Barack Hussein Obama's Magical Mystery Tour

 

Barack Hussein Obama's Magical Mystery Tour

.

 Just a bunch of Coincidences,

or a bizarre 

Unexplainable Scheme

                                              Barack Hussein Obama..... 

 
just happened to know 60s far-left radical revolutionary William Ayers, whose father
just happened to be Thomas Ayers, who
just happened to be a close friend of Obama’s communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, who
just happened to work at the communist-sympathizing Chicago Defender with Vernon Jarrett, who
just happened to later become the father-in-law of Iranian-born leftist Valerie Jarrett, who Obama
just happened to choose as his closest White House adviser, and who
just happened to have been CEO of Habitat Company, which
just happened to manage public housing in Chicago, which
just happened to get millions of dollars from the Illinois state legislature, and which
just happened not to properly maintain the housing which eventually
just happened to require demolition.
*** Not to mention that this is the property that would have been the grounds that hosted the Olympics, had Obama's efforts been successful****
                                             Valerie Jarrett also.....

just happened to work for the city of Chicago, and
just happened to hire Michelle LaVaughan Robinson (later Mrs. Obama), who
just happened to have worked at the Sidney Austin law firm, where former fugitive from the FBI Bernardine Dohrn also just happened to work, and where Barack Obama
just happened to get a summer job.

                             

                             Bernardine Dohrn.....

just happened to be married to William Ayers, with whom she
just happened to have hidden from the FBI at a San Francisco marina, along with Donald Warden, who
just happened to change his name to Khalid al-Mansour, and Warden/al-Mansour who
just happened to be a mentor of Black Panther Party founders Huey Newton and Bobby Seale and a close associate of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, and al-Mansour
just happened to be financial adviser to a Saudi Prince, who
just happened to donate cash to Harvard, for which Obama
just happened to get a critical letter of recommendation from Percy Sutton, who just happened to have been the attorney for Malcolm X, who
just happened to know Kenyan politician Tom Mboya, who
just happened to be a close friend of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., who
just happened to meet Malcolm X when he traveled to Kenya.

                                    Obama, Sr. .....
 

just happened to have his education at the University of Hawaii paid for by the Laubach Literacy Institute, which
just happened to have been supported by Elizabeth Mooney Kirk, who
just happened to be a friend of Malcolm X, who
just happened to have been associated with the Nation of Islam, which was later headed by Louis Farrakhan, who
just happens to live very close to Obama's Chicago mansion, which also
just happens to be located very close to the residence of William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who
just happens to have been occasional baby-sitters for Malia and Natasha Obama, whose parents
just happened to have no concern exposing their daughters to bomb-making communists.

After attending Occidental College and Columbia University, where he
just happened to have foreign Muslim roommates, Obama moved to Chicago to work for the Industrial Areas Foundation, an organization that
just happened to have been founded by Marxist and radical agitator Saul the Red Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, who

just happened to be the topic of Hillary Rodham Clinton's thesis at Wellesley College, and Obamas $25,000 salary at IAF
just happened to be funded by a grant from the Woods Fund, which was founded by the Woods family, whose Sahara Coal company
just happened to provide coal to Commonwealth Edison, whose CEO just happened to be Thomas Ayers, whose son William Ayers
just happened to serve on the board of the Woods Fund, along with Obama.

Obama also worked on voter registration drives in Chicago in the 1980s and
just happened to work with leftist political groups like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and Socialist International (SI), through which Obama met Carl Davidson, who
just happened to travel to Cuba during the Vietnam War to sabotage the U.S. war effort, and who
just happened to be a former member of the SDS and a member of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, which
just happened to sponsor a 2002 anti-war rally at which Obama spoke, and which
just happened to have been organized by Marilyn Katz, a former SDS activist and later public relations consultant who
just happened to be a long-time friend of Obamas political hatchet man, David Axelrod.

Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC), whose pastor was Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a fiery orator who
just happened to preach Marxism and Black Liberation Theology and who delivered anti-white, anti-Jew, and anti-American sermons, which Obama
just happened never to hear because he
just happened to miss church only on the days when Wright was at his most enthusiastic, and Obama
just happened never to notice that Oprah Winfrey left the church because it was too radical, and
just happened never to notice that the church gave the vile anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award.

Although no one had ever heard of him at the time, Obama
just happened to receive an impossible-to-believe $125,000 advance to write a book about race relations, which he
just happened to fail to write while using the cash to vacation in Bali with his wife Michelle, and despite his record of non-writing he just happened to receive a second advance, for $40,000, from another publisher, and he eventually completed a manuscript called Dreams From My Father, which
just happened to strongly reflect the writing style of William Ayers, who
just happened to trample on an American flag for the cover photograph of the popular Chicago magazine, which Obama
just happened never to see even though it appeared on newsstands throughout the city.

Obama was hired by the law firm Miner, Banhill and Galland, which
just happened to specialize in negotiating state government contracts to develop low-income housing, and which
just happened to deal with now-imprisoned Tony Rezko and his firm Rezar, and with slumlord Valerie Jarrett, and the law firms Judson Miner
just happened to have been a classmate of Bernardine Dohrn, wife of William Ayers.

In 1994 Obama represented ACORN and another plaintiff in a lawsuit against Citibank for denying mortgages to blacks (Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Federal Savings Bank), and the lawsuit
just happened to result in banks being blackmailed into approving sub-prime loans for poor credit risks, a trend which
just happened to spread nationwide, and which
just happened to lead to the collapse of the housing bubble, which
just happened to help Obama defeat John McCain in the 2008 presidential election.

In 1996 Obama ran for the Illinois State Senate and joined the New Party, which
just happened to promote Marxism, and Obama was supported by Dr. Quentin Yong, a socialist who
just happened to support a government takeover of the health care system.

In 2003 Obama and his wife attended a dinner in honor of Rashid Khalidi, who
just happened to be a former PLO operative, harsh critic of Israel , and advocate of Palestinian rights, and who Obama claims he does not know, even though the Obamas
just happened to have dined more than once at the home of Khalidi and his wife, Mona, and
just happened to have used them as occasional baby-sitters. Obama reportedly praised Khalidi at the decidedly anti-Semitic event, which William Ayers
just happened to also attend, and the event Obama pretends he never attended was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network, to which Obama
just happened to have funneled cash while serving on the board of the Woods Fund with William Ayers, and one speaker at the dinner remarked that if Palestinians cannot secure a return of their land, Israel will never see a day of peace, and entertainment at the dinner included a Muslim children’s dance whose performances
just happened to include simulated be-headings with fake swords, and stomping on American, Israeli, and British flags, and Obama allegedly told the audience that Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine and there has been genocide against the Palestinian people by (the) Israelis, and the Los Angeles Times has a videotape of the event but
just happens to refuse to make it public.

In the 2004 Illinois Democrat primary race for the U.S. Senate, front-runner Blair Hull
just happened to be forced out of the race after David Axelrod just happened to manage to get Hulls sealed divorce records unsealed, which just happened to enable Obama to win the primary, so he could face popular Republican Jack Ryan, whose sealed child custody records from his divorce
just happened to become unsealed, forcing Ryan to withdraw from the race, which
just happened to enable the unqualified Obama to waltz into the U.S. Senate, where, after a mere 143 days of work, he
just happened to decide he was qualified to run for President of the United States.
                               

    And now you really do know.....

                 the rest of the story.

WHEN IS IT TIME TO RESTORE AMERICA TO A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC? IT IS TIME RIGHT NOW! READ AND SHARE!

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"

“How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive to his family? Or if his family would be safe when he returned!”
— 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

Joe Biden left over $85 Billion dollars of Military Hardware in Afghanistan, when he ordered the Military to pack and Run. SHAME ON US! Here is the inventory list!

 

Here’s the List of Billions in Military Equipment the Biden Administration  Left Behind for the Taliban, FREE! All paid for by your Tax Dollars. 

I know I've always been pissed off by the many ways the crooked politicians through federal government pays off the bribes they got the by giving their toadies grants and gifts through wastes our money, from millions spent putting lizards on treadmills to thousands spent on art classes in Kenya. But regular government waste pales in comparison to the appalling reality that the US just left billions in taxpayer-purchased military equipment behind in Afghanistan—to fall right into the hands of the Taliban. This now makes the Taliban the biggest ARMS DEALER in the world after the US, CHINA AND RUSSIA. Yup those Haji fuckers are selling our Tax Payer funded Military gear to the highest bidder and guess who is the most thrilled about it? The Military Industrial Complex who makes this hardware. 

Make on mistake I am not against us having the military hardware to fight anywhere in the world but I am total disgusted by the collaboration between the Biden Generals and the Military Industrial complex to abandon all this hardware in one battle field so they can order and produce and make MORE hardware for the Next war.

The Times of London reports that the US simply abandoned a truly astounding arsenal of military equipment and weapons. This reportedly includes up to 22,174 Humvee vehicles, nearly 1,000 armored vehicles, 64,363 machine guns, and 42,000 pick-up trucks and SUVs. So, too, the list of allegedly abandoned weaponry includes up to 358,530 assault rifles, 126,295 pistols, and nearly 200 artillery units. Oh, and the Taliban will likely inherit state-of-the-art military helicopters, warplanes, and other aircraft from the US, too.

The US sent this equipment to Afghanistan to arm the Afghan security forces/alternative government we unsuccessfully sought to prop up. (That government has now collapsed and the Taliban is retaking control.) While some of our equipment may have been taken with US personnel when they fled Afghanistan, much of it is difficult to transport, and most of it likely remained behind amid a chaotic withdrawal. As a result, it will eventually fall into Taliban hands, if it hasn’t already. 

This graphic from the Times sums up the maximum amount of equipment that was abandoned. They say it would have cost about $ 2 Billion to take them across the border into India or the Philippines and then ship them to where the US might need them or sell them at 50% discount to countries that want to buy them. Hell anything would be better than giving our enemies this arsenal for FREE. ( Or was it FREE ? Maybe Hunter Biden and his crew secretly negotiated a Haji "Kick Back" to the Biden Generals and the Big Guy Biden! )

“The Taliban now has more Black Hawk helicopters than 85% of the countries in the world,” Congressman Jim Banks, a veteran, lamented. “But it's not just weapons. They have night vision goggles, body armor, and unbelievably, the Taliban now has biometric devices which have the fingerprints, eye scans and biographical information of all of the Afghans who helped us and were on our side over the last 20 years. There is no plan by the administration to get those weapons back. There is no plan to account for any of this equipment or these weapons.”

