On the state of Virginia and the machinations of tyranny thereof

You'd think what's occurred in Virginia would convey that nowhere, and no one, is safe from tyranny in this country any longer. But I still talk to people who think that "couldn't happen here;" that their part of the country, home, etc., is the exception. Which merely vindicates my long standing assertion, that the left is not the biggest threat to American liberty, and never was. The biggest threat to our freedoms is, and has ever been, the ignorance, apathy, and indifference of those who purport to be on the political "right." Our society has become pervaded by the most pernicious delusions of security, predicated upon often entirely imaginary (and effeminate) notions, in conjunction with an abject ignorance of history.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of having a rudimentary understanding of history. It is impossible to understand the present without understanding the past. And understanding the past also enables, to a certain extent, prognostication; i.e., the ability to see the future. ("What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.") Human nature, being unchanging, means the humans of the present have the same needs, wants, and proclivities as the humans of the past, making them, and the societies they establish, predictable to a not insignificant degree.

"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Second Virginian Convention, March 23, 1775.

And as anyone at all familiar with history, American history in particular, would know, we've seen what's happening in Virginia before. And who better to give us an account of such than a Virginia native?

"I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. - Ibidem.

Like Patrick Henry, I ask what enemy does Ralph Northam and the Democrat Party have in the state of Virginia, that warrants the accumulation of armed forces and denying the people the use of arms? The answer is, the people. Governor Northam by his efforts, blatantly considers the people his enemy, and is therefore by default the enemy of the people. The measures being proposed in Virginia have but one, plain purpose; the subjugation of the people of Virginia. When the government amasses forces among you, when no external invader or legitimate domestic threat exists, that should at the very least evoke suspicion. When it does so in conjunction with seeking to disarm its own citizens, that removes all ambiguity regarding its purpose, and is a conspicuous precursor to subjugation.

I supported the protests in Virginia. Many didn't, and wanted action, but I think the protests were necessary; to show, unequivocally, that peace was tried first; to show that all other options were exhausted.

"Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!" - Ibidem.

The proponents of liberty went to the capital armed and harmed no one. Their disposition for peace and reconciliation openly demonstrated for all to see. There now shall come a crux, at which peaceful appeals must end, and action must commence. And that crux, if it is to occur at all, must occur before disarmament; because it cannot occur after it.

"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?" - Ibidem.

The statement "they tell us that we are weak," and "unable to cope with so formidable an enemy," should be immediately familiar to anyone not completely estranged to current events. It's conspicuously manifest in sentiments such as this.

Or (who could forget) this gem. 

As anyone with a functioning brain will immediately recognize, what Biden and Swalwell are trying to "tell us" is that "we are weak," and "unable to cope with so formidable an enemy" as our own government. Nevermind the immediate, and obvious non sequitur that if this were true, and us having said arms wouldn't matter, there would be no need to disarm us as the government would be able to subdue us whether we were armed or not. So again, they are telegraphing their intentions, by making such statements and seeking to disarm us. Both of these men, for example, are telegraphing their willingness to perpetrate genocide; which completely contradicts the ostensible premise of (disarming us for the purpose of) avoiding needless bloodshed and saving lives. If as they claim, they were so intent on avoiding bloodshed and saving lives, they would relent and allow the people keep their arms. They would prefer that to the carnage of civil war. But they don't. To hear a leftist speak on the right to bear arms, is to hear someone argue it's worth committing genocide, if it results in "saving only one life."

We will kill Americans with hellfire missiles to save lives, to improve the "well being of Americans," and "take thousands out of harm's way." That's Joe's position. Notice also how, in the previous video, Joe omits the part of Jefferson's quote about the tyrants bleeding, and only mentions the patriots in his remarks. Dementia? More telegraphing? You decide.

Nevermind also, how leftists consistently contradict themselves on this issue, routinely taking whatever position benefits them at the moment (as always). As I've observed for years, these same people declared the War in Iraq lost, precisely because our military was unable to completely extirpate an insurgency using small arms. So when it's politically expedient (because it's a successful war for which you can't take credit), insurgents with small arms cannot be defeated, and it's pointless to even try. But conversely, when seeking to enslave their own people domestically, insurgencies with small arms don't stand a chance. 

"Some analysts locate the problem within the military’s culture. Most of America’s opponents in operations since World War II, and particularly since the end of the Cold War, have been non-state actors and insurgents highly skilled and resourceful in taking on conventional military forces in “asymmetrical warfare.” American forces have been trained, organized and indoctrinated in conventional operations using high-tech weaponry, so they have been fighting with a considerable handicap. Certainly, this issue was in play during Vietnam, and in the Iraq War, when the Army found itself out of its depth in confronting a complex insurgency after seizing Baghdad with relative ease. The United States military hasn’t done well with counterinsurgency, which always involves political as well as military conflict, and it would do well to stay clear of them in the future. Firepower, mass, maneuver, and advanced technologies—the sine qua non of the American way of war—are not effective weapons against lightly armed insurgents." - James A. Warren, The Daily Beast, Why Can’t the Most Lethal Military in History Win its Wars?

So again, when comprised of Muslims (which the left adores), insurgents wielding small arms are Kryptonite to the U.S. Military. But when comprised of tyranny resisting Americans, suddenly insurgents with small arms are hopelessly outmatched. What has by the left's own admission worked incredibly well abroad, they claim would not work at all here against that same military. The truth is it would be even more effective here. But as stated previously, leftists take whatever position benefits them at the moment, because they're all duplicitous scum. They will literally, as illustrated above, take both sides on an issue depending on which side suits their interests at the time. And obviously it doesn't behoove them to tell you that a large military (what they would be using to disarm you) has a "handicap" when facing "lightly armed insurgents."

Here's the thing, that people like Joe and Eric either intentionally omit, or being abject imbeciles fail to grasp. In the event of a conflict, the nature of which they're describing, you're going to see significant defections from the federal government, as people choose their state, local, and family interests, over a national bureaucracy to which they are nothing more than bullet fodder. How do I know that? Because that's what happened in the last civil war on American soil. ("I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.")

"Disloyalty, before unsuspected, suddenly became bold, and treason astonished the whole world by bringing at once into the field military forces superior in numbers to the standing army of the United States. Every department of the Government was paralyzed by treason. Defection appeared in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, in the Cabinet, and in the Federal courts. Ministers and consuls returned from foreign countries to enter the insurrectionary councils or land or naval force. Commanding and other officers in the army and in the navy betrayed their councils or deserted their posts for commands in the insurgent forces. Treason was flagrant in the revenue and the post office services, as well as in the Territorial Governments and in the Indian reserves. Not only Governors, judges, legislators, and ministerial officers in the States, but even whole States, rushed one after another, with apparent unanimity, into rebellion. The capital was beleaguered, and its connection with all the States cut off. Even in the portions of the country which were most loyal, political combinations and societies were found furthering the work of disunion; while, from motives of disloyalty or cupidity, or from excited passions or perverted sympathies, individuals were found furnishing men, money, materials of war, and supplies to the insurgents' military and naval forces. Armies, ships, fortifications, navy-yards, arsenals, military posts and garrisons, one after another were betrayed or abandoned to the insurgents." - Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War under President Lincoln, Feb 14, 1862.

This is what people like Joe and Eric, are either too stupid to realize, or don't want you to know. In the event of a revolution, people currently serving the federal government, are going to defect absconding with valuable intelligence and expertise. People currently serving in the U.S. Military, and familiar with F-15s and Hellfire missiles for example, will join the insurrection and bring with them valuable information about those weapons systems and how to circumvent or thwart them. This will be compounded by opportunists aiding and abetting the insurrection for their own reasons (e.g., personal profit). And all this will be in addition to a federal government that will be at a profound disadvantage, and potentially even crippled (at least initially) for a protracted period, while it regroups and tries to stem the loss of resources and absolutely copious intel leaks. (If you think the federal government is leaky now...) Let it also not be forgotten the secession of countless counties, or whole states, would have a significant effect upon the federal government financially. Being left with all the extant debt of the U.S., but a significantly diminished ability to repay (through taxation) both that debt, and any new debt it accrues during such a conflict. 

As for nuking insurgents, that assumes they'll all be in a single, or even a handful, of places. Which, as illustrated above, they won't be. They'll be dispersed throughout the country, i.e., everywhere, i.e., even among your own allies and forces. To nuke them would require nuking yourself. But apparently Eric believes irradiating large swaths of your own country, rendering much of it uninhabitable and its resources inaccessible for years, and killing large numbers of your own forces in the process is the way to put down insurgencies. Anything to save lives, for the children, etc. Kill millions, potentially tens of millions, to save thousands guys; "to protect our families and communities." Whatever it takes. And if you don't agree with us, then you want people to die.

These are the kind of people who want to run our country, and far too often, are running our country.

Simply put, it's not going to go like Joe and Eric think it will, or at least want you to think it will. What Joe and Eric are doing, is engaging in preemptive demoralization, by telling you that the enemy is too strong, that you can't possibly win, that it's impossible, and therefore you should just surrender now. There's no point in resisting because you're already conquered, and if you resist you'll just be conquered harder. They don't want you know the truth that Henry knew.

"Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us." - Ibidem.

And this obfuscation of the truth, in addition to their flagrant contempt for Founding era principles, should tell you everything you need to know about them. It's one thing to think Jefferson didn't know everything, and another to scoff at and view him with condescension if not derision. Men like Joe and Eric hate the Founders, hate America, hate your liberties, and hate you. And I don't know what's worse. The fact they're continually given a venue to espouse their hatred, or that there are actually people (if you pay attention) in the crowd smiling and nodding in agreement, as Joe verbally defecates upon the genius of a man who did more for genuine liberty in one lifetime, than a jackass like Joe would in a thousand lifetimes. These Democrat "town halls" are naught more than a spectacle of Marxist morons affirming each other's ignorance and psychopathy. That's all they've ever been, and all they'll ever be.

As I have said from the outset, I support the Second Amendment sanctuary county movement, but it is in and of itself not enough. It's merely a band-aid. If these people can infiltrate and subvert government at the federal and state level, they can certainly do it at the local level. Local elected officials can be intimidated, vilified, and bribed, and likely with far less effort and for far cheaper, into submission like elected officials at any other level of government. They can be voted out and replaced with stooges and sycophants like those at any other level. These counties must band together, into binding compacts for their mutual defense (like the colonies), or they will be dispatched one by one.

The establishment of sanctuary counties is merely the beginning of preserving and restoring liberty, which can only be achieved through the decentralization of power (back to the states and municipalities), and not the end. If it stops there, and progresses no farther, it shall all be for naught; slowly infiltrated, eroded, and dismantled from within. 

In conclusion. The "peaceful" protests have occurred. Virtually every avenue for a peaceful resolution has been exhausted, and though there have been some ancillary victories here and there, the larger conflict and assiduous assault on our liberty continues unabated. It is up to the people to decide at what point, if any, they will rebuff this tyranny in earnest. The time is rapidly approaching, if not upon us, when we must likewise ask ourselves. "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" Or, renouncing our history and heritage as a God fearing and gun bearing people, do what Henry would not and "in vain indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation."