Monday, June 1, 2009

The Next American Revolution

The Next American Revolution
by Warren "Bones" Bonesteel

In a poll regarding Lt. Easterling's objections over Obama's constitutional eligibility to be president the last number is the one to focus on. For anywho who is in possession of a few basic facts and has an un-biased knowledge of American and world history, the outcome was very revealing. A government that doesn't have a unified standing military to back its power has no dictatorial power over the citizens of the nation it governs. You see, the argument has been made that if Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to be president, that we are no longer living in a constitutional democracy, let alone in a constitutional republic. Thus, the argument leads inevitably to one conclusion: we are effectively being ruled by a dictatorship. The social and political contracts are thus openly broken, null and void, and cannot be readily or peacefully repaired. In such a case, the only powers left to the government are those of force and of coercion. Without a unified standing military and/or a unified and militarized police force, such a government has no effective power over the population. With the first premise in place, the second premise is one of mere historical reality.

In the un-scientific poll, 37% of the respondants are currently 'uncommitted.' Once the violence begins, they will be forced to make decision. Many of them will simply desert their posts and go home, as was the case in both The Revolutionary War and The Civil War. Others will leave their active-duty units, either legally or illegally, and join their home state's national guard units or create of join ad hoc militia units. Before all is said and done, I think that most of that 37% will jump on the Constitutional, anti-government bandwagon. That said, a significant percentage of that same 37% probably consist of the 'don't rock the boat' personalities. Which way any of them jumps will have a bearing on the potential outcomes of any peaceful or violent conflict that will arise as a result of the first two premises.

Also, if (when) another civil war begins in America, expect most of the fifty states to recall their national guard units from any deployment, providing that those units are able to arrange sufficient transportation. Those members of the regular reserves will also have some difficult choices to make.

Keep well in mind that the people who operate lean well to the left of the political center. Like the Marine Corps Times, The Army Times, etc., they are privately owned and operated and their editors, their publishers, and most of their contributors, are comprised of left-leaning journalists. They alone initiated this poll about Lt. Easterling and framed the questions and bear responsibility for the results. Their questions were not based upon the known facts or upon the historical evidence, but the results are interesting, even so.

Please note that the enlisted Enlisted Military Oath of Office states:
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

While the Oath of Office for commissioned officers states:
"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

There is no legal military requirement to 'serve the nation,' nor, in the case of commissioned officers, is there any requirement to serve any sitting President. The primary requirement in both cases is to " and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." That is not only their Oath of Office, that is the extent of their legal contract with the United States military and with its government. Once the United States government has legally and Constitutionally abrogated that contract, say, in the case of an un-Constitutional presidency, the members of the military forces of America are no longer liable for the performance of their part of said contract. Their Oath and their contract is with the Constitution of the United States of America.

Similar scenarios apply with elected politicians and other public servants who are required to take an Oath and sign a contract to protect and defend The Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Their Oaths and their contracts are with the Constitution of the United States of America or with their state constitutions. Their contract is not with the government or with the people of America or with the nation as a whole. Their Oaths and their contracts are with The Constitution, alone.

Similar numbers as seen in the Lt. Easterling poll are seen in the PEW poll on political party 'self identity. I suspect the numbers for law enforcement officers and related federal and state government agencies are very similar to the poll on Easterling. The pro-Constitution, pro-freedom, anti-big government numbers may be slightly higher for military Veterans.

As just one example of many historical examples, I'll now refer to breakdowns of popular political beliefs during the American Revolution. I'm fairly certain that the numbers of Tories represented in the Wikipedia account are from the end of the war, not from the beginning. Other accounts state that in the early part of the American Revolution, approximately 30% of the people of the colonies were for the revolution, 30% were against it, and about 30% were apolitical and just wanted to be left the hell alone.

The British learned, as most empires and kingdoms have learned before them, that those who wage a 'counter-insurgency' have a long row to hoe. If the insurgent strategy and tactics are properly implemented and with 30% of the population actively promoting the insurgent cause, with another 30% of the population remaining disengaged, the insurgent always has the advantage. General Petraeus has been the only successful counter-insurgent leader in recent history, but his success is even now being completely undone by the present America government.

This next item is where the present government of the US will make its biggest mistake in dealing with Americans: over-reaction. This is the exact opposite of a successful strategy, let alone being a dishonorable, unethical and even un-Constitutional reaction to petitions from private citizens who are being ruled by this government. Over-reaction on the part of the government, whether it involves the use of armed force or of bureaucratic regulation, always leads to the eventual defeat and/or collapse of that government. This is a historical reality.

What the counter-insurgent, pro-government forces have to do in every historical case is to convince the general populace to actively engage against the insurgent force. ("I'm from the government and I'm here to help.") Otherwise, the only other options that remains to them is to commit genocide or to admit to defeat. Before all is said and done, the present government in the US won't be able to fully implement any of those three options. Whether Republicans or Democrats are in power, for at least the last fifty years, this government always over-reacts. Always. The more they over-react, the more of the popular support they lose. Once they have less than 30% of the population ACTIVELY supporting them, they will - eventually - lose the 'counter-insurgency.'

If you are an 'insurgent,' and if 30% of the population is on your side, even if most of them are not actively engaged, and if 30% of the population just wants to stay the hell out of your way, all you have to do to defeat the counter-insurgency is to peacefully and diplomatically convince another 10%-20% of the population to either join you or to stay out of your way.

In a pro-government counter-insurgency, you need to have at least 35% of the population on your side from the beginning and to have them actively engaged in your cause. At the moment, in America, the pro-government 'counter-insurgency' does not have that kind of popular support. At the moment, even if we ignore the above examples, an average of 60% of the population are expressing anti-government sentiments. Some polling data reveals that that 80% of the American people are expressing anti-government sentiments and have one or more reasons for having expressed that sentiment.

Even if (when) it comes to direct conflict in America resembling another civil war, I think a look at the numbers says one thing: We liberty lovin' fools and 'right-wing extremists,' members of the currently peaceful 'insurgency,' have already triumphed. All we have to do is to follow through. For the moment, that means sharing information and commentary with the people you know...and making sure that they share it with others, and so on and so on.

As an 'insurgent,' always take the moral high ground. When it comes to dealing with those who are with you, or at least, who aren't actively against you, always be a good little 'Boy Scout.' i.e. Always do the right things for the right reasons. Always engage those demographics in a positive and constructive fashion. (The violence against the populace as seen and involved in variations of The Vanguard Theory is not a viable option.)

In any case, contemporary and ancient history, as well as Game Theory, suggest that 'Boy Scouts' who are freedom-lovin' fools, will - eventually - prevail over 'counter-insurgent' police states, dictators and tyrants. This is not only seen in American history, it is also apparent throughout world history.


The Republican Party is no less an advocate for big government than is the Democrat Party. When in power, they govern exactly like their supposed ideological opponents. Switch one party for another in the seats of government power and you achieve the exact same results. It is only a matter of degree, not of outcomes. There is a growing majority within the American populace who are ever more aware of that fact.

It is now a binary choice. Yes/No. On/Off. One/Zero. If/Then.

You are either for big government and no personal freedom, or very limited personal freedom

- or -

You stand against the big government political class and openly promote individual freedom and liberty.

That is the dividing line.

Pick which side of that line you want to stand on. Logically, rationally and reasonably, there can be no middle ground.

The revolution has already begun.

Warren "Bones" Bonesteel
Author and Researcher
Sgt USMC 1976-1983
55 Crestview Drive
Rapid City, SD 57701
(605) 348-2830

Should a Soldier serve if he doesn't believe the president is
February 25, 2009

30% Yes, a Soldier takes an oath to serve the nation and President Obama was duly elected. 1st Lt. Easterling is just trying to get publicity and he should be court martialed.

32% If a Soldier in good conscience does not believe the president is constitutionally eligible to serve, he should not execute his duties and is right to protest the president's orders.

37% Easterling should continue to honor the dignity of his men by executing his orders as given. He should pursue other avenues to challenge the legitimacy of the president.4,181 total votes.

This poll is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate.

Obama Citizenship: The Right Side of Life
Leo Donofrio on 1st Lt. Easterling: He Did Not Defy Any Direct Order.

A Star Signs On With Lt Easterling; Sen. Shelby Has Not Seen The BC
By concretebob
February 28, 2009

WND Exclusive
Eligibility attorney plans return to Supreme Court Says, 'I will be filing until I get an answer'
May 09, 2009

Grand Jury Recommends: Indict Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama

Major General says president's eligibility needs proof
'Most important, what I really want is the truth'
February 26, 2009


Complete information on the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as President of the United States


Federal criminal complaint contends Obama ineligible
Ex-officer alleges prez used 'contrivance, concealment, dissembling and
March 25, 2009
By Bob Unruh

Philip J Berg Esquire
Obama Eligibility
Mark S McGrew

Media find eligibility billboard campaign irresistible
'Where's the birth certificate?' effort covered by London Times
May 26, 2009

Attn: Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Hussein Obama
RE: Criminal Charges and Grand Jury Presentments

By Lynn Stuter
May 19, 2009
The evidence concerning the eligibility of Also Known As (AKA) Obama to the office of president is really quite simple.

Comparative Imperial Pathologies: Rome, Britain, and America
excerpted from the book
The Last Days of the American Republic
by Chalmers Johnson
Holt, 2006, paperback

On Proper Government in a Republic.
Warren "Bones" Bonesteel

The Colonial Perspective: Ancient and Medieval - Trevor Colbourn, The Lamp of Experience [1965]

'We Are All Enemies of the State.'

'Economic Depression and Systemic Collapse in America'

Open Letter to American Politicians: On "Right-Wing Extremists"

'Beyond Conspiracy: Police State America'

'We Are All Enemies of the State.'

see also: Playlist under "Police State America."

Rep. Fisher's Bill would recall Vt. Guard from Iraq Syndicate content
by Addison Independent
January 31, 2008

The governor of a party state may withhold the national guard forces of his state from such use and recall any forces or part or member thereof previously deployed in a requesting state.

AB203 requires the governor to examine every federal order that places the Wisconsin national guard on federal active duty to determine if that order is lawful and valid. If the governor determines that the federal order is not lawful or valid, the bill requires the governor to take appropriate action, which may include commencing legal action in state or federal court, to prevent the Wisconsin national guard from being placed on federal active

If newsrooms have moved slightly rightward, the research shows, however, that journalists are still more liberal than their audiences.

Media bias

Army Times Publishing Company is a Gannett subsidiary. It publishes newsweeklies widely read by United States military people and their families, federal employees and defense and aerospace industry leaders worldwide.

Can the Media Be So Liberal? The Economics of Media Bias



May 21, 2009
Independents Take Center Stage in Obama Era
Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2009
"Taking an average of surveys conducted this year, 36% say they are independents, 35% are Democrats, while 23% are Republicans."

For the entire adult population, 34% of veterans and those currently on active military service are Republican, compared to 26% of those who are not veterans, while 29% of veterans identify themselves as Democrats, compared to 38% of those who are not veterans. (Thirty-three percent of veterans are independents, compared to 29% of nonveterans.)

Colonel Riley

See a video of what an active-duty Marine has to say:
Patriot or Traitor?
March 2nd, 2009

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and meant it.

The Winds Of Civil War: Illinois-Driven Marxist Attempt To Conquer Union Threatened With Military Challenges
By Pat Dollard
February 22nd, 2009

Loyalists in the Thirteen Colonies

Historian Robert Calhoun wrote concerning the number of loyalists and patriots:

"Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Approximately half the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement in the struggle, some of them deliberate pacifists, others recent emigrants, and many more simple apolitical folk. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority.

Earlier estimates were somewhat higher, reaching one-third of the population, but are no longer accepted by most scholars. Adams did indeed estimate in another letter, that same year, that in the American Revolution, the Patriots had to struggle against approximately one-third of the population, while they themselves constituted about two-thirds of it. He made no mention of neutrals. In the late 1960s Paul H. Smith arrived at the lower figure of 19.8% by statistical calculations based on the strength of the loyalist regiments fighting for the British."

see also:
- and -
Strongly Approve - 37%
Strongly Disapprove - 28%
Total Approve - 59%
Total Disapprove - 41%

60% Say Government Has Too Much Power, Too Much Money
April 21, 2009

RealClearPolitics Poll Average. Right Track-Wrong Track/Direction of Country


51% View Tea Parties Favorably, Political Class Strongly Disagrees
April 20, 2009
Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans have a favorable view of the tea parties held nationwide last week, including 32% who say their view of the events is Very favorable.

Thirty-three percent (33%) hold an unfavorable opinion of the tea parties according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure.


(1) To increase the population's vulnerability through the use of selective terrorism. The guerrilla attacks or destroys economic and political symbols upon which the government is founded. Overreaction by government forces or other authorities adds to the population's resentment toward the government and its support to the insurgency.

Unrestricted Warfare
Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui
(Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999)
Unrestricted Warfare, by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999)

Translated from the Chinese
By LIONEL GILES, M.A. (1910)

Notes on building a theory of revolution
by Brad Spangler,

Game Theory
Haluk Ergin and Muhamet Yildiz

IW Message of the Month
July 2007
Castles Made of Sand
Leites and Wolf An Alternative Approach: Insurgency as a System

Insurgency Frameworks

Notes on building a theory of revolution
by Brad Spangler,

Dispatches From The Cold Civil War
Liberal Fascism
The Future and its Enemies
The Making of the President
By Ed Driscoll
October 11, 2008

The American Spectator
Obama the Destroyer
By Quin Hillyer

Big Brother Obama is affecting to destroy the USA's Republic
Obama to Ensure Constitutional USA Does Not Return
Sher Zieve

Freedom and Liberty run in our blood!
The President Who Hates His Country
By Joan Swirsky
May 2, 2009

The Whole World Is Rioting as the Economic Crisis Worsens -- Why Aren't We?
By Joshua Holland
February 3, 2009.

Restore our Constitution
By JB Williams
March 3, 2009

By Archie Kennedy

The Coming of the Fourth American Republic
By James V. DeLong
April 21, 2009

High Crimes and Misdemeanors
MARCH 24, 2009
by qb

The standard for impeachment, says the Constitution, is an amalgamation of amorphous legal concepts that ought to chill any executive who gives thought to engaging in anything remotely resembling them?that is, if the executive in question has a constitutional conscience.

March 04, 2009

YouTube - Fox Business: Gerald Celente Predicts Revolution

23 May 2009

Brzezinski warns of riots in US
21 Feb 2009
Former US national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski warns of riots should the economy continues to hurt Americans.

State Sovereignty Resolutions:

Firestorm Brewing Between U.S. States and Federal Government
by Lance L. Landon
February 19, 2009

Top Trends of 2009

Second American Revolution to Begin in 2009?
by: Allison Bricker
January 13, 2009

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 181
16th February 2009
Linking url:

Text of a Speech to Conservative Future,
Given in The Old Star Public House, Westminster,
16th February 2009
by Sean Gabb

No comments: