ARE YOU WAITING FOR PROVERBIAL "TRIPWIRE" OR THE "ARCHDUKE FERDINAND MOMENT" FOR A REVOLUTION IN AMERICA? THAT IS A FOOLS WAIT.
The "Enemy Within" has learned from History that a sudden ACT against the nation could mobilize a Fearsome Patriot Force into action and Take back America. That Force of Patriots with their 300 Million Guns AND with the support of over 75% of the Military excluding the soft bellied "General Class" who KowTow to the Military Industrial Complex and the Government
So what would be the tripwire resulting in open rebellion by American Patriots? Hard to tell because the current crop of "Sunshine Patriots" are too timid to actually take a stand and fight.
"Do not fight" these Sunshine Patriots say, "That is exactly what the Feds want you to do so they can arrest you. Instead vote them out in 2022 if that doesn't work in 2024."
These fools do not realize that the embedded Bureaucracy cannot be voted out. They are not politicians. They are the enemy that has been planted within the foundation of America to take it down. The only way to restore America is to Improve the Constitution and give it TEETH to punish the enemy within.
Examining the Bill of Rights, and considering EXISTING laws only, and not failed attempts, you will find that every clause in the Bill of Rights has already been violated. A small act here and another there has been violated to one degree or another. THE FBI AND THE IRS HAVE OVERSTEPPED THEIR CHARTER AND AUTHORITY AND HAVE BECOME TOOLS OF THE ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT. Yet Conservatives and Regular Americans fear for their own survival and do nothing.
AND NO ONE EXERCISED WHAT I CALL THE "SOLZHENITSYN RULE"
— Alexander Solzhenitzyn, Gulag Archipelago
Documenting the violations just by the Feds in the past 12 years would fill volumes, and it is important to remember that only government can violate the exercise of unalienable individual rights and claim immunity from retribution. We have allowed them to cling to the claim even though the acts have been unconstitutional.
We can omit martial law or public suspension of the Constitution as a "tripwire". That is not going to happen. The overnight installation of dictatorship obviously would qualify as “the tripwire,” but is not likely to occur because the enemy is smarter than that.
What has occurred, what is occurring, is the implementation of every aspect of such a dictatorship without any overt declarations. The Constitution is being killed by attrition. "The Frog in the boiling pot of water" Fable has been applied upon us and we accept the incremental destruction of our Country without complaint and barely noticing it happen. We are the frogs and the water is on a slow boil.
The Communist Manifesto is being installed by accretion. Any suggestion that martial law is the tripwire leads us to the question: what aspect of martial law justifies the first shot? Our timid Conservatives watch and whine but always will tell you that we should not make the first move "Because that is exactly what "they" want us to do! " The very fear in their statement that all is good and that some magical "other Force" will save they.
"They" Should arrest them these timid Conservatives chime
"They" should not be allowed to do that
"They" should deport them
"They" should arrest them
"They" should vote them out
"They" should bring the prices down
ITS THEY THEY THEY THEY.
NO FOOLS! THERE IS NO "THEY" ... ONLY "WE" & "US"
Any rebellion must be based on extremely hard and known facts. Similarly, no rebellion will succeed if its fundamental reasons for occurring are not explicitly identified. So...what would be the tripwire, simply leads us back again to the question: what aspect of them justifies rebellion and overthrow of the illegal Government??
Ayn Rand’s had identified four essential characteristics of tyranny. She
identified them quite correctly, but together they are just another
composite from which we must choose precipitating causes. These
characteristics are: one-party rule, executions without trial for
political offenses, expropriation or nationalization of private
property, and “above all,” censorship.
With regard to the first characteristic of tyranny, what is the real
difference between the Fabian socialist Republican Party and the overtly
[Bolshevik] socialist Democratic Party? Nothing but time. Regarding the
second we have the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team and the ATF’s enforcement
branch. In action they simply avoid the embarrassment of a trial.
