From a good friend and fellow patriot...

I am proud to number this man among my closest friends. He is an army vet (I try not to hold that against him) who did his time in the sandbox when all hell was breaking loose.

These days he's pursuing his law degree and continually chaffs at being surrounded every day by leftist ideologues who, for the most part are a pack of educated idiots.

In his own words, here's a confrontation he just had with a fellow law student:

Well, I decided to record a transcript of the "che shirt conversation" for antiquity.

These are the words to the best of my knowledge. Things get a bit hazy when I start mentally preparing for a fistfight... my blood starts pumping, my neck swells up, and my brain goes on auto pilot.

I was riding the elevator down a couple of floors. It's packed. There's this guy who is the antithesis of me: black, fancy baseball cap with a perfectly flat brim canted to one side, and the stickers still on it. He was also wearing a brand new "Che shirt" with che in blazing bright red. He also had a matching shiny new Che necklace.

So here I am, the opposite: scruffy, dirty ol combat boots, and a hat with a don't tread on me gadsden flag that I sewed on myself.

It was so crowded in there I couldn't really say anything. I gave him the death stare usually only reserved for terrorists or serial child molester types. It was enough to where he "felt it" and eventually made eye contact with me before exiting.

So I sat there in all my classes mulling about it all day, how had I not been a pussy, I should have confronted him about it even crammed in there amongst all those people packed in the elevator.

Well, I had finally forgotten about it, and was walking out the doors into the parking lot.....he was walking in. I almost didn't notice, but when it registered... I saw RED.

I did an about-face and chased him down...

"Hey man, what's up with that shirt?"

"Oh, you like it?"

"No, I F*cking Hate it!"

[his face soured as if I were the vet and I just told him that his puppy had cancer]

"Oh, well, man, [backpeddling] he's just a cultural icon. You got to get over that Cuban revolution thing."

"It's hard for me to get over a dirty socialist mass murderer."


"You heard me."


"Well...See you on the battlefield..."


With my closing line I gave an upward head nod, implying "you may leave now". Tail between his legs, he quickly rounded the corner.

There was no fistfight, but I got dibbs on that one if someday ever comes.


Halcyon said...

Wonder if he'd have done the same thing for someone wearing a Bush or Clinton or Obama t-shirt. They all have murdered lots of people. At least the swine Che had the gall to do it himself at times, and not always send people to "the sandbox" to do it for him.

GunRights4US said...

I’ll ask him to come give you an answer.

And I’ll say this as well: You’ll get no defense of Bush here, and don’t mistake this comment as a defense of Bush. But all forms of “but Bush…” are in my view an attempt to justify one wrong with another wrong. And two wrongs never made a right.

Halcyon said...


You'll never find me supporting any aggressor.

Someone who seems to be teetering at the brink of unrestrained violence over an article of clothing with anyone's face on it, including Hitler, is no ally of mine. Neither is anyone who would wear Che's face, his goonliness Obama (peace be upon him) or any Presidente.

You are right. If he did initiate aggression over a Bush t-shirt, it wouldn't justify his having done it over a Che t-shirt, because it is absolutely true: two wrongs don't make a right. Nor does the end justify the means.

GunRights4US said...


I’ve never embraced the libertarian concept of non-aggression. Sometimes the solution is violence. Contemporary libertarians would have failed to heed the call to muster in 1775, just as they’re failing today for the most part.

I proudly call this man friend, regardless of his response to evidence of naked communism here within the country we both bore arms for. I would rather we all erred in the direction of overreaction to the enemies of the Republic, rather than under reaction – as most liberty minded Americans have been doing since 1913.

I solidly agree with one thing you said. Indeed the ends do not justify the means.

Halcyon said...


Given that you said, "sometimes the solution is violence," I don't think you understand what the libertarian principle of non-aggression is.

Sometimes, violence is absolutely the answer. "Aggression," however, is not a mere synonym for "violence."

Aggression is the act of initiating force or fraud. Starting a problem. The bully who threatens to beat up a kid if he does not yield his money is the aggressor. If the would-be victim then hauls off and floors the bully, believing the threat to be credible, he is the defender, and depending on the circumstances, is clearly operating within the auspices of the non-aggression principle.

The loser who happens to be wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt because he is a pathetic conformist with no historical sense is not an aggressor. He's simply a fool. The actions of your friend disturb me far more than those of the clueless Che-wearer.

