Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Missouri Billboard Warns Americans to ‘Prepare for War’

prepareforwar

Many people are fed up with the Government’s infringement on our liberties.  But, few have gone as far as one anonymous Missouri businessman to show their disillusion.

His billboard can be seen on I-70 between Grain Valley and Blue Springs and presents a step-by-step guide to revolution:  1.  Starve the Beast, keep your money.  2.  Vote out incumbents.  3.  If steps 1 & 2 fail, prepare for war.

Others have pointed out that this country is hurdling towards a point of no return.  This very blog wrote:

It would not be hard for anyone to argue that the American government has drifted so far away from what the founding fathers intended that it need not be considered anything less than bordering on tyranny.

Today, that country, the very idea that free people are better suited to solve problems than tyrants or intellectual elites in some far off capital, is in jeopardy.

Freedom now lay at the feet of this generation grasping for air. The question is will we have the courage to pick it up and breath life back in to it or will we sit back and watch as it withers and dies?

The founding fathers whom declared their independence in July 1776 were men of means, men with families. Yet, they risked everything to fight for freedom against a tyrannical government.

Today, Americans must be willing to do the same. Today, Americans must be willing to nourish the tree of liberty with their blood and the blood of those who would choose to take their liberties from them.

Fred Reed, technology columnist for The Washington Times, wrote on his blog:

Washington is out of control. It does as it likes, without restraint. It spends American money and American lives to fight remote wars for which it cannot provide a plausible reason. It determines what our children will be taught, who we can hire and fire, to whom we can sell our houses, whether we can defend ourselves, even what names we can call each other. The feds read our email and track the web sites we visit, make us hop around barefoot in airports at the command of surly unaccountable rentacops. They search us at random in train stations without even a pretense of probable cause. We have no influence over them, no way of resisting.

The government doesn’t work. It is broken. It can’t be fixed. It can’t be fixed because only those within it could, and their interest lies in not fixing it.

The only remedy short of armed rebellion is civil disobedience at the level of the states.

The alternative to revolt Mr. Reed is referring to is the process known as ‘nullification’.  Of nullification he writes:

Washington’s power is economic.  The feds rely for control on taxing money from the states and giving some of it back in exchange for obedience. They cannot arrest Wyoming, but they can deny it federal highway funds. This technique provides de facto control over everything from kindergarten to MIT.

[I]f Idaho passes a law (I’m making this up) saying that no restrictions on the ownership of guns will be enforced within the state, Washington might choose discretion over valor and ignore it. Legalizing marijuana, however, or refusing to accept compulsory medical care, would be a direct if not necessarily intentional challenge to the power of the central government. The feds could not afford to let either of these things slide. The danger of the precedent to the grip of the governing classes would be too great. A deadly serious confrontation would ensue.

What could, or would, the federal government do in response to defiance? Send the Marines to occupy Sacramento? Or the FBI to arrest Arnold and the legislature of California?

Or cut off California’s financial water? No bailout for the state’s tottering economy, no more fat subsidies to the universities, and so on?

Washington may be able to make the states back down. It may not. The peril for the feds is that it might occur to the states that, while they get their money from Washington, Washington gets its money from the states. The central government depends absolutely on the states, whereas the states would get along swimmingly without the current central government.

By withholding money, states defund the federal government.  The fed would then be left with the choice of going to war with the states or to bend to the will of the people.

Nullification may be the last best hope for the American people to reassert their constitutional rights and reverse more than 150 years of over reaches by the federal government and the Supreme Court.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

The nerve of the party in power, that I don't support, to govern this country based on their platform and beliefs. I can't stand for this kind of tyranny. This country was founded on my ideals and mine alone. If this government is going to continue to govern, I may have to take action by not voting, proposing ideas, or acting civil. My only options are to threaten those elected to govern with violence, and maybe follow through with my threats.

I can tell you 2 things about the paragraph above:
1. It is the same crap tea partiers/republicans/conservatives/those-out-of-power are currently saying.
2. It is ALSO the same crap that Islamic extremists, communists, socialists, and absolutists have to say.

Which side is the problem?
The people trying to govern or the people threatening revolution because they aren't the majority.

Chris said...

I don't follow comment #1. Where did the opening paragraph come from? Did you make it up as a representative example of what you think people would say, or is it a quote?

I don't agree with your premise that the two broad groups you list would have written this, or that they share the same views and mentality. In other words, I don't agree with you that they are morally equivalent.

Concerning the line "This country was founded on my ideals..." It is true, Tea Party guys probably think the country was founded with their values. But communists and socialists don't even pretend that the nation was founded on their principles. They actually dislike the founders and instead idolize the French Revolution. They believe the US and its Constitution were founded and written by racist, capitalist, slave owners.

Concerning the line "I may have to take action by not voting, proposing ideas, or acting civil. My only options are to threaten those elected to govern with violence, and maybe follow through with my threats." I find remarkable the docile nature of the Tea Party guys. They seem to be going through excruciating pains to follow the legal structure of the Constitution, thus you read the stuff by Fred Reed on nullification using the 10th Amendment. I haven't noticed anyone being killed or being decapitated. It seems they are concerned with working within the system.

On the other hand, communists and socialists would probably resort to violence. Since they don't respect the US Constitution and would like to change the form of government we have, they have no compunction about following rules. Thus it is not uncommon to hear them use the slogan "by any means necessary".

I am sure hard core islamics don't wait for the democratic process and proceed to the knife. Just ask Theo Van Gogh on how they handle dissent.

So to sum up, the groups you list are not morally equivalent and your opening paragraph would be paradoxical to both.

As to your final question which side is to blame, remember the government only exists with the consent of the governed. Of course this not the case in communists or islamic regimes, but it was supposed to be the case for the USA.

Anonymous said...

All of it was purely a sarcastic play on extremes and ignorance, but thank you for rationally critisizing it and not responding in like. I don't actually believe any of it.

In regards to your response, no they are not all morally equivalent, but extremes of all creeds do have similarities.

Sure communism and socialism are at odds with democracy, but so is the inclusion of certain religious values in our constitution by the founding fathers. A true democracy would give all groups equal rights, but that is not the case in our country even today (Gays?).

Jefferson (a slave owning capitalist) glamorized and idolized the French Revolution as his way of countering Hamilton and his followers view of federal power. Only later did he realize the deformity of an attempt at democracy that it was, and only later did he embrace the federal power for which he had opposed Hamilton. (Federal Power seems to do that to people and parties)

"By any means necessary" is used by everyone. Sure communists, fundamentalists, and socialists say it, but so do we about defending democracy. Hearing a minority use it because policies do not fit beliefs is both a little scary and exactly what our 1st amendment is for. I would just hope that the current rhetoric does not escalate and that those governing are given the benefit of the doubt that they are in fact looking out for America's (all of America's) best interests.

Rick in PV said...

What a bunch of sore, scary losers the Republican/Tea Party/Conservatives are!

Chris said...

Anonymous,

This is off topic, but your point about the Founders and "the inclusion of certain religious values" gives me a chance to expand upon something I've been discussing with some colleagues.

On the surface I don't think there is anything inconsistent with a democracy and these values. For example, Israel is a democracy, but it is also explicitly a Jewish state. It allows other religions to practice freely, but there is no doubt about the status of Jews and Judaism, and they will actively ensure that Jews remain a majority in their nation.

I think problems with democracies can occur when the people no longer share a common heritage or beliefs. I don't have a magic number, but I believe it is good to have a majority of 80% to 90% of one group of people with either a common heritage or belief system.

Generally when you have a situation like this the majority feels secure, and unless provoked by a minority that is trying to break away, will generally leave the minority alone.

However, when you have a change in the makeup and that 80% majority starts to drop to 70% or lower, you have a reaction by the majority who are now apprehensive of losing their status. At the same time the minority can become more aggressive in seeking political power since they sense the change as well. When this happens, I believe democracies can go south. Maybe that is what we are seeing today.

I look at stable democracies like Japan, Sweden, Norway and Finland and see how they have for the most part maintained homogeneous nations. I also think the homogeneity of those nations makes it easier for them to have socialized medicine and similar programs because they all regard themselves as one big family.

Contrast the example of Israel with Lebanon which was setup as a Christian nation. Once muslims rose to parity, conflicts broke out and they have had a terrible 35 year period.

Outside of Switzerland, I can't think of too many democracies with large, multi-ethnic groups and languages that are stable, prosperous and aren't in constant danger of tearing apart.

The USA was founded in large part by people with similar ethnic heritage and beliefs. They setup very strict rules with the first naturalization act concerning who could become citizens. They practiced a hard policy of assimilation and were able to forge a new nationality out of the many immigrants they accepted. It wasn't perfect. Even with this commonality, we endured the Civil War.

Today there is division in ideology among the the members of the majority group. I believe there is probably a 60/40 split among the majority population in right versus left political outlook. The looming problem I see is that one side is going to attempt to use minority groups as the deciding factor in determining the nation's future. This will lead to a couple of things.

First, it will embolden these groups to seek more and more ethnic set asides as they realize their value in deciding elections.

Second, it will lead to increased unease and possible agitation by members of the majority as they see their percentage of the population fall and attribute this to the newly energized minority groups.

In hindsight I can't believe our leaders so mishandled immigration as to allow such a radical change while simultaneously dropping our tradition of strict assimilation.

Unfortunately, this is going to leave the nation without a clear majority group. This I fear will cause ever increasing problems with how the political system operates and will put major stresses on our democracy. If people think we can't function now, it is probably only going to get worse.

Which takes me back to your original point of the Founders including certain values in the Constitution. So long as you maintain a common populace there is nothing inherently wrong with the Constitution reflecting their values.