If you think we can't rant like Alex Jones on matters of principle, then you are still a slave.Submitted by fiodax on Thu, 01/10/2013 - 23:59
"In matters of fashion, swim with the current. In matters of conscience, stand like a rock" - Thomas Jefferson
So many are fretting over whether the message of Liberty will be harmed by Alex Jones' rant on Peirs Morgan, so many are wringing their hands over the patriots out there who boldly state what they believe and leave little or no room for an opposing viewpoint.
People like Peirs Morgan demand that we defend the truth, but it needs no defense, it can and must stand on its own. A truth that requires a human defense in order to remain true is nothing but propaganda. You have no moral obligation to defend the truth, only to obey it.
Do we seek the permission of the masses in order to walk in the truth of our Liberties, to even dare to proclaim them boldly? Must they be convinced before we can exercise the rights that are ours by birth?
I had an Alex Jones moment of sorts at the RNC, and I was even called an "agent provocateur" by many in the crowd for suggesting that we merely upset the programming at the RNC in order not to have our message silenced by their scripted cover-up of Ron Paul's candidacy (http://youtu.be/dDeUJbgb8bA). I was not calling for violence, in a very real sense, violence had already been initiated by the party's fraudulent disregard of its own rules and disrespect of its members. I was merely calling for us to make our rightful voices heard, since the proper venue for it had been forcefully stolen from us. But the fear of how it would be perceived or who it might upset came forward to show that many of us are still subjects to these illegitimate authorities in our minds, as we attempt to cower before them and beg their system to recognize our liberties, as if their system were the very source and sustainer of them.
What are you afraid of? Will the truth be unseated? Will a clumsy presentation of it cause it to falter and succumb to a fantasy? Is our claim to our own liberties subject to the etiquette of a fashionable and fickle public or the agreement of a fraudulent party or a leftist Brit?
If they want to argue about who's picture we should engrave upon the gold and silver coins, then by all means, lets be civil and let all sides have their say.
If they begin to negotiate against our natural rights, whatever tone best communicates a solid rock "No" should be employed, their offense is of no consequence.
There is a problem when in the name of popularity our concern for "civility" overrides the truth and betrays our individual sovereignty. It indicates a belief that rights are born from the will of the majority, and are not inherent within the individual. An offended, even rude "NO" properly communicates that there are some lines who's crossing will not be tolerated.
If we want to teach the world about Liberty, lets do it from a position of strength, and not by forfeiting the premise of individual sovereignty by attempting to appeal to the sensibilities of the fashionably unreasonable.