The Things We Dare Not Say

I have been frequently approached, especially in recent weeks since the Sandy Hook shooting, by folk talking about the relationship of the electorate to the government. One person has been considering the formation of a local militia for the purpose of having a ready force available to support the sheriff in the eventuality that it may be necessary - essentially a trained 'posse'. Of concern to him - and a legitimate concern which I share - is that this militia not morph into what he considers an 'anti-government' outfit. He referred to Constitutionalist militias as such. My question to him was if a militia (or person) is standing ready to fulfill the oath we have shared to protect and defend the Constitution, then how can it be anti-government? I would consider that a pro-government individual or outfit and any opposition to it would come from an entity that was not a legitimate government, but an illigitimate regime, as the 2nd Amendment clearly states that a well-regulated (properly functioning) militia is necessary for the defense of the republic and the freedom to exercise the natural rights of the citizenry the republic was formed to protect.

Last night a network ran a report on the Danish individual who was instrumental in the assasination of Anwar Al-Awlaki, one of several American citizens (including his sixteen-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was specifically targeted and assasinated two weeks after his father) who have been assasinated by the Obama regime. This story prompted a 'spirited' discussion between K and I concerning the rights of the people to replace a "government" which is not performing its duty to protect the natural rights of the citizens, but rather is engaging in a state of war against its citizens.

These principles are detailed in our Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*" These principles are based on the natural rights argument, primarily from John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government, in which he discusses the circumstance in which a "government" embarks upon a 'state of war', with the people: "... whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. ... [Power then] devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty, and, by the Establishment of a new Legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own Safety and Security, which is the end for which they are in Society.**"

I will elaborate on these thoughts in subsequent blog posts - my question for today is multi-fold: 1)What is the legitimate response to government to "speech" which advocates putting into practice the right of defense which the citizenry inherently possesses, being a natural right from our Creator? Is the proper response to assasinate that citizen with a predator drone or a CIA kill team as was done to Imam Al-Awlaki (assuming the hypothetical that the extent of Al-Awlaki's offense was running a website in which he advocated for violent Jihad against the "Great Satan")?

2)Does the right of free speech and a free press extend to this discussion and is this blog post itself an "alternative press" (alternative to the main-stream media which is admittedly being used as a propaganda tool of the regime)?

3)By initiating this discussion should I expect to have my door kicked in some dark night by a CIA/DHS kill team or might a predator drone vaporize me as I am innocently brushhogging the north 40 some fine spring morning?

Please join me in considering these important issues as the regime is assasinating American citizens at will and discussing how best to limit our ability to exercise the "common refuge against force and violence" Locke describes as the appropriate response to the slavery inherent under a regime exercising arbitrary power...if you dare to do so...and if you don't dare to discuss this - is this an acknowledgement of fear of government to exercise the very natural rights I discuss here?