Poll: 29% of Registered Voters Believe Armed Revolution Might Be Necessary in Next Few Years

02 May

The Statue of Liberty, also known as Lady Libe...

The Statue of Liberty is also known as Lady Liberty but her official name is Liberty Enlightening the World. This statue might soon come to regain its former meaning.  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For those of you who think you’re virtually alone in your anti-government sentiments . . . for those of you who think that those of us who want a restoration of liberty are only a tiny minority . . . there’s a recent poll indicating that 29% of the American people believe that a shooting revolution may be required to protect our liberties from our own government.

29% translates into about 90 million Americans who already believe that government has gone too far–and plans to go further–down the road into a police state and overt tyranny.

Thus, 29% of Americans are aware of, or at least sympathetic to, the idea expressed in the Declaration of Independence that “. . . when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”


We are not alone.  The ideas, attitudes and concerns shared on this blog and hundreds more like it are not only proliferating but are far more common than most people imagine.  We are not the “lunatic fringe”.  We are mainstream and growing stronger.

We are winning.

We are winning the war for the hearts and minds of the American people.  The momentum is in our favor. Government is losing.

The only thing that really holds us back is our lack of awareness of the true potency and popularity of the ideas we advocate and the true strength of the “movement” to reduce government and restore Liberty.  So long as we think of ourselves as a tiny minority, we’re going nowhere.  Once we begin to think of ourselves as a major segment in society (and soon, a majority), we’ll start to act like it, stop apologizing for our seemingly small size, and begin to take control.  

If accurate, this poll implies that the A.D. 2014 election may turn on the issue of Liberty. If so, a third political party devoted to the restoration of Liberty could win in A.D. 2014.

And somewhere down the line–maybe not so long from now–there will be trials for treason.

Read the report at


Tags: , , , , , , ,

23 responses to “Poll: 29% of Registered Voters Believe Armed Revolution Might Be Necessary in Next Few Years

  1. palani

    May 2, 2013 at 2:43 PM

    I hope they have some idea of what to replace it with. The idea of revolution for the sake of gaining different masters is not efficient at all. Look at Egypt as an example. Lots of people seemed to hate Mubarak but now that he is gone it seems like many more people hate the replacement.

    • Adask

      May 2, 2013 at 2:51 PM

      I propose to replace the existing government with the government it replaced. That is, go back to the Declaration of Independence, The Organic Law of The United States of America, and the original intent of the Constitution of the United States–particularly limited (federal) government and increased State’s right and State’s responsibilities.

      • jaiseli

        May 2, 2013 at 5:13 PM

        1) the CONstitution is exactly THAT! The original “CON”. the first dimunition of God-given INDIVIDUAL, INHERENT RIGHTS – each and every Man’s apportionment, in time and space in this world but not of this world of the original Estate, “under standing” the supreme jurisdicition of the Creator, that the original MINORITY few patriots so bravely sacrificed with personal bounty and blood, by declaring to “king george” that ” I / We break with thee “.

  2. denialator

    May 2, 2013 at 3:52 PM

    Join me @ American Freedom Party for 2014 and beyond!

  3. Anon4fun

    May 2, 2013 at 3:58 PM

    palani: “I hope they have some idea of what to replace it with.”

    They don’t.

    If the American body politic wasn’t fundamentally negligent with regard to its hired help in government, things never would have got this bad in the first place.

    The only party who stands to gain by an explosive escalation of the government-versus-patriot dialectic in this country – i.e. an American Spring – is the billionaire would-be oligarchy whose agents are agitating for it.

    Adask: “I propose to replace the existing government with the government it replaced.”

    Then the world “revolution” does not apply. Revolutions do restore the lawful order already on the books, they OVERTHROW it.

    Nothing could qualify as a (political) revolution in this country that kept the Constitution in place. The idea of a “revolution” within the bounds of the Constitution is oxymoronic nonsense.

    • Adask

      May 2, 2013 at 4:16 PM

      “Oxymoronic nonsense,” hmm? Then apparently, you believe that the current government is mostly acting “constitutionally”? Is that right?

      Or do you believe the current government is predominately acting unconstitutionally?

      See, if the current government is acting “unconstitutionally,” then a revolution has already taken place whereby a criminal element has seized control over some or even most of our alleged “government”.

      What’ I’m proposing is a specific kind of “revolution”: a “counter-revolution” where we eject the criminal, unconstitutional people from positions of power in our “government” and replace them with others dedicated to restoring the government to its former willingness to behaving in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

      My proposed “counter-revolution” would keep the Constitution in place, but it was eject those who ignore or defy the original intent of that instrument.

