of Fort Sumter, with due respect to Southern honor, because the South firing on the Federal fort could be successfully spun in the northern press to the detriment of the Secessionist cause (of course I have the benefit of hindsight, and live in the world of the Yankee, which is without honor). Firing on Fort Sumter enabled Lincoln to raise his army of invasion.  If the federals had fired first on the South Carolinians because they were laying nonviolent siege to the Fort, and the Southern States had just continued to withhold their tax/tariff payments to the federal government, if they had stopped participating in the federal government and withdrew their representatives, and if they had simply repulsed any incursion into the territory of a seceding state with the least force necessary to accomplish the task, and had not allowed themselves to be drawn into major battles and risk the body of their army, the South would have outlasted the North.  They would have had a much better chance at succeeding in the goal of "to be let alone" as President Jeff Davis had wanted.

In our day, we must absorb these lessons, and the lessons of other successful insurgencies.  A people that both passively and actively resists an occupier, bleeding the occupier whenever it is practical, will eventually render the occupier anemic and unable to continue initiating force.  It would be long and painful, but what is the alternative?


One major problem:  if like minded people wanted to coordinate their activities, and wanted to avoid moles and false flag operations by the feds, and wanted to have safe communication such as PGP protected forums online, does anyone have any ideas how that could be accomplished?  Once set up, how to safely recruit without bringing in agents of the government?

Those November elections...

If we can succeed by the ballot box, then great, but I wont hold my breath.  As conservative as I am, and as hateful as it is to me to say this, I prefer the Democrats stay in power longer.

They will swell the ranks of those who would see the federal government returned to its original mandate of acting as an agent of the several states to negotiate treaties and engage in commerce agreements with foreign governments.   The Democrats are the best representatives of undisguised statism.  The more times they have a Pelosi answering a question about the constitutional basis of a recently passed law with "Are you kidding me?", the more TARP's and American Recovery and Reinvestment Acts, the more bailouts of whole industries with large union representation, or the more times they cram a boondoggle of crap like Obamacare down the throats of constituents in districts where it can be proven that the vast majority oppose the legislation, the more we will gain new members to our ranks, and the sooner that we will win.  

Better to have Statism Dark than Statism light, it will be more obvious much sooner to the majority of Americans.  They will then be more amenable to the message of decentralisation, of interposition, nullification and secession if necessary.  They will understand the need to deconstruct the military industrial complex, deconstruct empire, 700 plus bases in 100 countries!  The people of this country do not need such an empire to support with their hard earned taxes, or support with the debt that even their grandchildren wont be able to pay back.  The American people dont need an empire that results in blowback hatred of American culture and American people, and occasional overt attacks on Americans.  Only the oligarchy in cahoots with the power elite of this federal government benefit from Empire and eternal war.

So look how many people are passionate about the November midterm election now.  They are really pissed off, rightfully so, about so many violations of their individual rights, the fleecing of their prosperity, the absolute lack of accountability of the Congress to the people of their district.  So a 1994 style switch from a Democratic Congress to a Republican Congress will likely take place in 2010.  Maybe Rand Paul will be elected, and can join his dad as one more voice of the old Republic in DC.  I hope so.  But the rest of the Republicans?  Who do you mean?  You think RINO's and Neocons are going to help us bring back the troops, dismantle empire, restart American industry, get government out of the way of small business, decrease taxes, and become fiscally responsible?  Did 1994 and Newt's Contract with America help anything?  Look where we are now to know the answer.