Regarding the third, we have asset forfeiture “laws,” the IRS, FBI, the EPA,
the FCC, the FDA, the Federal Reserve, the Justice Department’s
Antitrust Division, and a myriad of other executive branch agencies,
departments, and commissions whose sole function is to regulate business
and the economy. Regulating business for the common good (fascism) is
no different in principle than outright nationalization (communism).
However, the fourth characteristic of tyranny, censorship, is the
obvious primary tripwire. When ideology and the reporting of facts and
how-to instructions are forbidden, there is nothing remaining but to
fight. Freedom of speech and persuasion — the freedom to attempt to
rationally convince willing listeners — is so fundamental an individual
right that without it no other rights, not even the existence of rights,
can be enforced, claimed, debated, or even queried.
Does this censorship include the regulation of the “public” airwaves by
the FCC, as in the censorship which prohibits tobacco companies from
advertising — in their own defense — on the same medium which is
commanded by government decree to carry “public service” propaganda
against them? Does it include federal compulsion of broadcasters to air
politically-correct twaddle for “The Children”? Does it include the
Orwellian “Communications Decency Act”? Does it include any
irrationalism “sexual harassment” or tribalist “hate speech” laws which
prohibit certain spoken words among co-workers? The answer:
unequivocally yes.
Although the above do not pertain to ideological or political speech,
yet they are censorship and are designed to intimidate people into the
acceptance of de facto censorship. We say that any abrogation of free
speech, and any form of censorship, which cannot be rectified by the
soap box, the ballot box, or the jury box, must be rectified by the
cartridge box — or lost forever.
Americans have been stumbling over tripwires that can be reasons for justifying overt resistance
for well over 130 years. On one hand, we submit that gun confiscation
is a secondary tripwire.. It is second to censorship because if
speech is illegal we cannot even discuss the repeal of gun control, or
any other population controls. If only guns are illegal, we may still
convince people to repeal those laws. On the other hand, gun
confiscation may be a sufficient tripwire because the primary one,
censorship, can be fully implemented only after the citizenry has been
disarmed.
Resistance, means those legitimate acts
by individuals which compel government to restrict its activities and
authority to those powers delegated to the Congress by the people in the
Constitution.
The distinction to be drawn here is that the objective of patriotic
resistance is to restore original Constitutional government, not change
the form of government. To this end we believe:
The enforcement of any laws — local, state, or federal — that through
the action or inaction of the courts makes nugatory the individual means
of resisting tyranny, justifies resistance.
The operative terms of the above statement are the parameters that must
be defined and understood if resistance to tyranny and despotism is to
be honorable, and for the cause of individual liberty, rather than
anarchy resulting from a new gang of tyrants. Rebellion can never be
justified so long as objective means of redress are available, which are
themselves not subverted or rendered impotent by further or parallel
subjective legislation.
The goal of patriots throughout the country must be the restoration of
objective constitutional law and order. The failure to enforce a
subjective law (i.e. the Communications Decency Act) does not justify
that law existing, but it also does not justify resistance. This is
because non-enforcement leaves avenues of redress, including the
forbidden activity itself, still available. Should a lower court uphold
or ignore a case that challenges subjective law, peaceable means of
redress are still open by higher or lateral courts in another
jurisdiction.
However, should the U.S. Supreme Court uphold subjective laws, or refuse
to hear the cases challenging them, then the legislative, executive,
and judicial branches have all failed to guarantee individual liberty,
from the widest principles to the smallest details. A single refusal by
the highest court in the land to overturn a whim-based subjective law,
or to refuse to hear the case, is sufficient to justify resistance to
that law because there is simply nowhere left to turn for further
attempts at redress. At such time nobody is morally bound by that law.
Tyranny gets one chance per branch.
America is either a constitutional republic or it is not. If we can
restore our republic it will ultimately occur through reason, and reason
will then lead our representatives to make unconstitutional those laws
which, by any objective standard of justice, should have never been
considered in the first place. However, we cannot assert our claim to
restore our liberty if we but accede to a single socialist construct.
Freedom and serfdom cannot coexist. We cannot have it both ways.
Life, and the means to preserve it, cannot coexist with disarmament.
Liberty, and its rational exercise, cannot coexist with subjective
constraints. Property, and its acquisition, use, and disposal cannot
coexist with expropriation. The federal government’s first task is to
obey the Constitution. It has refused. Our first task as free men is to
force the government to obey it again. The Constitution of the United
States of America is a constraint on the federal government, not on the
individual.
Likewise, the constitutions of the various states are constraints on the
state governments, not on the individual. The Constitution contains
many provisions allowing the violation of our natural rights as free men
by immoral and unethical men in government. The true heroes of the
ratification debates were the Antifederalists, who secured Federalist
guarantees that the Bill of Rights would amend the Constitution.
To their undying credit, the Federalists lived up to their promise.
Nevertheless, only after constitutional limitations on government have
been restored in their original form can we consider amending the
Constitution to redress its very few remaining defects (for example, the
absence of a separation of state and the economy clause).
Laws that make nugatory the means of resisting tyranny and despotism
determine the tripwire. The creeping legislative erosion of the 2nd
Amendment is not the only tripwire that justifies resistance. We submit
that any gun control is a secondary tripwire. Not only because it can be
effortlessly evaded, but also because it strengthens our cause. It is
second only to censorship. If speech is illegal we can discuss neither
repeal of gun control, or the repeal of any other unconstitutional
“law.” Censorship is not a tripwire, it is THE tripwire. Thus, by
default, censorship morally justifies rebellion.
Under censorship, no other rights, including the right to be free from
censorship, can be advocated, discussed, or queried. It is incorrect to
say that after censorship comes utter subjugation. Censorship is utter
subjugation. There is no greater usurpation of liberty while remaining
alive. After censorship come the death camps, and they are not a
prerequisite of censorship, they are merely a symptom of it. Censorship
qua censorship is sufficient in itself to justify open rebellion against
any government that legislates, enforces, or upholds it.
However, that is not the half of it. Censorship is alone in being the
only violation of individual rights that does not require actual
enforcement or challenges in court, before rebellion is justified. When
the government forbids you to speak or write, or use your own or a
supporter’s property to address willing listeners or readers, that
government has openly and forcibly declared that the art of peaceful
persuasion is dead and will not be tolerated. Upon that very instant,
all peaceful avenues of redress have been closed and the only possible
method of regaining that liberty is force. Whenever we give up that
force, we are not only ruined, we deserve to be ruined.
Censorship is already being “legally” imposed through accretion by
compromisers, appeasers, and pragmatists within government at all
levels. Note the demands by “progressive” organizations and
self-appointed “civil rights” groups to ban so-called “hate” speech
(they mean thought and debate), or “extreme” language (they mean
principled dissent), or “paramilitary” books (they mean the knowledge of
how to resist). When our government imposes censorship, it will be
because our ability to use force to resist censorship no longer exists.
Buying copies of The Resister is not yet prohibited; buying machine guns
already is. Unwarranted search for unlicensed books has not yet
occurred; unwarranted search for unlicensed weapons has already begun.
As your unalienable right of peaceable discussion and dissent is being
daily abridged, your right to peaceably assemble and associate in
advocacy of your own self-defense, according to your own free will, has
already been outlawed (courtesy of ADL’s “model” anti-militia
legislation).
Unconstitutional federal agencies now arm themselves with weapons that
you may not own, and train in tactics that you are prohibited from
mastering. Before a government is sure you won’t resist, it will make
sure you can’t resist.
The most irrational, contradictory, short-range, whimsical notion
possible to men who claim the unalienable right to resist tyrannical
government is the notion that they must first let their ability to
resist be stripped from them before they have the right to use it. This
is the argument of so-called conservatives who pish-tosh the notion of
legislative “slippery-slopes,” and sycophantic adherents of a supreme
Court that has no constitutionally delegated authority to interpret the
Constitution in the first place. We reject the notion of mindless
compliance with subjective “laws.” Subjective laws must be resisted on
metaphysical and epistemological principles, moral and ethical grounds,
and on constitutional and historical precedence.
No rational man desires ends without means. No rational man can be faced
with his own imminent subjugation and truly believe that, once things
are as bad as they can get, “sometime” “someone” will do “something”
“somehow” to counteract that trend. Any man who counsels another to
appeal to those mystical equivalents of “divine intervention” for
“deliverance” from tyranny is our enemy by all principles conceivable
within the scope of rational human intelligence.
The time to organize resistance is not after censorship, but before it.
The time to prepare resistance is when our ability to resist is being
threatened. The time to begin resistance is when that threat has been
upheld or ignored by the courts. The unalienable rights that safeguard
our ability to resist are limited to those which, if not violated, allow
us to plan and use all materials necessary for resistance. We submit
that only the following meet that criteria:
* freedom of speech and of the press, and the right to peaceably
assemble–so that we may advocate ideas, report and discuss news, and
instruct others how to carry out resistance activities (1st Amendment);
* the right to keep and bear arms — so that we may have appropriate
force in our hands should we need it, and be trained to use such force
as necessary (2nd Amendment);
* the right to be let alone — so that we may be free of government
intrusion in our lives, liberty, and property (3rd Amendment);
* the right to be secure in our persons, dwellings, papers, and property
from unwarranted, unaffirmed searches and seizures — so that our
records, ideological materials, and weapons will remain in our hands
(4th Amendment).
For the purpose of this discussion, we believe that no other rights are
relevant because if every individual right other than those four were
violated — although it would be an unspeakably evil act on the part of
the government, justifying immediate and unforgiving resistance — their
abridgement would not effect our ability to resist. If any of the first
four amendments are infringed by legislation, enforced by executive
power, and their abrogation is upheld or ignored by the courts,
unremitting, forcible resistance, and aid and comfort to its
citizen-soldiers, is a moral imperative for every single person who
believes that life, liberty, and property are unalienable and
self-existing, and not grants of government privilege.
SO
Here’s When The American Founders Thought Revolution Was Justified:
According to the American Declaration of Independence, people enter into political society for the sake of protecting their inalienable rights, which are otherwise insecure. The question then arises: what can the people do if the government betrays its trust, and violates their rights? The Declaration’s initial answer is “that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”
The people create the government, but in so doing they do not forfeit their right to vindicate their own rights, even against the very government they created. Thus James Wilson asserted that the “vital principle” of America is “that the supreme or sovereign power of the society resides in the citizens at large; and that, therefore, they always retain the right of abolishing, altering, or amending their constitution.”
This right supersedes the claims of the government to the loyalty and obedience of its subjects. “Federalist No. 28” describes the right of revolution as “that original right of self-defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of government.”
This is, however, only the beginning of the story. The Declaration of Independence devotes more space to the right of revolution than to any other single concept. Equality and liberty are asserted, more or less without comment, but the right of revolution is explained in considerable detail, providing us with answers to a variety of critical questions about this “vital principle.”
By what right can the people supplant the authority of their own government? How can they justify the risks inherent in a course as drastic as revolution? What circumstances justify revolution?
Revolution and the Law of Nature
In October 1774, responding to the passage of the Intolerable Acts by the British Parliament and nearly two years before the Declaration of Independence, the First Continental Congress adopted a statement known as the Declaration and Resolves. In it, the delegates asserted that the rights of the colonists derived from three sources: “the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts.”
In the Declaration of Independence, however, the English constitution and the charters and compact of the colonies fall away, leaving only “the immutable laws of nature,” or, as the 1776 document puts it, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
The shift is significant, as it illustrates the Founders’ core understanding of the foundations of the right of revolution. In 1774, the colonists were still attempting to work within the British system for redress of their grievances, and so they claimed the rights guaranteed to them as part of that system. They were seeking a political solution to a political dispute with Parliament.
By 1776, however, the colonists had become revolutionaries, claiming the right to establish themselves as an independent nation. In so doing they cast aside British law and appealed exclusively to a higher law: the natural law.
The natural law, as America’s Founding Fathers understood it, is simply that portion of the law of God that could be discerned through unassisted reason, without reference to any particular revelation. Alexander Hamilton noted that the natural law was “an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensably, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any institution whatever.”
The natural law is a standard of political right that transcends the constitutions and statutes of particular regimes. This means it can be used as a basis for evaluating the actions of governments and rulers, and any that violate the natural law are to that extent immoral and unjust.
The natural law provides a higher-law foundation for resistance to oppression, giving such resistance a moral validity that it could not possess otherwise. A right to revolution is unintelligible apart from the law of nature.
Hamilton asserted that “when the first principles of civil society are violated, and the rights of the whole people are invaded, the common forms of municipal law are not to be regarded. Men may betake themselves to the law of nature.” The right of revolution is an appeal to the law of nature against the injustice of the existing government. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a legacy of this understanding, as it enables the ordinary citizen to defend his own rights against anyone who would seek to violate them, whether common criminal, foreign invader, or the citizen’s own government.
Prudence and Revolution
The existence of a natural right of revolution does not, however, mean that the exercise of this right is justified in every circumstance. The Declaration’s treatment of the right of revolution continues with the assertion that “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.”
Revolution can have the most catastrophic consequences. One need only look to the other two great modern revolutions to witness this. The French Revolution moved from its moderate opening phase to the repression and mass murder of the Jacobins, and ultimately traded the Bourbon monarchy for Napoleon’s empire. The Revolution unleashed more than 20 years of constant warfare on Europe, killing millions in the process. The Russian Revolution swiftly descended into Bolshevik tyranny and the unending terror of Stalin’s regime.
The explosive danger of revolution, and the catastrophic effect a revolution can have on ordinary lives, thus require a high bar for the exercise of this right. The Declaration asserts that revolution is justified only “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”; in these circumstances, “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
This is where prudence comes into view as the supreme political virtue: not every unjust act by a government justifies its violent overthrow. The Boston minister Simeon Howard warned his audience against blowing “small injuries” out of proportion: “to such injuries it is oftentimes a point of prudence, as well as duty, to submit, rather than contend.” A regime must prove itself systematically unwilling or unable to secure the rights of the people before revolution can be rightly undertaken.
Even then, revolution may not be the appropriate response. The odds of success may be so doubtful, or the likelihood of increased human misery so great, that revolution should be avoided even though the technical right exists.
Two years before Howard, John Tucker told his congregation that “tho’ it may not always be prudent and best, to resist such power, and submission may be yielded, yet that the people have a right to resist, is undeniable.” The ruler may be so powerful, or his opponents so weak, that an ill-conceived revolution may be doomed to failure and merely worsen the condition of the people. In such a case, the revolutionaries would be guilty of a great crime against those whom they sought to liberate.
Under the right circumstances, however, revolution is not only a right but a duty. When the train of abuses is long, and the people are clearly being crushed into servitude, and those who would resist have a reasonable chance of success, revolution becomes an obligation.
In the aftermath of the battles at Lexington and Concord, the Second Continental Congress announced, in the language of duty, its intention to resist British oppression with armed force: “Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us.” In America, in the mid-1770s, the right and the moment converged.
Modern Revolutions
Unlike the French and Russian Revolutions, the American Revolution did not constitute an obvious cataclysm: it did not spiral out of control, it did not end in tyranny and terror, and it did not lead to a regime that was worse than the one it replaced. In these respects, the American Revolution was so different from its successors that some, like the conservative commentators M.E. Bradford and Russell Kirk, have argued that it wasn’t really a revolution at all but a kind of conservative secession, meant to preserve the liberties of Englishmen, which were being trampled upon by the English government.
Kirk even suggests that the American Revolution is misnamed, claiming it is “a revolution not made but prevented.” A revolution, for Kirk, denotes a complete social upheaval of the kind France and Russia experienced in their revolutions but America conspicuously did not.
Nevertheless, America’s Founding Fathers understood themselves as revolutionaries, and as they understood the term, they certainly were. In “Federalist No. 43,” James Madison justifies even the peaceful supplanting of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution in revolutionary terms, “by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature’s God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed.”
Any rejection of one political system and its replacement with another, on the grounds that the former does not adequately secure the inalienable natural rights of the people, is an exercise of the right of revolution.
Besides, numerous important distinctions exist between the American Revolution on the one hand and the French and Russian Revolutions on the other, which explain their different courses. By 1776, the American colonists had a century and a half of practice in the arts of self-government, whereas the French and Russian people, at the times of their respective revolutions, had been ruled by absolutist monarchies for centuries. They had little to no experience with self-government, and it showed.
Gouverneur Morris, a member of the Constitutional Convention, had been in France at the outbreak of the revolution. He noted in his diary on October 21, 1789, that in Paris, “the pressure of incumbent despotism removed, every bad passion exerts itself.” The French people, recently freed from despotism, had no idea how to govern themselves, and the result was chaos and degradation.
By the time of the Declaration of Independence, the ideas of the American Revolution had been discussed, worked out, and diffused among the people for at least a decade. The Declaration of Independence was a new beginning for the colonists, to be sure, but it was also the culmination of years of political and social action, debate, and civic education in the first principles of justice.
By contrast, the French and Russian Revolutions were sudden explosions that took nearly everyone by surprise. More importantly, the ideals of those revolutions had not penetrated their societies, as they had in America; they remained confined to a narrow intellectual or revolutionary class until after those revolutions had begun.
The principles animating the American Revolution were also qualitatively different from those of its more radical successors. The French and Russian revolutionaries claimed the right and the duty to use force and violence to spread their principles to other nations, something the principles of the American Revolution positively forbade.
The American Revolution was not utopian; it contained no concept analogous to that of the “New Soviet Man,” the man who has remade himself by internalizing the works of Karl Marx and his successors. The Americans accepted that human nature was both imperfect and fixed, and that government can only hope to account for the bad in man, not destroy it. It is no coincidence that the French and Russian Revolutions yielded mass murder, while the American Revolution did not.
Finally, the French and Russian Revolutions emphatically maintained that the old was synonymous with the bad, and sought to eradicate, not just the old government, but everything about the previous order. Both were unflinchingly hostile to Christianity, while the Americans relied upon it, with John Adams noting that “our constitution was made for a moral and a religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The French created a new calendar, while the Russians abolished the personal ranks of military officers. Our revolution never embraced this path.
As Jefferson observed, “Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason.”
America’s Founding Fathers evaluated the English system according to the laws of nature. Those elements judged to be conducive to securing the rights of the people, such as trial by jury and the writ of habeas corpus, were retained. Others, like established religions and titles of nobility, which were not so conducive, were discarded.
The American Revolution was a true landmark in human history. It demonstrated to the world that a people can not only overthrow an existing regime but also successfully establish a free, peaceful, and functional government of their own. The American Revolution is no less a revolution for not having devolved into terror, war, and catastrophic social upheaval.
Americans grounded their revolution in the eternal principles of natural law and natural right, and in so doing provided a roadmap for all who would reclaim the liberty that God has granted them, but which their government is systemically unable or unwilling to secure.
Republished from RealClearPublicAffairs, with permission.
Excerpts from also from The Tripwire
by D. van Oort & J.F.A. Davidson
From The Resister