Physical violence may morally be used only to stop physical threats. Good ideas are what one may morally use to stop bad ideas. Violence may morally be used when those bad ideas are put into physical practice. But not to stop the idea. Only to stop the physical action. Because might does not make right. Might can only defend the free physical exercise of right.

You may think these things are trifling distinctions. I firmly believe that they are of the utmost importance. Ideas drive action, not vice versa. Good ideas result in peace and non-aggression. Bad ideas result in aggression.

It looks like your "red-seeing" friend was within a hair's breadth of initiating brutal physical violence over an intangible idea. That's a problem. But what is more, that's a problem whether you agree with it or not.

I would have been at the North Bridge. The libertarians and anarchists I know would have been at the North Bridge. They were not initiating force (being aggressive) they were using defensive violence.

I think that libertarians have firm grasp on when the appropriate time for violence is. More importantly, they have an understanding on the limitations of the efficacy of violence. Societies and movements are not built upon violence. They are built by people with a similar set of ideas, working together. Libertarians are working to instill the ideals of liberty and non-aggression among men. If you convince someone to not initiate aggression, you have just helped form someone you will not have to use violence against when he acts on his aggressive policies. But defensive violence is always a legitimate option. Good ideas are a force multiplier, however.

If you think that the milieu is welcoming for the usage of defensive violence on a wide scale, I believe you are incorrect. The tide is against you. The tide is coming in, however. You don't want to fight the tide. It is very powerful. It is powerful because it is formed by ideas, not by men acting out violently.

Sometimes,the prudent course of action is to patiently bear abuses upon oneself until enough other people have had their rights violated by the same aggressor. When enough people are fed up. When enough people won't take it any more. Only then would widespread defensive violence have any chance. Such was the milieu in 1775. Look around you. The situation is once again headed in that direction. But it is not yet April 19th, 1775. This is the metaphorical time of the Intolerable Acts. People are still tolerating the acts. But they are doing so less and less. Violence is useful. Sometimes it is not. Hear what Sun Tzu had to say. The truth of his words are timeless: "All men know the utility of useful things; but they do not know the untility of futility." And "supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

It is not time. And aggression (not to be confused with violence) is never a moral option.

Radwan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Son of Liberty said...

Dear Sir,
I am the Man that approached the Gentleman about his shirt.

I have never responded to an internet blog before, but my friend Gunrights called me and told me that maybe I should.

First off, you need to get your story not read things into the situation that arent there.

Yes, I did approach the gentleman with myself menatally prepared to fight. If the wearer felt so strongly as to publicly display that image of pure socialism, I figured he'd have some intestinal fortitude and defend it strongly. When two people have such intense unwaivering beliefs... or practice ideologies that are mutually exclusive, that can lead to blows....but alas, he was a weak minded piece of shit.....

I would have to say that you probably are as well.

If you feel good by smugly dribbling your internet remarks, whilst allowing your liberties to erode in the REAL WORLD...that is your perogative.

However, in the REAL WORLD..our founding fathers didn't use their sense of irony, or scathing remarks to defeat the british...THEY SHOT THEM.

I especially have a problem with your underhanded dig at my service to this great nation in the "sandbox". I dont care which current corrupt bureauocrat (R or D) is at the helm of our vessel of liberty.... if this great lady is in a fight - I will stand up and place myself where the metal meets the meat to defend her.
America (however tainted) is my family. Family is to be defended no matter what... Right or wrong. Perhaps you should consider standing up for ourlady liberty YOURSELF....rather than sitting fat and comfortable in your lazyboy personally attacking fellow patriots on the internet.

Army wisdom: If you don't STAND for SOMETHING, you'll fall for ANYTHING.

That said, should you like to leave the safety and anonymity of your armchair and discuss this any further..Im sure our mutual friend gunrights can arrange a meeting where we might debate your criticism of my morality much more personally.

Anonymous said...

