But unlike you, I am ever-hopeful that we can "come back" to the "Founders' Original Intent" for the Constitution. I just refuse to quit.
I refuse to quit too. We only differ in what we consider appropriate labors towards the ends of constitutional restoration. I consider voting to be just shy of being completely meaningless anymore, especially if you're conservative. I mean, look at the choices conservatives have had for the last 25 or so years. Ross Perot, Bob Dole, John McCain and now Mitt Romney. Color me unimpressed. Within the last few weeks the Republican-controlled House voted 388 to 3 (with 42 abstentions) to authorize the POS POTUS who isn't even proven to be a freakin'
citizen, the authority to prevent opposition speech towards him or anyone he designates as being protected by his simple "memorandum," with the penalty for standing on one's 1st Amendment rights possibly being a felony charge with up to 10 years in prison. Now, how one finds anything to hang their hat on in regards to finding hope that voting in presidents and Congress-critters will do a lick of good in light of such virtually unopposed usurpations is beyond my ability to comprehend.
There are three boxes that contributed to the creation of the United States under the Constitution; 1) The soap-box. 2) The ballot-box. 3) The bullet-box. I still consider all three as necessary credible threats against the usurpations of the system that it took all three to create. Most people, even highly conservative and patriotic sorts, consider only the first two legitimate forms of pressure against government anymore. But I think the first two have been made so completely impotent in today's lexicon, that #3 is now an inevitability if constitutional restoration is to be either started or completed. Not a desirable inevitability because of the woeful numbers of citizens who take their rightful place as protectors of the Constitution seriously, but an inevitability nonetheless. Whether out-and-out revolution ever actually happens is an as-yet unanswered question. As to whether or not conservatives have either the numbers or the testicular fortitude necessary to prevent the need for it is not. Obviously, they don't, or Romney and the other aforementioned faux-conservatives wouldn't be the standard bearers for what little is left of a truly conservative movement.
In any case, I haven't quit loving or being willing to fight tooth and nail for my country, I just don't think voting is the manifestation of that willingness. As far as I can tell, this is really the only difference between our positions in the context of this discussion.
There are many patriots here and we're all probably on a governmental watch list by now.
I can guarantee I am. I hold what I consider to be the honorable distinction of being quoted by the hacks at the Southern Poverty Law Center from a post on another forum that was used in part as evidence by them that the government should institute restrictions on free speech specifically on the internet. I just searched for the report so I could link to it, but couldn't find it through the morass of just-as-equally and disgustingly anti-freedom links that come up when searching anything on the SPLC site. Whatever, being someone whom the government considers dangerous to its continued unopposed domination over peoples' liberties simply on the basis of the opinions I express on a daily basis, and not on any criminal actions I have ever indulged in, is a status I wear as a badge of honor. To the extent that "we're all" on similar watch lists by now, y'all should feel the same way. Screw 'em. They don't scare me.
Although I detest that Ted Nugent shirked his duty to serve in the armed forces
Whoa! "Shirked his duty?" I served, but had I not, I would take extreme offense at such a conclusion. At one point several years ago I had occasion to research what percentage of the American male population had ever served in the military. At that time, maybe 10 or 12 years ago, while several tens of thousands more WWII vets were still alive, only 6% had served. I'd be surprised to find out that it's any higher a percentage today, and likewise surprised to find out it wasn't significantly lower now. It's hard to imagine that you consider 94% (minimum) of the male population to have "shirked their duty" by not serving. I enlisted at 17 about a year before the draft ended (unknowing of that fact at the time) so that I could have a say in where I went. The vast majority of people I served with who enlisted did so in order to avoid being sent to Nam as cannon fodder for a war that most of us didn't believe in. Had the draft not been in effect, and my number when I turned 18 wouldn't have been #8, I would've "shirked my duty" too. Even at 17 I was aware enough to realize that running to Canada or burning my draft card in protest were decisions I could not make in good conscience, so I did what I could to avoid Nam while still not avoiding what I thought would be compulsory service if I hadn't enlisted. I gamed the system more than Nugent did though. All he did was decide not to enlist, and luckily for him, he wasn't drafted. Or at least I don't think he was. For all I know, he was called and failed a physical or something. Either way, I sure don't see him or the other 94% of males who never served as failing any kind of duty. It seems one thing for vets to think of themselves as exceptional people. Though I do not consider myself as such simply by virtue of my time in service, I certainly do consider many others as such, especially those who serve(d) in combat. But it seems quite another thing to consider anyone who didn't serve as shirking a duty that cannot be found articulated anywhere in any set of laws or treatises on societal norms and expectations anywhere. Ya lost me on that one.
