In the fight against federal tyranny there has been a tendency for people, even those with good intentions, to downplay the severity of our situation or keep possible solutions confined to the realm of “respectability.”
That is not the case with New York native Jim Delaney, who writes at opinerlog.blogspot.com. In his book A Patriot’s Call to Action: Resisting Progressive Tyranny and Restoring Constitutional Order, he eviscerates modern American shibboleths that ultimately hamper our efforts to restrain the federal government.
A collection of various articles dating back to nearly a decade, Delaney’s book reads more like the diary of a front line non-commissioned officer in the midst of a drawn-out war, with postscripts chronicling his reaction to the successes and failures of proposed political strategies. The analogy seems fitting, as Delaney is a retired U.S. Army veteran who served in Vietnam, earning the combat infantry badge and two bronze stars.
Delaney takes a frank view of the political landscape, saying we must “be fully prepared for what likely be the Republic’s political disintegration and economic ruin.”
What sets him apart from many constitutionalists is his willingness to attack a premise many people assume; that the union is indefinite.
“We must get passed the adolescent, uninformed, politically correct and self-destructive notion that this union is inviolably indissoluble,” he writes.
He correctly notes that it was never the founders intent to keep the states under a single centralized government forever. The “one nation, indivisible” myth was created after the War Between the States and codified in the Pledge of Allegiance, which was written by the socialist Baptist preacher Francis Bellamy. The founders’ objective was freedom, whether under a confederation or as independent states. People must accept that the day will come when United States ceases to be a single nation and people stop trying to preserve the union no matter what rights are sacrificed in the process.
No nation is immutable. Historically, nations evolve and devolve. And there’s no historical precedent which would justify the assertion that America, as currently constituted, will be an exception to this rule.
…..Like any contractual relationship, violations occur and conditions develop which render the original contract of no further use, benefit, or relevance to one or more parties to that contract. Thus, perpetual was never intended to convey permanence or immutability, but, like any contract, a temporariness dictated by the benefits derived from that relationship by the parties to that contract.
Unlike other “constitutionalists” who insist we stick to the courts to dole out justice, Delaney insists we “keep all constitutional and God-given remedies on the table – civil disobedience, state nullification, secession, and rebellion.”
These tactics might unsettle readers acquainted with more restrained plans that involve tinkering with existing federal legislation, but it is difficult to argue with Delaney’s reasoning.
Without the threat of secession, the feds have far less to fear from the states when they violate the Constitution.
As the book’s subtitle indicates, his writing primarily attacks progressives. Much of his writing specifically targets Obamacare and claims of global warming as a justification for greater federal intrusion into the peoples’ lives.
“Like oil and water, Marxism and liberty simply cannot peacefully co-exist,” he writes. “The progressive ideology is the implacable enemy of this country’s traditions, values and republican form of governance.”
Delaney advocates a multi-pronged approach to combating unconstitutional federal action, though “throwing out the bums” is not among them. He advocates people remaining “actively engaged in grassroots patriotic organizations” and more national-level networking among the many liberty groups.
His book touches on many topics familiar to regular readers here, such as the modern myths reading the Commerce Clause, Marbury v. Madison, the Articles of Confederation, the Second Amendment, and so on. One chapter also recounts his research on nullification and its forgotten history.
Nullification is one of the major weapons the people can utilize through their states to fight the feds, he writes.
Other stratagems include term limits and an Article V Convention of the States. However, he later expresses skepticism over whether or not a convention will accomplish its intended goal even if it managed to add more amendments to the Constitution. If the feds don’t obey the Constitution now, why would they do so with these added amendments?
This underscores his emphasis on secession and rebellion. A constitutional convention can only add more words to pieces of paper. Armed resistance in one form or another puts those same ideas into action.
“In truth, the importance of this subject can never be overstated and should never be ignored,” he writes.
Delaney appears to understand the gravity of his recommendations. Liberty is not without cost. But it is a price that people must be willing to pay if they want it. For some, this could include severe ramifications.
“Without the willingness to accept punishment for bucking injustice and corruption, one’s effectively asserting civil disobedience to right a wrong perpetuated by government or other offending entity is impossible,” he writes.
Delaney’s writing style and tone fits well with conservative readers, but his criticism serves well as a wake-up call to them that the current approach employed by so many patriots to get the feds under control is not working, and time is running out.