PUH-LEASE Halcyon,

Your aloof libertarianism makes me puke!! While I agree with your last statement in principle, I have to be a little disgusted at your being "disturbed." I think a little aggression is necessary every now and again, your Armchair-General strategy is what has allowed the current state of our republic. What you and all other weak-kneed libertarians forget is that the waiting game for the people to become fed up and demand redress, has a counter-tactic; Keep the F-ing idiots distracted and dumb (just watch the promotion of the NFL Draft). This point is evidenced perfectly by the Che t-shirt guy. He doesn't know that he is wearing NewSpeak. He has no idea that he is helping to saturate the subconscious of the masses with Socialist agitprop. I'm not a tinfoil hat wearer either, it is THAT obvious. So a vet sees an imbecile wearing a Che shirt and gets in his face about it, you make the argument that he is the aggressor, he is the one who has run afoul of some libertarian coda. I say thank God for MEN who have the conviction to say what they feel, to stand up for what they know is right, and against what is wrong. He did not look at the kid and rationalize that, "he doesn't know what he is wearing" He held him accountable for the decision Che kid made that morning to put that shirt on. America needs MEN, not a bunch of old biddies huddling in the coop waiting for the fox to show up so they can all reach consensus that said fox actually means them harm and THEN fight back. As long as you are willing to stick your head in the sand and refuse to see that all lovers of freedom and liberty have been on the defensive for a long time, your place in history as a bystander is set. To use your analogy of the bully, the current state is not of a direct aggressor demanding lunch money, but a manipulative friend or acquaintance that continually oversteps boundaries,lies, steals from you, and spitefully uses you, one who only becomes violent when you resist. IS THIS ANY LESS OF AN AGGRESSOR TO YOU?!

Halcyon said...

Son of Liberty,

You say you were mentally prepared to fight, and that two people having opposing views "could lead to blows."

What would you have done if he had verbally defended his wearing of the shirt? Would you have thrown the first punch? Would it have proven anything? Convinced anyone? You'd have been thrown in jail.

You said,

"If you feel good by smugly dribbling your internet remarks, whilst allowing your liberties to erode in the REAL WORLD...that is your perogative.

However, in the REAL WORLD..our founding fathers didn't use their sense of irony, or scathing remarks to defeat the british...THEY SHOT THEM."

Which of your domestic oppressors have you shot? None? Is it because you are an unprincipled coward? What you accuse me of being? Or is it because, like me, you realize that it is not yet time?

How can you think of accusingly saying something like that without having a body count to back it up?

"if this great lady is in a fight - I will stand up and place myself where the metal meets the meat to defend her."

Neither the Afghani people, nor the Iraqi people posed a threat to the lives or freedoms of Americans that you or anyone else could prevent with violence. They were not going to invade and impose Shariah law. They were not circling off Ventura beach in LST's. The United State's domestic response to terrorists has done more to harm life, liberty and freedom than the terrorists ever can. They won't be satisfied until everyone is afraid of the terrorists, mewling for "safety and security," and everyone is rolling around in a terrorist-proof Lexan hamster ball.

Let me say in words something that you know to be absolutely true: no matter how many people you kill, how many brothers and fathers United State troops destroy over there, there is nothing you can do from preventing a determined individual from either of those countries from coming across the porous borders with a few thousand dollars and making 9/11 look like a cakewalk. CIA Bin Laden unit chief Michael Scheuer said that Bin Laden attacked for the reason he said he attacked: U.S. military presence in the Middle East. If you think putting tens of thousands of more troops over there will prevent another such attack, you're very mistaken.

There are two reasons wars are fought: the reasons the politicians send people to kill andto die, and what the politicians tell the soldiers they're dying for. There's a difference between your "country," meaning your neighbors and the land you live on, and the "State," made up of politicians and nationalism. You thought you were fighting for your country. You were fighting for the State. All the belief and conviction that you may have that you were "protecting America" will not change that fact.

That's not an insult. It's not an assault on your character. It's only a fact.

Halcyon said...

"Im sure our mutual friend gunrights can arrange a meeting where we might debate your criticism of my morality much more personally."

You seem to be an angry, violent person who feels that violence can prove something. It can. How angry and violent you are. That's all. It does absolutely nothing to prove the truth of your beliefs. The truth can stand its own. Your eagerness to resort to violence shows how insecure you are in your beliefs.

I have no desire to meet you in person. I don't fight for recreation, to blow off steam, or to "prove" anything. Nor do I unnecessarily put myself in dangerous situations. If you consider that "cowardice," I assure you: I could not possibly care less. I've already stated why I cannot respect your actions, your words, or your eager recourse to violence. I'm sure you're a really nice guy when you're around people who don't ever challenge anything you believe.

But the measure of a man is not how much force he can use. It's how much force he doesn't have to use to control other people, or to make himself feel better about what he believes.

Our Lord and Savior didn't threaten anyone for rejecting his beliefs. He didn't say, "Let's see you back your words up with your body, pal." He tried to convince people, and when he couldn't, he left them alone. He was not against legitimate defense of physical things, however. He died for what he believed. He did not use violence or kill to make other people believe in him. Leave violence and killing people for their beliefs to the Muslims.

Son Of Liberty said...


see if you can find a trend....

Praise be to the lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.
Psalm 144:1

No people in the world ever did achieve their freedom by goody-goody talk and moral suasion: it being immutable law that all revolutions that will succeed, must begin in blood, whatever the answer afterward. If history teaches anything, it teaches that. Mark Twain

The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, at any time, and with utter recklessness. Robert A. Heinlein

It is easier to find a score of men wise enough to discover the truth than to find one intrepid enough, in the face of opposition, to stand up for it. ~A.A. Hodge

Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right. ~Isaac Asimov

We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people. ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
Thomas Jefferson,

"Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost."
— Robert A. Heinlein

The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, at any time, and with utter recklessness. Robert A. Heinlein

If you are ashamed to stand by your colors, you had better seek another flag. ~Author Unknown

Son Of Liberty said...

-Stand up for what you believe in, even if it means standing alone.

-You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life
-When you believe in something, stand up for it, even if everyone is sitting
-Winston Churchill

Every good citizen makes his country's honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense and its conscious that he gains protection while he gives it.
Andrew Jackson

No one need think that the world can be ruled without blood. The civil sword shall and must be red and bloody.
Andrew Jackson

Peace, above all things, is to be desired, but blood must sometimes be spilled to obtain it on equable and lasting terms.
Andrew Jackson

War is a blessing compared with national degradation.
Andrew Jackson

You must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.
Andrew Jackson

To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting. ~e.e. cummings, 1955

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800
I suppose, indeed, that in public life, a man whose political principles have any decided character and who has energy enough to give them effect must always expect to encounter political hostility from those of adverse principles.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard M. Johnson, March 10, 1808

Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let me label you as they may. ~Mark Twain

If our country, when pressed with wrongs at the point of the bayonet, had been governed by its heads instead of its hearts, where should we have been now? Hanging on a gallows as high as Haman's.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Maria Cosway, 1786
Love your neighbor as yourself and your country more than yourself.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Jefferson Smith, February 21, 1825

Son Of Liberty said...

Men of energy and character must have enemies; because there are two sides to every question, and taking one with decision, and acting on it with effect, those who take the other will of course be hostile in proportion as they feel that effect.
Thomas Jefferson, December 21, 1817

My confidence is that there will for a long time be virtue and good sense enough in our countrymen to correct abuses.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Rutledge, 1788
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787
Whatever enables us to go to war, secures our peace.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, October 24, 1823

To know what is right and not do it is the worst cowardice. ~Confucius

Be always sure you're right, then go ahead. ~Davy Crockett

In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current. ~Thomas Jefferson

God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless. ~Chester W. Nimitz

If moral behavior were simply following rules, we could program a computer to be moral. ~Samuel P. Ginder

Liberty's in every blow!
Let us do or die.
Robert burns

Every man over forty is responsible for his face. ~Abraham Lincoln

The time is always right to do what is right. ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

Son Of Liberty said...

Let me get this strait-
-Assault my Honor in your posts (unprovoked)-
-Get upset when I defend myself to your remarks-
-Fail to personally stand up for your own honor when given the opportunity-
-While your nation is at war, and whilst enjoying the comforts and freedoms she offers, you scoff at those veterans who would don a uniform to perpetuate her existence. (an issue in which you drug the conversation into) and then acknowledge in conclusion the threat of radical islam so…. For doing my small part in standing up to enemies to our nation and our way of life you call me an unprincipled coward?

What a hearty patriot and steadfast man of honor you are (yawn)

Yet according to you…someday, you’re going to start standing up….when popular opinion lends itself to it…..or maybe when the transgressions reach some magical frog in the water boiling point….. yeah.

Mr. I have paid my blood debt to this nation- and moreover……. I humbly and solemnly volunteer to pay even more of that forward for future generations to reclaim liberty for our posterity…even if it involves my own blood sweat and tears.

What have you paid? what have you DONE? The answer to that question isn’t for me. Nor anyone else here. It’s for you. You think about it.

If you would like to continue in your fantasy that you can internet- dialogue your way to personal liberty be my guest.

I’m having no part of it. Have fun in your silly internet charade.

-If I do get to see YOU on the battlefield, I’m sure you will be porting water for the REAL PATRIOTS. Hurry up it’s getting warm.


Halcyon said...

I never called you a coward. Only insecure. Never a coward. Read what I wrote again.

A trend? You quoted Martin Luther King, Jr., who accomplished more by non-violence than you will accomplish in a lifetime of "raising the black flag and slitting throats," as Heinlein said.

You quoted Mark Twain, who thankfully matured before he died. He learned what patriotism was, and that he had been a nationalist:

"To be a patriot, one had to say, and keep on saying, 'Our country, right or wrong,' and urge on the little war. Have you not perceived that that phrase is an insult to the nation?"

-- "Glances at History," 1906

"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war."

-- "Glances at History," 1906

"Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."

--Chronicle of Young Satan

"Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out . . . and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel. . . . And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for 'the universal brotherhood of man'--with his mouth."

"Before I had chance in another war, the desire to kill people to whom I had not been introduced had passed away."

-- Autobiography of Mark Twain

You should also read his short story, "The War Prayer."

Yes. Mark Twain matured before he died. Just like 2-time Medal of Honor recipient General Smedley Butler.

"War is just a racket: I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else."

"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service."

That's a retired Marine Corps general who won the Medal of Honor twice. I think he would have agreed with everything I've said here.

Honor, as I hope you learn someday, Son of Liberty, is not capable of being defended with violence.

I am completely at peace with what I believe. All your insults, all your testosterone pumped speech, your thirst for violence? They don't mean a thing to me. With no sarcasm and no malice, I sincerely hope that you get over them. I hope that you mature, like Mark Twain did.

GunRights4US said...


Believe it or not, I agree with the great majority of what you’ve said here. I do know the difference between aggression and violence. I know all about General Butler and his anti-war screed. And I know full well the difference between fighting for the “state” and fighting for the nation.

My friends and I are Marine and Army veterans, and by nature we are men of action. Everywhere we look around us we see slick talking people stealing our liberty away from us. In my own case, just before this exchange with you I had spent several days going around and around with a slick talking leftist who started out sort of like you did: with slams at Bush as well as Obama.

Frankly I detest Bush. But in recent times I’ve become conditioned to equate the anti-Bush crowd with leftists, and it’s rare to find folks on the right that have a clear view of W’s role in all this. So the moment I hear any form of “But Bush” I tend to think “A Ha…leftist tool here”.

I am not disavowing what my young friends have said here. But I assure you they know full well that April 19th is not here … yet. On the other hand, in answer to one of your questions originally addressed to me, my friend would have probably been just about as quick to challenge an Obama shirt wearer. And leaving aside all the testosterone for the moment, it’s doubtful he (or any of us) would have taken a first swing at anyone.

I guess what I’m trying to say here is that I feel kind of like you drew us into these answers in the way you posed your questions. A keen debater like yourself should be using that talent on lefties dontcha think? Rather than drawing extreme right-wingers like us into pointless debates. Our political dogma is definitely not as clearly articulated as yours, but our hearts are in the right place. We’re not building sniper hides and planning firing missions out here. But we sure are sick of the direction things are going. And when the fur finally flys…and even you must admit that it’s not too far off before it does, we are gonna be “in the thick” of it.

Despite all that you’ve said that I agree with, I still hold the view that by and large contemporary libertarians are letting events pass them by. Nothing I’ve seen you say has helped to change that view.

And for the record: I too am completely at peace with what I believe.

Son of Liberty said...

Dear Sir,

you missed the point.

The point of my quotes= stand up and DO something. even if it is non violent.

here's a question= would you have said ANYTHING to the gentleman? or would you have lowered your eyes and kept walking? Do you regulary DO anything?

did I use violence on Mr. Che shirt? NO

did I use violence on You? NO

did I stand up for what I believe in, and do i do that regularly. Absolutely.

am I willing to place my body upon the cogs of the machine to defend liberty. YES

I derive My honor from that.

To me, the American Revolution-
or our WAR for independence was not a "racket".

good day-

S of L

p.s. I propose that there is a great deal of difference between Standing up for what you believe in on the internet.... and Standing up for what you believe in in the Physical world.

there also is a dfference between waiting to stand up in unison and enjoying safety of numbers vs going at alone.

do you have the personal courage and integrity to stand up for your beliefs when it's just you- and nobody's there to see, or there to bail you out...

If the gentleman had been proudly displaying imagery whatever thing that most ran afoulof whatever it is that you believe... would you- if it was just you and him- alone in a hallway- would you have had the intestinal fortitude to DO something, or would you have swallowed it. and continued walking.

to me, we are losing our society because people keep on walking.