He'll probably be arrested for sedition.
Nope, the Secret Service interviewed him yesterday and
issued a statement that they consider the matter closed.
Heck, we all may be rounded-up.
My first inclination was to agree with you here. But on second thought, I'm thinking, "Why?" Why would the government go after right-wingers who can't even organize effectively enough to prevent the virtual
author of ObamaCare from being their candidate for president? Why go after the same right-wingers who are busy nominating the most pro-abortion Republican in all the land? Or the most anti-gun Republican in all the land? Or the Republican candidate who, along with his only minor challenger left for the nomination, Newt Gingrich, believes wholeheartedly in man-made global warming and all the government regulations and limits on freedom that come with that belief? Or the Republican who vocally advocated for TARP 1 and 2? Or the Republican most supportive of a "path to citizenship" for people who literally
broke into our country? Why would the current leftist government go after us right-wingers as we prepare to nominate the
only Republican to ever nullify an existing law by executive fiat, and order town clerks in MA to issue same-sex marriage certificates?
The demonstrable fact of the matter is that we have become such de-balled eunuchs in America that to identify one's self as a Republican is to admit to never standing for the core values that they
used to exemplify. Republicans are Democrats' best friends, not because they don't recognize that Romney has so many disqualifying faults to run on their ticket, but because they are going to nominate him despite that recognition. How anyone who supports voting for Romney can claim adherence to core conservative values that are so utterly incompatible with his record is
way too many shades of gray for these old eyes to see, and I see no reason why the Obammunist would order rounding up those so-called right-wingers when they're so close to destroying themselves without the leftists having to lift a finger.
In short, I think we're plenty safe for now.
As to the global forces arrayed against us, I again agree with you. But again, I don't think it's over yet. Perhaps my faith is misguided. I still trust other stalwart Americans to stand-up along side me. That may be my downfall. Maybe you're right - there aren't enough true patriots left in America. But I hope you're wrong.
I used to say that I hoped I was wrong too. But I came to the conclusion that hope won't get you change. Only change gets you change. Only refusing to elect and reelect for decades, so-called conservatives who allow and/or sit idly by while usurpations like McCain/Feingold pass, or HR 347 passes with all but three House members voting against it, or the Patriot Act not only passes, but subsequently gets renewed and "strengthened" (from a government perspective, not The People's - the absolute proof that it goes against The People's interests), when presidents can order the assassination of even the most despicable American citizen with Executive Orders and no congressional or SCOTUS involvement or oversight, only sending these kinds of "conservatives" home has a prayer of initiating the amount of change that we need for my hope to be reinvigorated. Honestly, I don't see that happening though.
All in all, we see things pretty much the same. I won't admit defeat until the "Fat Lady Sings" and I know that you'll be beside me, if not in body, at least in spirit. Thanks again for your post. I appreciate your insight and intellect. But moreover, I appreciate your commitment to the values we share and covet.
MilShooter
Oh, don't worry, I'll be beside any and all Patriots in both body and spirit should the time come to put them on the line. I would like you to describe what set of circumstances would constitute the "fat lady singing" though. Will it take the public admission by the so-called conservatives who hold the reins of power in this country that they have willingly participated in the ushering in of the New World Order? Something more? Something less? I only scratched the surface above of problems I have with them in general, or Romney specifically, but that's enough for me. The fat lady has sung. When does the curtain close on your fat lady?
Blues
ETA: I know you said you watched all the videos of Ann Barnhardt's on YouTube, but wondered if you might have missed
this one. I stumbled upon it a couple of minutes after posting this post, but it shouldn't be any surprise that Ann and I are so closely aligned in our rationale for opposing Romney. If you already saw it, my apologies. If not, check it out and hear in Ann's voice the same enthusiasm and commitment to her positions as you would hear in my voice if we were just sittin' around shootin' the bull.
leasantry:
