“Check Your Road” in the Coming New Year

Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all.  Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach.  Check your road and the nature of your battle.  The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it is yours.

Atlas Shrugged

Via Joe Maurone.

Live.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/31 at 06:01 PM
  1. Thanks for that, John, and Happy New Year.  Might as well start with the best.  For some of the worst, I’m trying to figure out if this guy’s got the right conclusion but for the wrong reasons…

    tinyurl.com/a4rs32p

    “As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years…”  Hey, you can’t get comedy like that hardly anywhere.  Bizarre, indeed.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/01  at  01:27 AM
  2. Jim, Happy New Year to you.

    I’d noted a number of references to Seidman’s op-ed as I cruised the net the other day, but did not take the time to read it til today.  Thanks for the url link.

    Seidman’s conclusion is bizarre considering his alleged teaching (I rather think he has been indoctrinating and indoctrinated) of constitutional law for 40 years.  Correct though it may be, I think he would be quite accepting of tyranny, rather than freedom in place of constitutional law.

    As an aside, in response to Owens’ piece, “What you’ll see in the rebellion,” Donald Sensing, after reading Owens piece via a link at Vanderleun’s, suggests in comments at Vanderleun’s that states test nullification.  Here’s Sensings take.

    Well, nice try, Bob. But here is what will really happen. Congress passes the law, the NRA et. al. scream about it and then ... nothing happens.

    Some people affected (no more than 20 percent) comply with the turn-in order. The rest don’t comply.

    And they don’t organize, they don’t form insurgent groups, they don’t start assassinating politicians. They just hide their guns and continue with daily life as before.

    Another American revolution over such a law? Not a chance. Not for this reason nor any other. The American people decided beginning in the 1930s that we would surrender our sovereignty to the federal government and we have been doing so fervently and devotedly since then. Obama is merely running the end game. The vast majority - let me repeat, the vast majority - of Americans are fully sheepled now and will not forcefully resist any additional oppressive measure by this administration nor any other to follow.

    A better bet would be for the remaining liberty lovers to start now to take over selected state legislatures and governorships, preferably of adjoining states, and lay the political groundwork for interstate unity and the revival of nullification doctrine, dead though Andrew Jackson made it.

    This makes the federals the reactor rather than pro-actor and places them more publicly in the lawless role.

    Remember that the Supreme Court ruled in the 1870s that the Constitutional question of secession was moot because events had shown that secession was a matter settled by force or arms, not courts. However, nullification was never tested either by the courts nor by force of arms. It was ended purely by President Jackson’s threat personally to hang members of the South Carolina legislature. As S.C. was not being backed by other states, nullification soon withered away.

    But what if today only four or five states united in declaring null and void certain federal enactments, based on common legislative acts passed by their legislatures and signed by their governors? What exactly can or would Obama do about it?

    They most important thing to remember about beginning a revolution, whether peaceful or not, is that the King’s Dominion must be, and must be seen as, the initiating actor. That’s the position to put the federals in: opponents of the rule of law in which the states position themselves as its protector.

    I think Sensings idea is interesting, and worth considering, but cannot be implemented quickly enough to prevent where we are currently headed.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  01/02  at  11:55 AM
  3. While I agree an easy case can be made that the federal government is lawless, I’m still skeptical.  Besides the impracticality of it, I’m not at all convinced that it’s even right in principle.

    But that’s for another day.  There is an interesting, even promising, principle in the arming of the American populace.  It occurs to me that most people, especially these days, wouldn’t spend a ton of money on something that they believed would turn them into a criminal in the near future.

    Hence I conclude that they’re doing it for other reasons, and I’m strongly inclined to think that the principles behind those reasons, are all good.  I suppose a few are stocking up in preparation for literal war, but that’s got to be a minority.

    Could it just be the obvious, that a million score of people think that they themselves are worthy of armed defense?  And that it’s their own responsibility to boot?  I find that quite promising, and a bit of a pleasant surprise.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/03  at  12:42 AM
  4. Jim, I noted Sensing’s thoughts because I think them important, and worth, considering.  Like you, though, I question the efficacy of such an approach.

    I also agree with you that the robust sales of certain arms and ammunitions is something more than simply just a response to a(nother) mass shooting and political gun control posturing.

    My main question, is, what is the deeper motivation for these recent purchasers arming themselves?  Is it simply a passing fad, or, is there something deeper at work.  Is the idea of individual responsibility, and the effort this entails, rising in peoples’ minds?  I would that this will be so.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  01/03  at  09:30 AM
  5. “Is the idea of individual responsibility, and the effort this entails, rising in peoples’ minds?”

    I’ve been thinking about this a lot and I can’t come up with any other explanation, particularly for the “non-gun-nuts” out there.  People don’t seek to become criminals for the sake of it, nor do too many jump on the bandwagon to become a soldier in war, especially a war of this nature.

    Naturally it’s hard to say what percentage weren’t already serious firearm owners, nor how many want to be a part of some imagined “liberty war.”  Still, considering the huge numbers involved, I figure an awful lot of the purchasers are just simply looking to be safer, without regard to the status of any law.  If that’s right, it’s got to be a good thing.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/03  at  10:27 AM
  6. ...I figure an awful lot of the purchasers are just simply looking to be safer, without regard to the status of any law.  If that’s right, it’s got to be a good thing.

    Jim, I agree, and would like to see an expansion of this attitude beyond just gun ownership.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  01/03  at  10:58 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

<< Back to main