Forget everything you know about politics. Forget the age old story about the Democrats and the Republicans, where one side is good and the other side are a bunch of America hating vats of pure evil. Forget about the left vs right debate, forget about conservative vs liberal. At this stage in the game, there are only two sides;
Those who support the further growth of a centralized authoritarian state and those who oppose them.
That’s it. There are your teams, which one are you playing for?
In the wake of the liberty revolution, there are many active groups doing good things to oppose centralized tyranny. They go by many names: the 912ers, the TEA Partiers, Campaign for Liberty, GOOOH, We Surround Them and of course our own Tenthers. These groups are all playing for the same team. Their backgrounds and tactics may be entirely different, but as members of any number of these groups, we must all keep the big picture in mind.
We are all on the same side.
Too often I hear about meetings of these different groups where there is a clamoring for control, where there are too many chiefs and not enough soldiers. This must stop.
When members of almost every group mentioned above found their way to Washington DC on September 12th, the estimated number of people present was not tallied as “300,000 GOOOH, 200,000 C4L, 800,000 912ers etc”. The number was simply 1.7 million people, all ready to fight tyranny and whether they knew it or not, all on the same side.
Let us learn to accept those who come from different ideologies, political parties, lifestyles and parts of the country. For me, the only thing I need to know about you at this point is this-
Are you with me, or are you with Big Brother?
October 25th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Bryce, my brother, I am with you.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:25 am
Right on. I love the idea of not putting up with being split into left and right, liberal and conservative camps, but rather coming at if from the idea of working toward promoting and devending individual liberties, or however you want to call it, verses more power and control reduced to fewer people so that decision making is moved further and further from the individual.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:37 am
I am with you. GOOOH is with you. How can we get the groups to rally together? We believe we have the process that every group can use to select true citizen representatives. If there is a better solution, let us know. But, it seems that GOOOH is the one way we can unify all groups. We do not have a platform, but we do have a way to bring the groups together. Let us know if you see it differently. The end objective is what we are most interested in: electing true leaders who will get our nation back on track.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:55 am
Circular firing squads: FAIL, I'm in, thanks.
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
I think that there are enough different attacks on liberty in general that every group can fight a different battle with the same goal in sight. The battle for control is silly, and if it continues it will undoubtedly kill all credibility of all groups. "Hang together, or we will all surely hang separately" comes to mind. Each group can maintain its own focus without having some "super group", but I think that it would be good to have leaders from each group discussing which issues each group is going to focus on, while at the same time supporting each other with ideas and people for rallies, etc. Just my two cents worth~
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:40 am
@Bryce – Excellent article. Couldn't agree more. Our focus must now be on the state legislatures to force the federal gov't to stand down on issues they're not granted authority and reverse course immediately.
-Joshua
ForgottenMen.com
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:22 am
I'm on THIS team!
November 4th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Bryce,
I agree with your assessment, it's one side or the other. At first I had hoped to organize one statewide 10th Amendment group, but I soon found that was like "herding cats in the desert". I find in Idaho that we are all independent patriots and groups, and the best method is to just link up by email with every one you can , make your case for state rights, and let them go at it as they see fit. I must admit most of the groups and individuals are focused at the national level, but I keep pushing the state sovereignty issue at every opportunity.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
You are either for Liberty or against it. It seems that the vast vast majority of politicians are against it. And that's the problem. Keep up the good work
November 5th, 2009 at 12:06 am
I think there is so much democrats and republicans can find in common for defending state's rights such as California's pot smoking law or Iowa's gay marriage. While state's rights might be a traditionally right wing belief there is a lot that left wingers can also appreciate about state's rights and federalism.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Well, I ain't with big bro., if that tells you anything. 'Course, big bro. and me never could quite see eye-to-eye. On virtually anything.
Good post!
November 5th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
How do we stop this from happening? What legal actions can we take to prevent and reverse total government control?
November 5th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
The real question – will you be willing to exercise your rights even if the federal politicians or the federal courts give you permission to do so?
November 5th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
I love big brother. He defends me, makes my water clean, makes sure I have safe water, safe drugs, and good food (at least most of the time). He helps me if i'm unemployed, starving, or freezing on the street. I just wish he could give me Healthcare or maybe finally make our country use clean energy that would make us independent of the middle east and big oil companies.
Bu hey, enjoy your perfectly free society. I just hope you don't get cholera…. or go broke when your insurance dumps you… or if you lose your job.
Sweet Dreams
November 5th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I’m willing to exercise them without permission but let’s try the legal (peaceful) approach first!
November 6th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Peaceful is just what I'm talking about – but at the same time recognizing that the federal government rarely, if ever, restricts its own power and protects your liberty. peaceful is the only way to be successful – and there's a lot of peaceful mass civil disobedience to the federal government happening right now. Learn a bit more about it here:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amen...
November 6th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Defends me? Fail.
Makes clean water? Fail.
Safe food? Fail.
Safe water? fail.
Unemployement? Fail.
Homeless? Fail.
I can't wait for big brother healthcare so he can fail at that, too.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
i'm pretty sure that water that comes out of my tap is clean enough for my consumption, something thats not available for billions of people on this planet. I also have a military that keeps enemies out of my country, an FDA that at least tries to have stds for food (admittedly sometimes stuff slips through, but its better than nothing> i also have the potential to recieve unemployment for two years, and government subsidized housing if i can't afford to get myself some. ALso, if i'm old i have access to that medicare program that is SOOOO horrible that seniors are fighting tooth and nail to keep it……..
idk, my bff Big Brother
November 6th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
are you kidding?
once we get rid of the damn government and create a free society, everyone will just share everything that we need. we dont actually need a government to bind us together and make laws for social well-being; no one would take more than they need and everyone would help everyone else out, just like individuals do in the status quo……oh, wait……
November 7th, 2009 at 1:31 am
Ah thanks for pointing me in the right direction! My question is do you believe that it can be done peacefully? Do you think the moneychangers are just going to walk away from their seat of power?
"(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs." taken from the:
Text of H.R. 1955 [110th]: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.
IntroducedApr 19, 2007
Referred to CommitteeView Committee Assignments
Reported by CommitteeAug 1, 2007
Passed HouseOct 23, 2007
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill...
It did not pass but look at the wording in the paragraph " force or violence" now define force!
Force-
3.
a. Intellectual power or vigor, especially as conveyed in writing or speech.
b. Moral strength.
c. A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior; efficacy: the force of logical argumentation.
d. One that possesses such capacity: the forces of evil.
4.
a. A body of persons or other resources organized or available for a certain purpose: a large labor force.
b. A person or group capable of influential action: a retired senator who is still a force in national politics.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/force
this bill is still on the books if passed we have no rights.
November 7th, 2009 at 1:37 am
the page you sent me to is no longer there?!?
November 7th, 2009 at 4:53 am
youre a fool…
A. it only bans force insofar as the force is used to "intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" – i fail to see how 'moral strength' or intellectual vigor could possibly be seen as intimidating or coercing the US citizens
B. the bill defines force in terms of terrorism, ie in terms of violence. so unless youre using your moral strength and intellectual vigor to blow up buildings and kill people, youre not in any danger of losing your rights
C. youre playing word association games to create a mismatched story that conforms to your preformed opinions of what the bill means. government bills dont use definitions from the "online free dictionary". of course its possible to find a vague enough definition of force on the internet that makes it seem like this would be the end of all rights, that doesnt make it true. dont be dumb…
November 7th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
if the federal govt took less from the states citizens, the state government could (if legal in their constitution) provide all these services at a lower cost, and more effectively. However the difference would be, that you would be better able to effect these programs (you have more of a say in closer government in general). By doing it at the federal level, we continue to support a government with no legal framework, which is setting the table for totallitarianism. I'm sure citizens of the USSR also appreciated the government taking care of them from cradle to grave, but there is a price to be paid for this, in liberty. We don't need the federal government taking their "cut" to provide these "free" services (that by the way we steal from other citizens), our states could do this at half the cost.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Educate me but don't put another down just because you may know more about a subject than others.
Who's really the fool the one who knows he knows nothing or the one who thinks he knows everything!
Thank you for helping me gain a clearer understanding, Josh!
November 10th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
You are correct. There are only two sides. One side says, as did Obama, the interests of the community are more important than are the interests of the individual. They are the elite few who rule the many, the oldest, most established side of all. The other side believes legitimate individual interests are most important, where the many rule themselves. That's the newest side practiced only in America, now threatened with termination.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
From my perspective, citizens have failed to teach the Constitution and its history to their children for many generations. Consequently, state sovereignty has been forgotten, citizens not understanding that corrupt, Constitution-ignoring federal lawmakers are greatly overstepping their constitutional authority.
November 20th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Well stated. It is simple; individual liberty versus totalitarian big government. Check out The National Liberty Unity Summit at
http://www.nationallibertyunitysummit.org/
Note well NLUS's motto