Patriots are Great Thinkers First, Great Warriors Second

Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Paul Revere, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, and Samuel Adams.  

These are common names when we think of Patriots of the original Revolution.  Yet what do all these Patriots have in common?  None of them were military men.  Rather, these men where the thinkers, the orators, and the activists of the Patriot Movement, ultimately leading to the revolution and independence of the United States of America.  Are the great military leaders whom we hold as patriots?  George Washington and Nathanael Greene come to mind.  Yet, both sought to be great men of the mind before they were revered as men of command.  

Our greatest Patriots are not revered for their aptitude in battle, or their ability to conquer nations.  They are revered because they are great thinkers whom applied their intellect toward a noble but delicate goal: freedom and liberty.  They risk their lives for ideas and principles.  While many were significantly wealthy, the taxes levied were not causing them to move into poor houses or lose estates.  It was the affront to them as men, as free beings, shown through legislation passed by a government that gave them no representation the patriots could not stand for.  

They did not arrive at such positions easily.  As we can see in the history of the Colonies, it was a gradual process with a steady diet of intellectual conversation from which the Tree of Liberty grew.  All considered themselves subjects of the King at one point in their lives, but came to realize that allegiance to a King that did not all subjects equal was self-defeating.  They did not suddenly throw off the title of Englishmen, they petitioned, and lobbied, and wrote, and orated for years.  It was only when military force was used to physically subdue those at Bunker Hill in 1775 that war was acknowledged as necessary.  Be reminded that the Declaration of Independence was not formalized until July 1776!  

What can we learn from these, the original American Patriots?  I believe there are five points:

1. Be a man of great thinking and conversation
2. Through thinking and conversation, develop core principles
3. Defend those principles wholeheartedly
4. Use force only in self defense
5. Be prepared to use force, should it be required

It behooves us to be, not just men of military and survival skills, but of skills in logic and philosophy as well.  We must be willing to engage each other, and our opponents, in thoughtful mental skirmishes; steel sharpens steel, and so we must sharpen our wit.  Having an open mind means being willing to entertain an idea without agree with it.  We must dissect ideas, finding the truth behind them.  From truth we then build OUR principles.  With a foundation of infallible Truth, our Principles remain solid, allowing us to be men of great action when the time arises.  

This is how our forefathers became great men.  Not through military action, but through great thinking.  With their minds they crafted resolute ideas; ideas that spread to their neighbors, their colleagues and even their opponents.  They were prepared to wage war on the field of battle and in the civil public arena.  Are you?

Why Scotland's Vote for Independence is Crucial to American Restoration

The vote today about where or not Scotland will once again be an independant nation takes place.  This vote is a critical one in modern history.  In recent times very few nations have been formed in non-violent ways, ala South Sudan, though the history of the region is laced with violence.  Even the Irish Republic and its autonomy came at the cost of years of fighting until a peace accord could be reached.  Scotland is quite unique in that if it votes to leave, and the Prime Minister of the UK keeps his word to let them go should they vote "YES", it will be a new country through peaceful will, rather than violent action.

A successful "YES" vote will also set a precedent for the rest of the world.  Areas where there is a significant majority locally, but are a minority nationally, now gain leverage in being treated more equally, less they too decide to leave peacefully from their unions.  In this modern age, how can it be justifiable to use force on a population that wished to remain peaceful, remain connected, but allowed to control their own region.  The Scots have some facts going for their vote as well.

Look at the history -The Scots were essentially forced to fall under the British Crown, or else war would continue until the Brits won. Yes, the lords of Scotland did to to save their asses, but is not what happened with the North American Native Tribes in the United States? Those that resisted were destroyed, those that gave it got some shitty land (Looking at the ones from the East Coast moving West: Trail of Tears anyone?)

If we accept that governments derive their authority from the people (which any Constitutionalist should believe) is it not reasonable that the Scottish people should be able to vote if they believe the government currently over them is in fact legitimate?  

Or, do we believe that governments own people, and that we are simply subjects to be rules by those in power?

There are many unanswered questions should the Scots break free.  What about their share of debt, what about military bases, what about (a million other things).  All of this can be negotiated, and more importantly, when the negotiations occur, it will the the Free Scots negotiating with the Free Brits, as equals, as independent governments!  If the Scots wish to remain allies and friends with Britain, it will be in the Scots best interests to be good and fair during such negotiations.  The same goes for Britain.  If either side tries to abuse the other, the international community will be watching closely; they will not forget should one side or the other act in a manner unfitting for civilized states.  

Finally, the most important question is this: Will the United States Government recognize Scotland?  If so, the table is open to suggestions, but this would be a de facto admission and acceptance by the Federal Government that secession through voting is completely legal.  That is a big bargaining chip.  Opponents will say that those who want to succeed are simply "sore losers" or are "taking their ball and going home."  Well, how would you handle a party where people treated you rudely and demanded you do things you did not want to do?  What if they were bullies, forcing you to act in a way you opposed?  Is in not most civil to leave the party and say ,"thank you, but I will see myself out."?  Or is it more proper to punch the host and their supporters and demand your way?  

What say you?

9/11 Should be Just Another Day

"We will never forget"

What are we supposed to remember?  The death of thousands of civilians, hundreds of first responders, and dozens of military?  That is good thing to do, as life is a precious and fleeting thing.

What are we supposed to remember?  The displays of uncommon valor and courage by American Citizens?  Flight 93 - citizens voted to fight terror with resistance and saved thousands through such a choice.  Compassion in New York as people funneled downtown with supplies and to offer their labor.  In the Pentagon where military and civilian climbed into a burning building to save others.

What are we supposed to remember? Each individual has there own connection; I remember watching the second plane hit the tower on live television.  I thought it was a replay of the first plane, but I then realized the other tower was on fire.  At this moment I knew the "accident" was a deliberate attack, and I will remember that moment forever.

This year, however, my social media pages filled with posts about how I should "remember 9/11" and prepare to eradicate terrorists.  I was told to invoke the memories of the past and prepare to confront evil once more.  A remembrance turned war propaganda.  A good friend of mine put it best:

Oh dear. Which one is it? "Remember the Maine!" No, no that's not it. "Remember the Alamo!" No, not it either. "Remember the Lusitania!" No, no, that's not right. "Remember Pearl Harbor!" Doesn't seem correct. Oh, I know! "Remember 9/11!" That's it!
Maybe, just maybe, if we spent some time learning from these events instead of remembering them we wouldn't add to this list in the future.

Can you hear it?  The shout of the drill sergeant? The Political Commissar on the loud speaker?

That's it boys!  Fill yourselves with rage and fury!  Press forward and do not think about it!  Thinking will only have you question your orders!  We can't have that now, can we!  FORWARD!

Admittedly, when I look back, this call for "action," ah hell, who am I kidding, this call for war has always been there, and at times has been deafeningly loud.  It was the drum beat that helped us go into Afghanistan.  On October 26, 2001, we traded liberties and freedoms in a clamor for safety through the Patriot Act.  Songs have been written, poster created and shirts printed - "Are you guys ready? Lets Roll"

I am older now, hopefully wiser, and undoubtedly more aware.  I served my country during a time of war, having the great honor to wear the uniform with pride.  I sweat and I bled in the dust that is the Iraqi Desert.  I now have sons of my own, and I occasionally have the great privilege of seeing the world through new eyes of childlike wonder.  I continue to grow and continue to reflect daily on all that is around me.

I volunteered to enlist in Military Service.  I did so because I felt that it was my duty, as a single man in time of war, to put myself on the line so that others did not have to.  It is a bunch of patriotic chivalrous platitudes to some, but I honestly believed it, and still do.  Looking back, 9/11 played some role in my decisions, but thankfully was not the only influence.

Through my experiences I have come to realize that defender and avenger are two very different things.  To defend: to fight in order to keep someone or something safe : to not allow a person or thing to hurt, damage or destroy someone or something.  To avenge: to harm or punish someone who has harmed you or something or someone that you care about.  I am a defender, and as such, I have turned away from calls to avenge those lost.  I will always commit myself to defend my country and its citizens, but I grow weary of this avenging work.

As I watch news outlets and fellow citizens tell each other that "90%" of Americans think ISIS/ISIL is threat to America, and the images of personal remembrance are intermixed with the demagoguery for continued and protected war, I cannot help but think that 9/11 is being conjured up so that we can go forth and be AVENGERS OF OUR FALLEN CITIZENS!

This leads me to my conclusion:

In order for us to remember 9/11 as a remembrance; a day in which each person can reflect on what that day meant to them individually, and allow a country to reflect on itself collectively (and not as a call to action to cause more death in the name of those who died), 9/11 should be just another day.

What will you be wearing when the world ends?

I wanted to take a step away from our normal politically driven blog and to touch on something else we here are all very passionate about. Survival. This ties in and is relevant as many think that we will be facing a collapse of some sort that will result in our world ending as we know it, even for a short amount of time, and our need to survive. To this end I want to ask you;

 What will you be wearing when the world ends? (SHTF clothing).

This is a question that I think many of our compatriots take for granted. Based on some of the groups I have met with I began to worry that many have not really taken the time to think about this question before running out to their nearest Army/Navy Surplus and loading up.

1.) What type of environment are you in?

This question is pretty straightforward, and will help determine the base layer of clothing. If you are in the hot and humid areas you may want to stray away from denim as a leg covering. If you are going to be forging streams etc you may want to think about clothing that will dry quickly. Wicking clothes to help keep you warm or cool (wicking will remove moisture from your skin which in the heat will allow it to evaporate quicker providing a cooling, whereas in the cold it will keep the sweat from making you cold).

2.) Where are you going to be traveling through?

This is one of those things that Americans often overlook when planning a wardrobe through other countries that ultimately may lead to making themselves into targets. But even further is this marks you as an outsider even inside our country, the Brazilian cowboy hat may not garner a second glance if you are moving through the desert southwest, but it may get more than a couple double looks if you were moving through Gary, IN. Think about the route you are going to be taking and the types of people that you may encounter. Nondescript clothing may serve your needs better if you are trying to move unmolested.

3.) Is military surplus the best?

Difficult question to answer. Yes, mil surplus gear is both rugged and is suitable for most types of environment that you will encounter, but in a SHTF scenario we may be looking at military and/or police in military uniforms moving about to try and restore order, or impose a martial law on the area you are in or traveling through. Do you want to be seen as a possible deserter? Or be stopped for looking like a militant? Even if your end goal is to dissent against a police state, the ability to blend in will make your actions much more effective and make sure you last a little bit longer.

As an extension, a lot of us in the community have fallen on the habit of using military style bags, they are rugged and large and fit our needs. Recently I have been converting my bags all over to civilian hiking bags after I was approached on numerous hikes by people thinking I was Border Patrol (wearing tan pants and green shirt with military style day pack).

Johnny Cochran. Photo: MATTHEW RAINWATERS

Smelly Old Hiker via summit org

We all need to be conscious of where we are and what we look like. If you dress up like Rambo, then do not be surprised when people react like Sheriff Teasle.

Islamophobes (and all other dehumanizers) are Enemies of the Constituion

Islamophobes (and all other dehumanizers) are enemies of the Constitution.

Damn right I said it.  You can take it to the bank.

Those that blatantly decry all Muslims are the end of out "Nation" are actually enemies of the Constitution.

Damn right I said it.

If you have read this far, I will now give you the reasoning behind such statements.  You are free to agree or disagree.

The first step to government sanctioned (or any type of) genocide is to dehumanize a subset of the population.  It is surprisingly hard (sarcasm) to murder dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions of fellow human beings if you see them as people.  It is much easier to remove an entire race of people from existence if you see them as dogs, or a plague, or as less then dirt.  If you can make them less than dirt, you are simply keeping things clean, and who doesn't like a clean house? (sarcasm)

The Constitution is written to protect the rights of all people, not just a select few.  The great struggle of a true Constitutionalist is to defend the rights of those the Constitutionalist hates with every fiber of their being.  So long as that target of hatred follows the Constitution, follows the law, and does not infringe upon others rights, the TRUE Constitutionalist must defend that (in your opinion) evil and vile person.  Notice is said person, not evil and vile creature.  That is because I am making a conscious decision to not dehumanize that person.  I may not agree, I may hate their words, but so long as they follow the three dictates listed, it is my DUTY to defend them.

Anyone out there disagree?  Then comment, discuss, or OUTRIGHT CHALLENGE ME, but you better bring your wits, logic, and reason.  The truth has a certain ring to it, so lets have it sound off . . . .

Why am I so angry today?  This dumb article (and the comments made by all the tiny minded and scared people)

: http://americannews.com/muslims-demand-army-change-its-dress-code-to-include-turbans-and-beards/
The man in the picture above is a Sikh.  Here is the response I had to the website of this article:

You ignorant dumb little sh!t. How about you remove your head from your a$$ and read a book. This man is a Sikh, a proud warrior from a proud warrior society. Their religion says they MUST carry a knife with them at all times in order to remain ready to fight. THESE ARE THE ALLIES YOU WANT!

The Government will not Protect You - Repost from 30 Nov, 2005

A Repost from November 30, 2005 - (I have been about liberty and freedom for over a decade!  Who knew?)

Here is an interesting case that has me all worked up.

