Revisiting , the proverbial lines that shall not be crossed

This discussion was started over at Oathkeepers with this question to provoke thought , i will include the question as the asker asked , and my following response for your thought and approval:
I don't mean to incite anything, just wondering if we have considered or discussed where that proverbial line in the sand actually is. We stand stronger united than divided. When is it that enough is enough. I personally am getting real tired of this administration jamming $hit down my throat. Only so much of that and I start regurgitating it back up.
Just something to inspire some thought. I don't have an answer, just wondering.

To which i repied:
Reply by AlphaWolf 2 hours ago
Kevin, I firmly believe , that the proverbial "line" is a very personal and intimate one, it is something that you , yourself must wrestle with, and ultimately , it is your desicion. I will not even attempt as some here in the group to draw them. What i can offer is some advice , even though it is not asked for, start talking to those in your state group, talk to your neighbors , even if you THINK you know your god given rights , review them, decide what they mean to you, re educate yourself, remember an informed person , makes informed decisions.and by informed , i mean dont take everything as gospel just because someone says it , research it , verify its validity. As far as what subjects are taboo to discuss, i think you can see what is and isnt simply by the response the subject gets , but as someone that contacted me said , their board , their rules , in a recent post i saw 1 member say , there was no"pc police " yet conclude their post , that the views were counter to the group and the person should find another soap box, and ended "you have been warned" if thats not policing........
I have had the few people that have contacted me tell me how they had started discussions , only to have them deleted or been set apon by those that do not agree, well as with any group , there will be disagreements , thats going to be natural and is to be expected. and in no way can be avoided. there is no way to please everyone , all you can do is stand fast by your beliefs , and remember , not everyone is going to agree with you, some will say you are to radical or militant , some will say your too pacafist, the thing is and what really matters , is what you think feel and believe. As for me , my credability has been called into question by some , and i have questions of credability of some myself , especial those that demand adherence to THEIR way of thinking to those that think i am too pacafist , im a useful tool, to those that think im too militant , im a firebrand or a loose cannon, to some because i choose to act more slowly and think things through , or because i leave the option open to discuss all options , So Kevin , as i can see from the initial post , you have questions as to where it that line, i tell you , its where ever you draw it at however many levels you want and ultimately , the choice is yours , no one elses , that way they cannot shove anything down your throat, but remember those choices , though they be yours , are yours to live with as well. I hope , as i always do , that my insights provoke thought , as i intend them to , now what you do with them , is entirely your choice.

i know what some think , but what do you think?

Musings on what is a Three percenter?

The Three Percent today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any futher circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders' Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic.
That is from the sispey street irregulars bogsite, the first place i read the term 3%er. the site address is http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/
Another must read from there is http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/11/no-fort-sumters-means-exactly-that.html
As well as my own posting here in this blog last month on the same subject, which is inspired , by mikes post. so go ahead , read what i have , and see why i call myself a Threeper, and keep in mind , though Mike , may not agree with me, i will try all peaceful means first , and when left no other choice, thats where the men will be seperated from the boys.
If you know of other Three percenter sites i would greatly appriciate , a link to them so i can also check them out as well.



UPDATE:After a google search of Threepercenter, i have found 10 pages of 3per stuff. the first one on the first page www.threepercenter.org/ leads to an ARM affiliated site , also gives Sipsey street creadit for the creation of the threepercenter movement. ARM being of course the American Resistsnce Movement.
As with anything i will not endorse or detract from what these groups stand for , ill leave it to you to decide for yourselves. on apersonal note , i am glad to see that they got rid of the socialist up turned fist holding a chain inside a celtic circle(cross) usually associated with supremacist groups, and added disclaimer's that they are nondiscriminatory, maybe mike v's stating that those groups aint him did some good and made them rethink their marketing.Another thing readily seen , is both those sites are advertising OathKeepers

Musings on more than 1 iron in the fire

Last couple of posts , I have been talking about oaths, association with groups , and some of my general thoughts and beliefs, and basically have been in a rather cantankerous and pissy mood with but 1 respondent over at another site , which i allowed to let, drive a message away from what i was intending to impart as my opinion.and we all readily understand opinions are that opinions , and they are alot like a certain body part, everyone has them.
Ill let it be known right now , that i support the stance of Oath keepers , meaning its stated mission to reach those , that will if it ever happens be called upon to enforce unconstitutional orders, i do believe that the RTI of Oath keepers is a very useful tool to change the perception some of those folks tasked view things.
If we can reach these folks , and teach them what we believe, and convince them that we are right, and then inspire them to talk with those in their circle and reach and teach themselves , maybe things wont get too bad if it ever comes to it.
That being said there is nothing thast says ,one cannot follow a belief and act accordingly and be not having an alternate plan in the case your initial one either fails , or just isn't enough. Any one that thinks there is only one course , and puts all there hopes in 1 course of action without a back up plan , is ,in my humble opinion is deluding themselves, the old saying don't put all your eggs in 1 basket.In previous posts i talked about the drawing of lines being an individual choice , as they are , and i said nothing about how many or where anyone should be drawing them , i will not presume to make choices for others, because individual circumstances vary, and frankly , some folks may not be comfortable having to make choices at this moment for something that may never come to pass. or may want to wait until they are pressed into making a choice, and eventually , i am very sure, at some point , a choice will need to be made. I just hope that when the choices are being thought of that its made on facts , research and a strong belief that the choice needs to be made and that they are making the correct one, and only they will know that.So in conclusion, personally i think as you can see i have more than 1 iron in the fire as far as what i see to be the truth on some subjects, and that not every thing is the same for every one, and that i think that that is entirely allowable. What do you think?