This is worse than just waste—this taxpayer money actually went toward funding weaponry that will only do harm in the hands of the Taliban. Even if, hopefully, they are not in direct conflict with the US in the future, the Taliban will at the very least use this weaponry in pursuit of the oppression of women, LGBT people, and others under Sharia law. And they’ll do all of it with exponentially advanced military capabilities, courtesy of the US taxpayer.    

At first glance, this waste, while especially egregious, isn’t particularly surprising. After all, the government is notoriously inefficient and wasteful. To understand why, consider that in everyday life, we typically spend our own money. Or, if we’re spending other peoples' money, we’re usually spending it on ourselves. Either way, we’re incentivized to shop wisely.

Yet government employees are, as Nobel-Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman famously explained, ultimately responsible for spending other peoples’ money on other people. Government officials don’t have any skin in the game. Therefore, they have no real incentive to be frugal or get a good deal. 

And when it comes to war, the bad incentives are even worse. The government is spending other peoples’ money on other people in another country halfway across the globe. As the US taxpayer’s multi-billion-dollar gift to the Taliban shows, that’s a recipe for not just waste, but disaster.

DAMN THE WHOLE SOROS BIDEN REGIME.

ITS TIME TO TAKE BACK AMERICA. IT STARTS WITH YOU!

#RRR

Justice Department Sues Arizona Over New Law Requiring Federal Voters To Show Proof Of Citizenship. HERE WE GO AGAIN!

This is not the "Justice Department" Hell you can call a whore House a Church.. does not 

make it so!

Eric Holder did the same fucking thing under Hussein.

The same pathetic line of bullshit will be used to defend the indefensible.

They will say " Poor People and Blacks cannot afford ID's.. so its discrimination"

But I say show me those poor people with without ID's to get their EBT cards, To get their Checks Cashed, To get their Liquor from a store. To get on a bus... oh hell I can go on and on as to where poor people go and when they need ID cards.

EXCEPT TO VOTE.... that's because the want ineligible voters to vote!

ONLY A USEFUL IDIOT CANOT SEE THIS!

So here is a "Useful List" for the Useful Idiots who may not know when an ID is required!

24 things that require a photo ID

Voter-ID laws continue to get a lot of attention, and proponents of the law are being drowned out by opponents claiming the laws discriminate against certain voters.

Rather than getting IDs to the people who are supposedly disenfranchised, opponents spend their efforts trying to end the laws, even though polls consistently show overwhelming majorities of voters approve of the laws.

Below are just some of the examples of things you need to prove your identity for:

1. Alcohol

 

2. Cigarettes

 

3. Opening a bank account

 

4. Apply for food stamps

 

5. Apply for welfare

 

6. Apply for Medicaid/Social Security

 

7. Apply for unemployment or a job

 

8. Rent/buy a house, apply for a mortgage

 

9. Drive/buy/rent a car

 

10. Get on an airplane

 

11. Get married

 

12. Purchase a gun

 

13. Adopt a pet

 

14. Rent a hotel room

 

15. Apply for a hunting license

 

16. Apply for a fishing license

 

17. Buy a cell phone

 

18. Visit a casino

 

19. Pick up a prescription

 

20. Hold a rally or protest

 

21. Blood donations

 

22. Buy an "M" rated video game

 

23. Purchase nail polish at CVS

 

24. Purchase certain cold medicines

 

But not to vote?

COME ON USEFUL IDIOTS AND ASSHOLES TRYING TO TAKE AWAY THE VOTE OF LEGAL AMERICANS.. THE GAME HAS BEEN UP FOR A WHILE!

Based on current population data from the Census Bureau and voting data from previous elections, Just Facts has conducted a study to estimate the number of votes illegally cast by non-citizens in the battleground states of the 2020 election. The results—documented in this spreadsheet—show that such fraudulent activities netted Joe Biden the following extra votes in these tightly contested states:

• Arizona: 51,081 ± 17,689
• Georgia: 54,950 ± 19,025
• Michigan: 22,585 ± 7,842
• Nevada: 22,021 ± 7,717
• North Carolina: 46,218 ± 16,001
• Pennsylvania: 32,706 ± 11,332
• Wisconsin: 5,010 ± 1,774

If the lower end of these illegal vote estimates were removed from the vote tallies as of November 8, 2020, 2:00 AM EST, Donald Trump would be leading in states that have a total of 259 electoral votes, or 11 shy of the 270 needed to win the presidency. If the upper end of the illegal vote estimates were removed, Trump would be leading in states that have 285 electoral votes, or 15 more than needed to win the presidency.

These estimates account for just one type of election fraud, and they tend to understate it because they depend on Census surveys, which are known to undercount non-citizens.