03/28/2010 (5:57 pm)
The leftist propaganda machine has been running full-tilt this week, attempting to paint opposition to the Democrats’ usurpation of power under the guise of reforming health care as violent, extreme, and dangerous. That effort is producing the expected effect among conservative opponents to the unconstitutional abuse of power; they are denouncing violence in all forms and declaring their devotion to the democratic process.
I believe this to be a serious mistake, and one that violates our mission. The mission is to provide new and sufficient guards for our liberty and security. The tactic of violence to achieve that end was established by Sam Adams and Company as a viable tool within the American system back in 1774. It would be foolish to rule it out so soon. It should be a last resort, yes, but it must remain a resort, and we should say so now.
So far, none of the incidents over which the left is getting so agitated have been traced back to any conservative of any stripe, let alone Tea Party activists. The left has a record of manufacturing such incidents out of whole cloth, or even at times sending their own operatives to engage in vandalism or hateful talk while pretending to be one of us. If some of the bricks have been thrown by conservatives, they should stop throwing them. Vandalism has no point.
But sometimes organized violence does.
Barack Obama intends to alter the American system and establish a new order. He knows that his new order does not comport well with the notion of individual liberty that most Americans cherish, so he has to impose it from outside the system. He is executing a plan that will accomplish this in a relatively short period of time. It’s an effective plan; he’s been thinking about it for a long time. The thing he fears the most, the thing that could most completely wreck his plan, is for the people of the United States to simply revolt and throw him out. He fears stiff, resolute opposition. So long as the American people continue to operate completely within the rules of the system, and — pay attention, this is important — so long as his opponents perceive that he, himself, is operating completely within the rules of the system, his execution of his plan can proceed.
He is not operating within the rules of the system. The first principle of American government is that all participants must agree to protect and uphold the rules of the existing system, and to effect change using those rules. That is why the authors of the US Constitution included an oath of office, and required members of all three branches of government and all office-holders in state governments to take the oath. They understood what I’ve been saying for years — if a major party decides to break the constitutional system, it can do it, and there is nothing other parties can do to stop it. By attempting to institute a new system in a manner not prescribed in the Constitution, Obama is violating his oath of office; and likewise, every progressive who holds office but intends to alter the system into a permanent, progressive state is violating his or her oath of office. They are sworn to uphold a different system than the one they are trying to create. They are trying to create it without following the prescribed path to change.
We believe in the rule of law; it is the rule of law that protects citizens from the arbitrary whims of the powerful. But whose law? If the powerful are powerful enough, they can just alter the laws in such a way that the law favors them; such laws protect nobody’s liberty. The Declaration of Independence indicates that ultimately, the law that protects liberty is the law of God — what Jefferson called Natural Law. The Natural Law sits above all three branches of government, and demands that they all pay it obeisance. The law of the land has to reflect it, or it is not legitimate law: “…whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.” The law of the land cannot favor one group over another, cannot rob a man of his life or property without moral reason, cannot empower the strong over the helpless; if it does, whether it was created by a legislature or signed by a President, it is an oppressive law, and lacks the authority of the law that we mean when we speak of “the rule of law.”
It’s a curious and disturbing feature of the American system of government that violent revolution is, in fact, a legitimate option for change, and an appropriate tool for enforcing the rule of law. It is also a sensible feature, and a necessary one. American political philosophy recognizes the possibility that a government, even a properly constituted government of the people, can overstep its bounds and become tyrannical; the entire system was built assuming that such was the natural tendency of human governments. When a government has become tyrannical and its laws are no longer congruent with Nature’s Law, it may be necessary to overthrow it and start over. When such is the case, it is not the revolutionaries who have violated the rule of law; it is the government that has.
Barack Obama is a tyrant in the making. His minions are busy painting those who oppose him as violent criminals. One of their purposes is simply to turn people against Obama’s opponents; but another is to shame opponents into avoiding tactics that really could be effective in stopping the tyranny. By renouncing violence, we take a legitimate tool out of our own hands — and that’s what he’s hoping for.
We must not do this. President Obama needs to be told, loudly and clearly, that violent opposition is a morally acceptable possibility if he proceeds to remove the protections on the liberties of free citizens. We must not rule out violence. Quite the contrary; we need to make the case for violence long before we get there.
I have been advocating partition of the union since I started writing this blog, because I want to avoid civil war, and I think it’s nearly inevitable if we do not separate. I have also advocated using the legislature, the courts, impeachment, and public advocacy. I haven’t participated in a fistfight since I was 14. I deplore brick-throwing and mob bullying. I’m a peaceful man, and a law-abiding man.
But I have a message for President Obama and his friends in the so-called progressive movement. That message is this: you do not have the right to dictate my life. I am free, not by the laws of Massachusetts, nor by the laws of the United States, but by the laws of God. You think you know better than I how I should live my life. You do not (that’s an understatement); but even if you did, you lack the right to enforce your choices on me. And if you attempt to change the system to give yourselves that right, I, and a very, very large number of other peaceful, law-abiding citizens, reserve the right to rise up militarily and throw you the hell out of our lives, and out of our free country. We’re not saying this because we don’t hold a proper regard for the rule of law, but because we do. It is you, President Obama, and it is you, progressives, who lack that proper regard. I am not a political extremist. You are. That’s what makes our opposition moral.
5 Comments »
Comment by BobbyF
(Author replies: thanks. And nice to see you, Bobby.)
Comment by suek
“If some of the bricks have been thrown by conservatives, they should stop throwing them. Vandalism has no point.”
I disagree with you on this particular point – the purpose of the “vandalism” was _not_ vandalism, but a means of conveying a message which _should_ be understood by those for whom it was intended – assuming they have a passing familiarity with American history and the Revolution.
As for the rest – I can hardly disagree except that I think you’re an optimist. Your solution would be a good one, but like Israel and Gaza, I don’t think the Leftists would be willing to allow dissenters leave unless it were to be empty-handed. And maybe not even then.
My fear is that the next step will be amnesty, and card check. Both steps will be intended to change the makeup of the voting population in November. If the makeup of the boting population is not changed, I think it’s likely to result in a change of dominant party in at least one house of Congress, and maybe both. If the voting population is changed, it is likely to favor the present Congressional makeup, and the die will be cast for a violent revolution at some point. The initial American Revolution took about 10 years to build up steam. In today’s instant communication climate, I don’t think it will take that long.
You may be a peaceable man, but I think we all need to prepare for the worst. I think we’re in for times none of us would wish for ourselves or our children.
I’d rather be wrong.
Comment by Dale
But I have a message for President Obama and his friends in the so-called progressive movement. That message is this: you do not have the right to dictate my life. I am free, not by the laws of Massachusetts, nor by the laws of the United States, but by the laws of God.
At the beginning of our country we had a Declaration of Independence; maybe what we need now is a Declaration of Freedom. A statement that says we who sign will not live under tyranny. That we who sign recognize that there is a law grater then the state, and when the state is diametrically opposed to that law we have the right to resist by whatever means necessary. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, it’s time we stop trying to prove to our enemies how nice we are; all nice is going to buy us is chains and death.
I like the idea of a formal declaration because the words would give meaning to our actions. I may not be the right person to write and publish such a declaration, but I sure as hack would pin my name to it.
Comment by Shelly
Comment by Joan
Your words: “revolt and throw him out.”
How do we do this?