      It’s like living a house. Some burglars break in, throw you out and decided to occupy the house as if it was their own. If come back with sufficient force to throw the crooks out, that restoration of your right of domicile may be seen by some as a “revolution,” but there’s no reason why the house has to be destroyed or abandoned to regain possession. Similarly, there’s no reason that the Constitution has to be destroyed just to get rid of the treasonous whores who’ve seized de facto control of our government–especially if we are prepared to “clean house” by means of perfectly constitutional trials for treason.

      Article III section 3 of the Constitution defines the word “treason” and thus allows for trials for treason under the Consitution. Trials for treason–especially an extensive series of such trials–may be “revolutionary” but they’re also “within the bounds of the Constitution”. I see nothing oxymoronic or nonsensical in that proposal.

      • Anon4fun

        May 2, 2013 at 5:16 PM

        > See, if the current government is acting “unconstitutionally,” then a revolution has already taken place whereby a criminal element has seized control over some or even most of our alleged “government”.

        This is where you make an error.

        What currently passes for government is indeed acting unconstitutionally. But, as long as the express will of the people, i.e. the Constitution, remains the law of the land (which even the “government” admits), the pretend government is acting illegally and is therefore engaged in extortion, racketeering, etc. Perpetrating such a fraud, no matter how convincingly, does not make them the actual government.

        Just like someone commandeering your house, kicking you out at gunpoint, and taking up residence does not change the ownership of your house from you to them, so too does the stealth hijacking of the people’s government by criminals not constitute a revolution.

        A political revolution replaces the de jure source of political power. This has not happened in America (or “treason” would not apply to what the bad guys are doing), though some are working to see that it does happen through an incited government-versus-patriot “American Spring” the only realistic outcome of which is an end to the Constitution.

      • Adask

        May 2, 2013 at 6:26 PM

        If a cop comes to your door pointing a gun, he may be only “de facto” but most would agree that he is an element of the “government”. Whatever is in Washington–be they “constitutional” or “unconstitutional”–I’ll bet that at least 95% of Americans, even those who despise the feds, will admit and do believe that those in Washington are the “actual government” (your words).

        Wikipedia defines “de facto” as follows: “De facto (English pronunciation: /diː ˈfæktoʊ/, /deɪ/,[1] Latin pronunciation: [deː ˈfaktoː]) is a Latin expression that means “concerning fact.” In law, it often means “in practice but not necessarily ordained by law” or “in practice or actuality, but not officially established.”

        Thus, the “actual government” can be de facto, but not necessarily de jure. Virtually everyone who reads this blog is probably familiar with the existence of both de jure and de facto governments. Revolutions can overthrow any kind of government–both de jure and de facto. Whichever kind of government is currently present “in fact” or “actually” is exactly the one that can be overthrown by “revolution”. You can’t overthrow a government that’s not “actually” there. It makes no difference whether that government is de jure of de facto. Insofar as there are some people in Washington operating under the presumption that they can order you about and tell you what to do, they are the “government”.

        The New Deal and subsequent dedication to a New World Order mark a “government” that has become significantly, even predominately “unconstitutional”. As such, that government is “not necessarily ordained by law” and therefore predominately de facto. But even the existing government is at least partially de jure. Much of what they do is unconstitutional. Some of what they do may not be unconstitutional.

        It seems to me that you made the error of assuming that only a de jure government could “actually” be subjected to revolution.

        As for the only possible result of such “revolution” being the end of the Constitution, that’s simply not so. The Constitution might be lost in a revolution, but it might also be kept, or maybe it’s kept mostly and “ended” partially.

        To this day, The Organic Law of The United States of America consists of four documents: 1) the “Declaration of Independence”; 2) Articles of Confederation; 3) NW Ordinance; and 4) Constitution of the United States. Each document (as well as some of the amendments to the Constitution), arguably constituted a “revolution” in government. Thus, The United States of America may already be the result of at least four separate “revolutions”. Even so, none of those four documents have been officially “ended”. They may have been amended or modified in some respects, but they are still primarily in force.

        Today, a similar revolution might “end” the crooks and treasonous whores, but does not end the form of government and/or Constitution. We might still have a de jure government run by a pack of de facto thugs. We The People can charge treason against those thugs anytime we decide to get off our couches simultaneously and en masse.

      • Anon4fun

        May 2, 2013 at 6:56 PM

        > Whichever kind of government is currently present “in fact” or “actually” is exactly the one that can be overthrown by “revolution”.

        It can be overthrown, but not by a revolution. The term “revolution” does not applied to the removal of an illegal government-like entity that exercises power despite the de jure lawful order present on the books.

        You are using “revolution” colloquially, which is imprecise. A more technically correct usage would better serve everyone’s understanding of this topic, in my opinion. You are of course free express yourself however you want on your own blog.

      • Anon4fun

        May 2, 2013 at 7:57 PM

        My previous post was a bit rushed. This should be added:

        “Revolution. A complete overthrow of the established government in any country or state by those who were previously subject to it.” – Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed.

        Nothing could qualify as “a complete overthrow of the established government” in this country without abolishing the Constitution, which provides the framework of the government established by We the People.

        The criminals in DC did not abolish the Constitution. They may have diminished its effect in certain ways, but it remains on the books, in the hearts and minds of We the People who established it, and therefore in force to a substantial degree. Therefore, the criminals in DC did not perpetrate a revolution.

      • Adask

        May 2, 2013 at 9:39 PM

        Ahh, you were a “bit rushed,” hmm? Well, I understand. We are all rushed in the internet age, aren’t we?

        So, if I understand correctly, you intended to use Black’s 6th’s definition of “Revolution” in your previous post, but you were so “rushed” that it just skipped your mind, hmm? Certainly, you didn’t just now dig up the Black’s 6th definition in an attempt to shore up a previously weak argument, right?

        But I’m curious. So far as I know, there are 9 editions of Blacks Law Dictionary. Now that you’re not so “rushed,” why did you choose the definition in Black’s 6th?

        I can see why you didn’t use Black’s 1st Edition (it doesn’t even define “revolution”).

        But why didn’t you use Black’s 9th? “revolution, n. An overthrow of a government, usu. resulting in fundamental political change; a successful rebellion.–revolutionary, adj. & n.–revolt, vb.”

        You’ll note that the 9th edition does not refer to “complete overthrow of an established government”–but only to an “overthrow of a government”. Do you think that the loss of the words “complete” and “established” change the meaning of the word “revolution”? And what about the 9th’s use of the word “usu.” (usually) in “usu. resulting in fundamental political change”. Do you suppose that the loss of the Constitution would constitute a “fundamental political change”? Do you suppose that the word “usu.” means that the revolution usually results in fundamental political change–but not always? Does that mean a revolution could take place that didn’t necessarily result in the loss of the Constitution?

        I agree that the “criminals in DC” did not abolish the Constitution. They abolished the “people” who were the intended beneficiaries of the Constitution. They reduced the “people” to the status of citizens, residents and even animals. As such, the former “people” no longer had standing to claim many of the Constitution’s benefits. I regard that change in the status of “people” from that of men made in God’s image and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights to the status of citizens, residents and animals as “revolutionary”. Insofar as the people were the source of authority for government, the change in status was arguably “revolutionary”. A revolution took place, but the Constitution was fundamentally unchanged.

        Likewise, if today’s “citizens, residents, and animals” were stand up, revolt, and reclaim their status as “men made in God’s image and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, etc., that might constitute another revolution–but it would not necessarily result in the loss of the Constitution.

        But, I guess that part of the lesson here is that while one definition may suit one man’s argument, it’s entirely possible that another definition will suit an entirely different argument.

        Here’s how I roughly define “revolution”: a fundamental change in government’s recognition of man’s relationship to God.

        When I say “revolution,” I don’t give a damn about definitions seen in Black’s 6th, 9th, or 33rd. I see “revolution” as a fundamentally spiritual concept. And I’m never so “rushed” that I forget that definition.

        At bottom, we are engaged in spiritual warfare. It follows our “revolutions” should also (“usu.”?) be spiritual in nature.

      • Anon4fun

        May 2, 2013 at 10:40 PM

        > So, if I understand correctly, you intended to use Black’s 6th’s definition of “Revolution” in your previous post, but you were so “rushed” that it just skipped your mind, hmm?

        I was in a rush and so posted a sparer comment than I should have. It’s better to complete a thought than to leave it half-said, hence the follow-up. The use of a definition didn’t occur to me until after the first comment was posted.

        > Now that you’re not so “rushed,” why did you choose the definition in Black’s 6th?

        No special reason. It was handy because I’ve used it before.

        As to your questions about variations on the definition of “revolution”, the way this term is commonly used by scholars denotes a change that is too fundamental to allow the de jure order upon which a government is constituted to survive.

        If you disagree, post a counter-example from your own reading, and I’ll stand corrected. Either way, you can define terms on your own blog any way you wish.

