A Suggestion

This was a piece submitted the the original dead tree version of The Resister.

LET'S MAKE A DEAL?

After months (or more likely years) of fighting, the beltway brigands declare that they are seeking a negotiated settlement to the Second Civil War.  After they make the usual noises about "power sharing" arrangements, etc., etc., the head of our delegation answers thus:
       

What we want from you Bill is this; You and your underlings will formally resign from office , you will surrender all claims of authority over the citizens and territory of the United States,   you will go into exile, and under no circumstances will you establish or support the establishment of a quote, government in exile, close quote.
        

You and your followers will take your offshore bank ATM cards and go. And please take the First Bitch with you.

In effect, the enemy is offered conditional amnesty.

The point in favor of such a deal is that we cut our own losses in blood
and treasure.

 The points against are, firstly, while the deal is expedient, it is fundamentally unjust. The individuals responsible for the subjugation and slaughter of American citizens (the Waco massacre, etc.) are basically getting away scot-free.

The second point against it is that it is contrary to the nature of the beast we are facing. Although the deal allows the enemy to take their loot with them, plunder (on the part of the leadership) was not their primary goal, unrestrained power over us is. The apparent governing principle of (to name an example) Clinton's behavior in public office is L'Etat cest Moi, literally; "The State, that's Me". The leader is held to be synonymous with the state, opposition to malfeasance on the part of the leader is treated as anti-government hatred, in effect as nothing less than treason. Clinton's consistent answer to criticism of his actions has been to defame his victim's and his critics, and to demand silence and obedience regardless of the consequences to his subjects.  

The statist leader refuses to be subject to any legal restraints, nor does he pay heed to any superior authority. His victims, those persons who are to be subjected to his whims must be silenced and disarmed. This is nothing new, the military arm, be it a sword, a pike or a firearm, is the symbol and instrument of political authority. The citizens of a free nation, armed and
ready to defend their lives and liberties, have a commanding voice, which a politician may ignore only at his peril. Augustus Caesar understood this when he depoliticized the citizen body of the Roman Republic by replacing the citizen militia based army of the republic with a mercenary force loyal to himself.

 If presented with a "take the money and run" deal, a power addict would very likely refuse to accept. I would not be surprised if Bill Clinton, following the example of such statist trash as Adolf Hitler and Salvador Allende, ultimately ends up taking the final exit while cowering in a final redoubt.

 As much as each of us may prefer otherwise, the coming struggle is certain to be a long, bloody, fight to the death.

R. Hemmerding

This still applies to the current occupant of the White House.

Definition of the Day

From the New Devil's Dictionary (One of my other projects):

Gun Control: The theory that the solution to the problem of firearms usage by violent criminals is to attack, imprison, and kill innocent people who own firearms.

While hardly a word has been heard from the present gang of elected looters, given their basic beliefs they will, sooner or later, have to disarm us, their victims.

There are, of course, several motivations (I won't say reasons) for the effort to disarm the lawful citizens of a nation. For those who believe in the Primacy of the Parasite, the private ownership of firearms is an obstacle to the attainment of the power that they need to live as parasites on the productive population.

Then there are the moral parasites, who are mainly moral narcissists who don't care about, or flat out deny, the actual effects of the enforcement of their whims as long as they can strut about as superior beings and feel good about themselves.

A favorite, and thoroughly reprehensible, tactic of the Gun Control Mafia is the exploitation of surviving relatives of the victims of violent crimes. For example, John Crozier of Dunblane, Scotland, who publicly said:

My daughter's right to live is more important than anybody's right to shoot a gun.

There's a reason people like this are called peasants.

Let us consider the inherent contradiction in this particular mouth dropping.

A firearm is a tool. Properly used it is a instrument of the human will. It is an instrumental means of sustaining and protecting the life of a human being. To say that a human being does not have a right to own and properly operate a firearm is in practical effect to say that a human being does not have the right to live. And because a right is a concept that is universally applicable to all persons, Goodman Crozier has just denied his own daughter's right to live.

What can I say? What an (expletive redacted) idiot!

The above quoted mouth dropping was brought to my attention about ten years ago by that stalwart partisan of the Progressive cause, Derrick Z. Jackson, a columnist for the Boston Globe. (Seriously, I would really hate to be the poor clerk-typist who has to translate Comrade Jackson's crayon scrawls into usable text.)(And no, I won't apologize to evil, so don't ask.)

What the parasites and moral narcissists who push gun control refuse to see is that to totally disarm the citizens of a free nation requires the deliberate exercise of deadly force against individuals who rightfully refuse to surrender their arms and who in no way have violated the life, liberty, or property of any other person. The end of civil disarmament cannot be brought about without the murder of people who in objective reality are innocent of any wrongful act.

Those who would disarm us are nothing less than mortal enemies of all rational human beings. As far as I am concerned such depraved persons should be dealt with as wolves are.

It would take a Progressive mentality like Comrade Jackson to believe that the total confiscation of arms, which requires lethal force against the innocent, will somehow prevent further bloodshed. In fact an attempt to carry out a program of total confiscation will create a bloody mess, and will be just cause for a civil war that will be far more costly in human lives than our first American Civil War.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

A Comment On The News

Even before our newly anointed God-King has been enthroned there are open calls on internet sites such as Facebook to impeach him for offenses against the Constitution.

It is not going to happen.

Ever.

Barring a major, and by major I mean extinction event, die-off of the membership of the House and Senate and mass replacement of those members by patriots it simply isn't going to happen.

Furthermore I fully expect that the use of Chicago style election tactics on a national level, as well as the tightening of controls on the media by our Leftist overlords, will effectively prevent the devoutly wished for change of party control in the 2010 midterm elections.

Power is Life for the Left. The new Democratic Party Nomenklatura are not going to voluntarily give it up. Especially if there is the reasonable expectation of being prosecuted for the abuse of it.

The best that we as citizens can do under the present circumstances is to gather evidence and line up witnesses for a Decommunization Tribunal after the dust from the coming civil war settles down.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_