Musings on past Oaths

I have had the opportunity for the past few days to consider, some of the past Oaths that I have taken in my lifetime, from the oath of Enlistment I took 3 separate times,to the oath I took the day I got married,and the day that I became a member of the local Search and Rescue Unit, i also have had reason to think about the reaffirming of my oath to Oath Keepers.What has me thinking is exactly what is an oath and exactly how binding will it be be if taken between just 2 people , a group that its officiated for , or simply a solitary promise one makes to themselves.
Now some of you will see , that some of these oath may not apply any longer , like the one to the S&R, i left that organization a few yrs back due to my health so am i styill bound by it?most would say no and what about my oath of enlistment , my military obligation was filled long ago, and i have been discharged from active duty and any reserve commitments, so do those oaths still apply? or can I change them , to fit my current status? I have no Officers appointed over me , I no longer fall under the UCMJ, so are those parts void? What about if i disagree with the President ? do i still have to follow those orders?
So does circumstances change the validity of an Oath?can one change that oath after the fact, because you see , none of these oaths has any time limit , or expiration date, most would assume that once the reason for the oath were completed that the oath itself becomes void, but does it ?Some veterans i know , both enlisted and officer corp , tell me no that the oath is for life, though almost to a person , they do agree that the oath is to no person, but to a piece of paper,the Constitution.
For me , there has not been an administration , that if i had to that i would , or could swear an oath, like the one i took for enlistment,not since i was honorably discharged but i could and still can swear an oath , to protect the US Constitution from all enemies , both foreign , and domestic , and after all isn't all oaths , a promise? to oneself ? what do you think?

The consent of the governed

"The Consent of the Governed"
That in a nutshell is the power of the government, and that power is derived from We the People. That is basically what happens whenever a candidate comes and ASKS us , for our vote, they ask for the consent to represent us , the people and to govern us and we , the people choose whom we will allow to govern and represent us , to the government. Now hopefully , this choice is thought out researched and thoroughly tested by the voters own individual beliefs. This is true from the smallest form of government to the halls of the federal government they ASK us,and we choose.`
Ok , the candidate , gets the consent with the vote , and now represents not just those that have voted for them , but the entire group, They are responsible to all the voters , not just those that voted them into office. This is a job now of trying to represent people of differing ideas and goals, and the now elected official has a hard job, especially if they wish to remain in office.
most times , people will just wait until the next election cycle , and if the elected official hasn't done anything that would have made the voters act sooner , wait? what can the voters do before an election cycle?if their elected officials are going counter to , what the voters want? Well that is dependant on each individual states election laws and what is said in each States Constitution, you see , contained in the laws of the States , and in the states Constitutions , there are mechanisms to remove an elected official from office, and it is up to an individual to research and know what to do if such becomes the case. The Government isn't going to tell you that though , and if the elected official has more support , than detractor , its an exercise in futility, so most will wait for an election cycle to remove an ineffective or contrary candidate. So knowing where to look and what you can do is ultimately your responsibility, and i cannot go into detail what every different state can do , because each state is different in what they say ,its best if you look yourself for your individual state.
What i see though is people have become complacent and remained silent , not realizing that their silence is consent as well,another problem i see is that once elected , the representatives , in their juggling act of trying to represent the entire population , have to compromise to do the most good they can for the most amount of people they represent , its an automatic move towards the opposition from stated beliefs be it to the left or right , and if they don't move , they risk re election.
This is but a brief touch on what the subject is , so in conclusion , it is our consent that the candidates ask for , and we either give it to them or we don't through our votes , and there are mechanisms in the Law and government , to remove that Consent if we the people so choose, but ultimately its up to us , we can speak or remain silent , but again silence is a consent all its own, so talk to your representatives , let them know what you think , otherwise , they will be left to decide themselves , and if they continue to go against the peoples wishes , if there is enough , things can always be changed.
The best way to get the best government is an educated populus.