“By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.”
Those are the words of foxnews.com, and put simply what is said by the Supreme Court:

“The issue presented to us is much narrower than is suggested by the far-ranging arguments of the parties and their amici. Neither the tragic facts of the case, nor the importance of according proper deference to law enforcement professionals, should divert our attention from that issue. That issue is whether the restraining order entered by the Colorado trial court on June 4, 1999, created a "property" interest that is protected from arbitrary deprivation by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189 (1989). Nor, I assume, does any Colorado statute create any such entitlement for the ordinary citizen.”
Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

As we can see here, the Supreme Court of the United States has just upheld that the Government has no legal responsibility to protect you from others. What? So who is supposed to protect me from other people? If it’s not the governments responsibility, surely that would indicate that only I am responsible for my safety. Yet, in this country, self defense has become more volatile than ever. Still, I dove further into this strange decision to look deeper at the precedence that has led up to this, in my opinion, amazing ruling. I looked at the above referenced DeShaney v. Winnebage, Et. Al. to learn more.

“A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.”
Deshaney v. Winnebago Cty. Soc. Servs. Dept., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
DESHANEY, A MINOR, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ET AL. v. WINNEBAGO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

It is written clearly here what I think is a major concern for all Americans. Due Process is a very important right that we have to protect us from oppression or segregation. But realize what this decision is saying. The Clause is written ONLY to prevent the GOVERNMENT from infringing upon your rights. This is a most important distinction between the Government protecting your rights on your behalf, and the Government insuring that you have the legal right to not have the Government oppress your rights. But it does not mean the government has to protect that right FOR you. The difference is monumental. At the same time, even if they know thee is a risk for you, they are under no obligation to act by the law. One good thing is that many people in government and agencies with the government believe they have a moral obligation to protect the citizens. While this means that you may not suffer the fate of the woman in the first court case I mentioned, it doesn’t mean that it will never happen. That and in a country that prides itself on being able to live your own life as you see fit, it seem like a poor choice to let your safety fall on a few “moral” individuals. Of course the flip side is that such ‘moral’ persons may also be specifically prohibited from helping you, even if they want to.

I believe that these cases above are very interesting and I will be doing more research to better understand this development. I will also be ruminating on my opinions of self defense and the interventions against it.

Open Carry Rides Again!

You know all those pictures of open carry that the "gun control" advocates like to roll out?  You know, like this one:

Here are some pictures in response:

Seems that rights ARE universal and CAN be used to defend oneself from an oppressive and tyrannical government.
You know, the one they say doesn't exist . . . 

P.S.  If you find one set of pictures offensive, but not the other, you need to re-examine your thoughts on liberty

Read more at the source: 

Black Open Carry in Dallas @ Reason Magazine

libertas pro omnibus vel pro nullus
Liberty for all, or none

Black Panthers Support Gun Rights

The Black Panthers had more to do with expanding gun rights than the NRA.

This really should not be surprising if one takes the time to think about it. One of the biggest arguments for gun rights is that the citizens need firearms to protect themselves from tyrannical government. What could be more tyrannical than the systematic segregation of an entire race from the rest of the nation through legislation and brutal police action. Either through laissez-faire attitudes or direct racist actions, far too many governments throughout the United States supported or engaged in tyrannical oppression of black people.

The biggest proponent of firearm usage was Malcolm X. He strongly believed that only through being well armed could the black population be respected. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., while a proponents of nonviolent action, was reported to have a near arsenal in his home. Many of his supporters provided Dr. King with around-the-clock armed security. It would seem Dr. King, while a man of principle, it also gave realist. Sources indicate that Dr. King applied for a firearms license in 1958 after his house was vandalized.  Any person that supports liberty and freedom should see this as a good thing; citizens using the right to keep and bear arms to restrict and oppose tyrannical government.

In a twist of irony, it was the Black Panthers and their use of firearms that pressured then Gov. Reagan to seek gun control. When the Black Panthers, armed to the teeth, entered into the California governmental building in protest, "fear" caused the legislature to pass more restrictive gun control legislation. Gov. Reagan was quoted as saying, "(there is) no reason why on the street today citizens should be carrying loaded weapons." When defending his obvious restriction on gun rights he said, "(it) would work no hardship on the honest citizen."  And yet President Reagan is touted quite often as the conservatives' Messiah. History can be a bitch, huh?

Gun control prior to the 1990s has always had a racist to the earliest forms of gun control after the Civil War were aimed at disarming black people. The Ku Klux Klan found it inconvenient when the blacks shot back. As such they sought to curtail the ability of black defend themselves burying the Ku Klux Klan from injury and allowing them to continue their evil unabated. Is this not the reason why we currently hold the gun rights in such high regard? To prevent such atrocities when the government will do nothing but similar

Throughout American history we see time and time again were the rights of the minority repressed by the majority. The outcome is always similar. The minority suffers at the hands of the majority. Yet, we continue to debate whether or not certain people we disagree with or dislikes(the minority) should have the same rights as we do. Perhaps one day we will figure out that we either have liberty for all or liberty for none
.

libertas pro omnibus vel pro nullus
Liberty for all, or none

Discussion is the Key to Liberty

Why discussion is key to liberty:

The Greek Thucydides  once said "a nation that differentiates between its warriors and its scholars will have its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards."  I believe it is important, given the current state we find ourselves in, that all patriots engage in scholarly activity to the best of their ability. Person has their own gifts and liabilities, not every patriot can be a great thinker. Conversely not every great patriot must be a warrior. It is important in both cases to have an understanding of the other. For without both of these patriots no freedom can be obtained. In this article we will examine why discussion is the key to liberty.

When most citizens began to talk about the meaning of the United States of America, the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers are often invoked. These two papers are extensive writings in which two sides discussed and argue over the future of the American nation. In their dozens of volumes each side analyzes the facts developed theories and opinions and then defend them in public for all to see. "The truth has a certain ring to it," seems apt to recall here.

In our modern age, the availability and use of social media Internet in general and other forms of electronic media the ability to have a discussion is significantly easier than in the past. But as with all things there is a caveat. Significantly more people enter into the discussion with varying amounts of knowledge and opinions. Not all of the knowledge nor opinions are accurate or well thought out.  It is important therefore for anybody engaging in discussions to remain vigilant and skeptical lest we fall for the wrong idea or fight for the wrong cause.

This through discussions and arguments that we come to understand others' opinions and views. By understanding others opinions and views we can reach a common ground and from common ground we can agree to act civilly. Is this civil discourse that we seek so that we can improve the lives of all while simultaneously maintaining our own personal freedoms and liberties. Discussions also serve as a watchdog allowing us to share both positive experiences, and negative experiences, the route our daily lives.

In many ways journalism is an extension of discussion. While many pieces are written in a absolute view or opinion, the truth is that much of the article is up for debate.  The writers personal bias, the bias of its sources, and bias due to proximity or distance from the event being written about all effect the final product. Even this writing has its own bias and is intended to be debated and analyzed. The hope is that each person will draw a similar, albeit slightly different, conclusion.

To all you readers out there, it is my personal hope that you will comment so that we can have discussions. My twitter account @think4liberty and the Facebook page devout constitutionalist are also both available for you to ask questions or make statements at any time. I will do my best to respond to any questions or comments.

The Two Types of Liberty

What is Liberty? What are the two types?

Liberty can be defined as the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one plane of life behavioral political views or alternatively the power or scope to act as one pleases. This is all well and good but what exactly does this mean? I am by no means a philosophical expert but neither were the founding fathers when they first started to think about such things; allow me to explain my views in the hopes that you more clearly understand your own.

One philosophy of thought says that there are two ways to view liberty: positive liberty and negative liberty. I tend to follow this line of thought. We experience both types of liberty every day and it is important to note the difference. In order to defend liberty one must understand what it is they are defending, else they fight for the wrong cause. Many thousands of words and hundreds of pamphlets have been published on the subject, so I will attempt to be brief. I highly encourage the readers to seek out other writings and discover for themselves what liberty means and them.

When people talk about having liberty they are often referring to negative liberty. This form of liberty means that one is not restrained from action. Rather with negative liberty one is protected from tyranny or over exercise of authority. It also means that other persons will not interfere with one's own choices. This is the sort of liberty that most governmental institutions are designed to protect.

Second form of liberty is positive liberty. This form of liberty means that one has the opportunity or the resources to act. As of late, citizens of the United States seem to believe that this is the primary purpose of government; to ensure positive liberty. The trouble with ensuring positive liberty is that it means others must provide. While negative liberty simply means "I stay out of your way," positive liberty means I have all the resources I need and opportunities I need to accomplish what I want. If an entity is to ensure my positive liberty it must therefore ensure I have both resources and opportunity available to me. If that entity is the government, it means the government must take from some citizens and distributed to others.

This is not to say that positive liberty is a negative thing. In most social groups the family church philanthropic group or even your ranking buddies in members of this group work to ensure positive liberty of all its members. In this case it is a voluntary action by its members to ensure the well-being of its others the question before us is always yes does the government have a duty to provide for our positive liberty.

One could argue that the government has a role in ensuring positive liberty if only by making sure one has the opportunity for action. In this manner the government appears to not be taking anything from citizens but rather protecting one's ability to act.

I disagree. I believe that the government's only purpose is to ensure others do not interfere with your negative liberty by ensuring your negative liberty the government allows you to seek out and take a batch of any opportunity that comes your way. To provide opportunities one must either manufacture set opportunities or prevent others from having access. While not as obvious as distribution of resources, the distribution of opportunity at the same affect.

libertas pro omnibus vel pro nullus (Liberty for all, or none)

As many of you know I am a huge proponent of universal liberty. While I may have a patriotic bent towards the United States of America, I do not believe that any right that humans possess is restricted to a single country or creed. Recently I have begun a project with my brother to write down my beliefs and understanding of liberty, rights and freedom. In just a few short days of starting this experiment with him, I have discovered that many people I once believed were patriots are nothing more than short sighted fearful little men. They could achieve greatness if only they would think for more than a few seconds. Instead they allow themselves to be held by fear and divided by superficial differences.

I recently read on a "patriot" facebook page that "moderate muslims" are never welcome. My initial reaction was that I had misread the post. Surely he meant radical Muslims, or that moderates were welcome. Then I felt confusion. Surely a 3%'er would understand what liberty and freedom truly are. Then I turned to anger as I realize that these words were not those of patriot but of a horrible creature. The creature is a hate and fear embodied. A creature that wishes only to divide us and to isolate themselves with their own "perfect" or "chosen" people. Finally, I cried, realizing the immense challenge before us: we must reach out and help our fellow citizens learn to respect ALL who follow the Constitution.

If we cannot abide by the original concepts that founded our nation, and we are no better off than ISIS. The Declaration of Independence says "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that (men) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." Nowhere in this statement doesn't say only Christians, or that atheists, Muslims, Jews, homosexuals or any other sort of human is excluded. The founders were libertarian in writing and thought, despite many claims that they were Christians.

Many of the founding fathers were deists believing in a higher power but not necessarily in the Christian God. This does not make their work any less valuable nor less important. As I continued to read and develop my sense of what is to be a patriot, and more importantly as a human being, I have discovered that many use the word "patriot" as a cover for racist. It has been said that when tyranny comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag. When good natured men fall victim to fear, they allow their minds to be clouded with a false notion that if only we could find the "right" kind of people we would be better off. Seeking out the "right" people is what led us to many of the atrocities we have seen throughout history. If you need a history lesson, let me know.

If you respect the Constitution, if you believe that people have rights and the government is instituted by men to protect those rights, and that the only way to keep liberty is to be ever vigilant, you are my brother. If you seek to isolate, divide, or exclude those who believe in liberty, freedom, and a Constitutional Republic, then you are my enemy.

libertas pro omnibus vel pro nullus
Liberty for all, or none

http://survivingliberty.blogspot.com/

Why the Second Amendment Still Matters

Images are worth a thousand words, so let me be brief:

Ferguson, MO 2014

These citizens in Ferguson, MO use their firearms to prevent violence and destruction without ever firing a shot, preventing more damage and injury than the MO police . ..

Below we see 1992, LA Rodney King Riots:

The above citizens use their firearms to prevent violence and destruction when the police leave entire sections of the city out of fear. . . 

So, in closing:

The @Think4Liberty Story

The @Think4Liberty Story

(The requisite first post by Robert Dakar @think4liberty)

    History shows us that even though times, situations and technology change, the underlying themes remain rather consistent.  "History repeats itself" is a bit simplistic, but rather accurate.  We are seeing this repetition again today.  Countries are spying on each other: (Germany "accidentally" spying) (NSA spying) Religious wars are raging ( ISIS Crisis ) ( Israel/Hamas).  and closer to home in the United States of America, we see liberties being curtailed and freedom restricted for less than compelling reasons.  

    Having served in the military and sworn "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . ." I took it upon myself to study and become learned on this document.  In my studies and in discussions with others, I have come to respect both the document and the men that created it.  As such, I seek to share my knowledge, and gain more at the same time, in the hopes that through discussion (and the occasional sensational statement) others might learn to take interest in the Constitution and more importantly their own liberties.  

    I look forward to having many discussion with all of the readers and contributors out there.  

    Robert Dakar

    3%