Our fearless leaders strike back… with their hankies

Posted by T on March 25, 2009

The case of that wretched governor of Missouri and his cronies listing followers of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin as potential terrorists for the secret police to watch is well known by now, and may be looked at on the web. The logic of Governor Jeremiah Nixon et al was of this form:

  • most milita members favor 3rd Party candidates
  • Ron Paul etc are or have been 3rd Party candidates
  • Therefore, people with Ron Paul (or the others’) bumper stickers should be watched

We can chuckle at the logic of this no doubt government-school educated governor. But not at his content.

A militia is the citizenry armed to defend itself — whether against roving criminals or a rogue regime.

In the uneducated mind, there is an ambiguity in our Second Amendment, when it says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Is it the “milita” or the “people” that have the right? ask our government-indoctrinated subjects.

In a free republic, these entities are congruent: the same citizenry that gives its consent to the civil rule also constitutes the militia. There is no contradiction between them. When the citizens must take up arms against their own government, it means the government has failed; has usurped rights not ceded to it: it has become a tyranny.

To his partial credit, Chuck Baldwin’s response (which also contains a link to the official response from all three) never exactly ratifies the tyrants’ condemnation of militias. However, it is only partial credit, for Baldwin says

The obvious inference of the above statement links Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself to potential dangerous “militia members.”

This statement is fraught with ambiguity. Does he object only to “potentially dangerous” militia members? (And what good is any militia unless it is potentially dangerous?)  Moreover, putting “militia members” in quotes draws attention to the unreflected appropriation of the term as used by Tyrant Nixon, but leaves other issues unaddressed: the implicit slander of real militia members and the need to affirm the crucially important role that militia as such should play in preserving our liberties against tyrants like Jeremiah Nixon.

Instead, Baldwin’s response is basically two arguments: (1) a populist protest that 75% of all Americans agree with at least one thing on the list of terrorist-favored items, and (2) profiling is wrong.

(In passing, note that amongst whites, probably essentially all would “fail” Nixon’s test by the criterion of at least one item in the list, and amongst non-whites, it would probably be at least 50%. So the total would undoubtedly be higher than 75%, but any number given would also obscure a significant underlying reality.)

More importantly, profiling is not wrong. Profiling is a most necessary law-enforcement concept. Without it, criminals would rarely be caught.

What is wrong is this particular profile: the tyrants that have gained power in Missouri are calling darkness light, and light darkness. They are profiling against the good, and favoring the wicked. They are servants of Satan occupying the seats of Justice. They are proof of the ongoing need for militias.

That is what should have been pointed out. Instead, our fearless leaders gave the tyrants a good, sound beating with their hankies.

8 Comments to Our fearless leaders strike back… with their hankies

  • Growing up, I used to idealize the concept of the militia. I felt sort of like Winston in 1984: “If there is hope, it lies in the proles.”

    I would drive by groups of hunters…all holding rifles and decked out in cammo; having some idea of wilderness navigation and crude concepts of communications. My heart would leap for an instant…could it be? Could they have the will to resist if it comes down to it?

    Since growing in my understanding, I’ve come to question that sort of idea. I’ve observed that the only way a crook can succesfully avoid capture in a high-speed chase is if he has a clearly defined route and thought through plan of action.

    It’s the same with these militia groups. While rhetoric of “hiding my guns” and “shootouts with federal agents” has been on the rise since the election of Obama, (at least in the circles I frequent) I can’t help but think of how futile and empty such statements are. I’ve seen army troops training to engage in domestic encounters. No backwoods group of isolated rednecks is ready to counter such force…(God bless them.) It would be a slaughter.

    How can these milita groups formulate a systematic philosophy of resistence while still holding true to their lesser magistrates as well as Biblical concepts? What is the legal way for a militia to act?

    I realize these questions are beyond the scope of the initial blog, but I can’t help wondering about it.

  • Shotgun — you are raising two independent questions: (1) is a citizen militia practical in view of the high-tech powerful standing army of the US? and (2) is resistance of any kind biblical? Let me address the first in this reply:

    I am using “militia” as an ideal type in this discussion — the ideal being the entire male citizenry armed and ready to fall in for defense, much as is the case to this day in Switzerland; provided, however, that this militia can also rise up against usurpers in the government, kill them, and replace them with lawful members; and provided this can be done consistent with the law of God. So start with that abstract entity so defined.

    A group of men, say, out in the hills of Wyoming calling themselves a “militia” are only an approximation to this concept; obviously some elements are missing. But rather than repudiate such a group, we should praise it as the vanguard and paradigm of what needs to happen when our people wake up collectively. Rather than insulting them and turning a blind eye when our oppressors persecute them, we should rally to their defense, each appropriate to his station, and encourage the further formation.

    Yes, of course they would be sitting ducks if they came under attack of a Marine infantry battalion — today. What we need, therefore, is for those Marine battalions, when the time is ripe, to peal off and take their rightful places as units of the militia. The word needs to be spread among military men; they need to start organizing and they will undoubtedly form the core of the leadership of the future militia. We will need many heroic “Rambo” types, as well as engineers, mechanics, artillery specialists, and so forth. It will be necessary to seize armories and bases, some of which will involve overcoming resistance from the traitorous lemmings that remain.

  • I didn’t mean to sound insulting to the militia guys. My heart goes out to them and I highly sympathize with their passion.

    Thanks for clarifying the issue for me Mr. T. As a prospective Navy SEAL, I’ll do my best to “spread the word.” I just want to make darn sure I know what the “word” is.

  • Shotgun — we’re going to need lots of you guys. Keep a low profile, and learn to sniff out friends or thinkers that cd be brought over without giving away too much at first. No I didn’t mean to imply that you insulted them — on the contrary, I could tell you had a fundamental affection, and I was preaching to the world so to speak.

  • Hey, I’d like to add something; (because I know the calibre of guys that read / comment here at First Word…)

    If any of you ever see a young (single) lady participating in a militia group (around the Virginia area…) let me know!

  • Shotgun — take it from an aging bachelor — you should not regard any other goal as more important! Hopefully, your future lady will not so much be part of a militia so much as hosting tea parties in support thereof!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *