A recent article by T.L. Davis posed the following:
Here’s the question: Is it better to let someone lead who is so intent upon it that his leadership will provide cohesion to the Liberty Community? We are now a ragged bunch of individuals seeking only self-defense against a tyranny better thought out, better prosecuted than our efforts toward liberty. We are behind, struggling with some manner of discourse with our fellow citizens that will wake them up, that will save them so that we might have reinforcements. But, we are approaching the moment when we can no longer look out for the sports enthusiasts and game show attendees among us.
An article posted on Western Rifle Shooters made the following suggestion to this question:
How’s about everyone that wants to be “leader” apply online, here, or somewhere, and give their name, and a short platform of what they believe in, what they hope to accomplish, and how they intend to lead. Then, we can vote on nominating the top three or so of the candidates, the winners will campaign for a certain time, and then we can have an election.
However, here is the real point that Mr. Davis was making:
Let me state quite clearly that the previous post, Naivete, was not written to call for a leader, it was to expose some issues concerning leadership. My statement was that we need a leader, what needs to be done cannot be done arbitrarily, it must be done deliberately, with planning and tactics and overall strategy. We are too small in number to be effective otherwise.
Let’s start at the beginning: the period of time just prior to the American Revolution. Our founding fathers realized that freedom is a natural law given to us by God. They did not look for a leader for guidance but to God. How did they proceed? Fifty-six men signed the Declaration of Independence relying upon divine Providence:
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence were not looking for a leader, they were affirming their freedom. That must be our only goal. And I mean goal: not agenda, political motivation or personal motivation. Our forefathers realized that a military leader was required for the Continental Army. George Washington was suggested because he was the only person present who was wearing a military uniform. Mr. Washington did not seek this duty and accepted it reluctantly. I want to make two points:
1. George Washington did not sign the Declaration of Independence.
2. George Washington was not the first president (leader) of the united States after the Revolution ended: he was the ninth.
It is not important to find “one” leader at this point in time. In fact, this is the most dangerous strategy that we can follow as outlined in “The Road to Serfdom“. What we need to do is precisely what our forefathers did. We must recognize:
- Liberty is the only issue
- We will only succeed with the help of divine Providence
- We must have sacred Honor
We must also ask ourselves the same questions that our forefathers asked. Can we win? Can we succeed? What are the consequences if we lose? We must have the same answer in our hearts as they did: the right to freedom for our children must be our only motivation, no matter what the consequences.
Liberty guarantees freedom, not freedoms. Freedom parsed as individual freedoms means that we are willing to sacrifice a little freedom for security.
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
But this concept of freedom has been replaced by compromise by the very government which has and continues to ignore both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Jesse Helms warned us of the dangers of compromising freedom:
“Compromise, hell! That’s what has happened to us all down the line — and that’s the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?”
I met Steward Rhodes at the North Carolina General Assembly on May 30th. Mr. Rhodes is the founder of Oath Keepers and I asked him a simple question (video):
At what point will people who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution actually defend it?
The time to defend the Constitution is now. Kerodin has organized an American Liberty Summit in Washington, DC on November 2nd and 3rd. If you believe in Liberty and have sacred Honor to defend your oath, you will participate in this Summit. I made an affirmation to God that I would not go back to Washington, DC unarmed two years ago after attending the Michele Bachmann Health Care Rally which quickly degenerated into a Republican Party Pep Rally. I do not swear oaths based on the following:
Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned.
I see no solution to our nation’s economic problems that will be solved by electing politicians thrust upon the people by two political parties which are responsible for the destruction of our Constitution and Liberty. I will be attending the American Liberty Summit in November and pray that the Lord is guiding my words and actions. I hope to see you there.
See additional comments on III Percent Patriots.
See additional comments on Tea Party Nation.
See additional comments on My Time to Stand.