        However, the definition you chose in this case is idiosyncratic in terms of established practice. Try to find a usurpation of political power that is both 1) so incomplete as to leave the pre-existing de jure foundation of government (e.g. the national constitution) intact, and 2) referred to as a “revolution” of government by scholars in a relevant field. I doubt that you will.

      • Adask

        May 2, 2013 at 11:41 PM

        “As to your questions about variations on the definition of “revolution”, the way this term is commonly used by scholars denotes a change that is too fundamental to allow the de jure order upon which a government is constituted to survive.” For my edification, could you specify three of the “scholars” who “commonly used” the term “revolution” as per the definition of Black’s 6th? Are these scholars living today, or scholars from previous years or centuries?

        I admit that the Black’s 6th definition may have commonly been used by “scholars” twenty to thirty years ago, but can’t we suppose that definition in Black’s 9th would be commonly used by “scholars” today? If so, which “scholars” have “commonly used” the definition in Black’s 6th? Those who’ve already expired, today’s scholars, which?

        Presumably, if the scholars of yesteryear relied on the definition in Black’s 6th, today’s scholars rely on the definition in Black’s 9th.

        If so, I will again offer the definition of revolution in Black’s 9th as the “counter-example” you requested: “revolution, n. An overthrow of a government, usu. resulting in fundamental political change; a successful rebellion.–revolutionary, adj. & n.–revolt, vb.” Doesn’t the word “usu.” (usually) suggest that while a revolution may result in a “fundamental political change” (like the loss of the Constitution), that particular result is not absolutely guaranteed to take place?

        In any case, whatever gave you the impression that I was addressing the contents of this “29%” article to scholars? Can’t you see from the contents that the article is intended for common people as a means of encouraging them in their struggle against criminal/unconstitutional government? Did you suppose that when I wrote “We’re winning,” that I meant “w scholars are winning”? Or does it seem more likely that meant something like “We activists are winning”? I certainly don’t claim to be a “scholar”. I can’t recall any article that I’ve written that might be intended for “scholars”. Given that the audience I intend to reach, wouldn’t it be reasonable that I would not rely on a definition used by “scholars”–especially if those scholars used that definition one or two generations previously?

        As for finding an example of a “revolution” where 1) an usurpation was so incomplete as leave the pre-existing foundation for government and 2) is still referred to as a “revolution,” only one instance comes immediately to mind: FDR’s “New Deal”. FDR laid the foundation for a democracy rather than the “republican form of government”. Many people–even scholars, so far as I know–have referred to the New Deal as “revolutionary”. And yet, even after the New Deal, the Constitution remained substantially intact for a considerable period of time.

        Incidentally, are you a “scholar”?

      • Anon4fun

        May 3, 2013 at 12:53 AM

        > For my edification, could you specify three of the “scholars” who “commonly used” the term “revolution” as per the definition of Black’s 6th?

        That’s not what I meant. The relevant point is how the term “revolution” has been, and is, commonly used among scholars in general, not how this or that particular scholar commonly uses it.

        Perhaps no scholar uses the term exactly as Black’s defines it. This is of secondary importance and not why I posted the definition.

        What matters is that “revolution” in a relevant scholarly context, except as borrowed from the coinage of another context (e.g. “Reagan revolution”, “information revolution”, “green revolution”, etc.), never, to my knowledge, means a change in government that leaves its de jure foundations (e.g. the national constitutional) substantially intact.

        Evidently you don’t know of any examples of this either, since you cited none.

        As for the readers of your blog not being scholars, I think you underestimate yourself and your audience. Besides, minimum standards of scholarship are appropriate anyway.

        For example, if you were publishing a medical blog for non-doctors, you would still be well advised to define your terms consistent with common use among medical professionals. Or at least make it very clear that you are using idiosyncratic definitions for some reason. Any reader interested enough in medicine to be reading a medical blog is likely to have read other articles where the same terms are used. Absent a compelling reason to the contrary, it’s best to keep everyone’s terminology consistent.

        The same goes for articles that significantly overlap fields of history and political studies.

    • Les Fuchs

      May 4, 2013 at 9:46 PM

      For my edification,….”
      For your edification,Anon4fun, this the “Adask Law site.” I only hope you will not get discouraged,or upset & decide to leave. You are rational,logical,sensible,sincere,honest, just many wonderful qualities. There were a couple of others also. I said, were I don’t see any more comments from them.

      • Adask

        May 5, 2013 at 12:07 AM

        Do you suppose they’re still here, but writing under another assumed name? (There’s a lot of that goin’ around.)

  4. Yartap

    May 2, 2013 at 6:33 PM

    I wonder….How many of the 29% would truly fight? My guess work be less than ½%.

    The Great Enslaver, Abraham Lincoln, with his War of Northern Aggression, set the stage for total enslavement and loss of freedom for We the People.

    But, I do believe that the government workers and other welfare receivers would greatly fight. Just look at Greece to see who is fighting there.

  5. mouseprosen

    May 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM

    I Truly Believe it will be a lot sooner then Two Years and Hard for me to Believe on 29% Believe this. I will say this there are a Hell of a lot of True American Patriots who are Willing Able Locked Cocked and Ready to Rock to Fight for Our Freedom, Liberty, Constitution, Families ,Friends and America. We have had Absolutely Enough of our Lying, Stealing, Murdering So Called Government. MOLON LABE.!!!!

  6. palani

    May 2, 2013 at 7:40 PM

    The present government of the U.S. of A. seems to make a point that they are not Christian in any fashion. Possibly this is to appease Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and all manner of other religions. The problem with this is that international law is for Christian nations. Excerpt from The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary (verified in Vattel as well)

    • Adask

      May 2, 2013 at 9:44 PM

      Ooo. I didn’t know that. That’s a beauty. Thanks.

      • Yartap

        May 2, 2013 at 10:25 PM

        Yes – we are a Christian nation.

        But, Shhhhhh – keep it quiet, let everyone figure it out, because a true Christian nation allows Free Will. This is what T. Jefferson was talking about when he declared that of all the religions, the Christian religion was the greatest in promoting and allowing freedom and liberty.

        The constitution has created a high wall of separation between church and state. The word “church” is a Christian created term or word. “….[E]ven as Christ is the head of the church:” Ephesians 5:23.

  7. Kerry Reynolds

    May 3, 2013 at 10:20 PM

    No Civil War, no American Revolution. As time passes, this sentiment will become less and less of a reality. As I have said previously, I fight Destruction and for all that is good. I have no fear as I am not alone. I received a “calling” for this time, for this Country. The Spiritual War has already been waged and won by the good guys, but barely, it was terribly close – that was last August. The Father has stepped in twice to save this Country. Once, when Obama was going to the UN for a gun treaty – that did not happen, and again when so many States wanted to secede from the Country – that didn’t happen either. I know this because I wrote the words to stop it. So, whether you believe me does not matter, but the fact remains that the Father’s Foot Soldiers are on the ground, have been on the ground and are working feverishly to hold up the economy and deal with all the corruption in Washington. Every single representative was complicit in the “Obama Agenda.” But, he is not getting what he wants. I have requested that, if you agree with this post, send it around. I would like all current representatives out of Washington. They have attempted to usurp the Power of the American People. So, 1/3 will go in 2014, 1/3 will go in 2016 and if, there are any left, 1/3 will go in 2018 – all, both Democratic Socialists, Communists, Republicans, Rhinos, etc. ALL MUST GO! The Oath they all took had no meaning. I think they thought that the One World Government was a done deal and we would follow in the footsteps of the UK and Australia. NO. And, no Agenda 21. This is just a hiccup in our American History. The stock market is booming. Entrepreneurs are taking a good look at reinvesting. Things are coming around. “Democratic” Senators are leaving their jobs and Obamacare is going to fall all around his feet. – It was not workable and never will be in its current form. People and businesses are doing “civil disobedience.” The primary reason they are going after the guns is because they are afraid of the American People. I am saying this, but George Washington said it first. We have them out-manned, out-gunned, etc. And, I doubt that even the Veterans or almost all activity duty military belong to Obama anymore. American soldiers can’t kill American civilians – that is the law. personally, think that no representative should be entitled to “Secret Service” protection. Sequestration fears did not take hold and Benghazi and biting at Obama’s heals. Never doubt the resolve of the American people and their “spiritual essence” which is “Freedom.” Freedom is spiritual. Christ gave it to us when he unshackled the heals of a woman and said for us not to become enslaved again – Galations 5:1. We have a lot of things we have to do – fix our foreign policy, fix our educational system, fix our healthcare, fix our economy, etc. All is doable with the Father’s help and all of us working together. We need to keep in mind though, that our black citizens have taken the brunt of Obama’s whip. Basically, by giving them welfare, food stamps and telephones, he has said to them – “you can’t do this, or you can’t do this without help.” He has literally beat them up. If you keep telling somebody something like that, they will come to believe it. And, if you treat people like children, they act like children. I told Obama – you push this gun agenda thing again and you will have double the number of guns on the treat and a whole lot more “concealed carry” folks. Like they say, “Stupid is what stupid does” – that goes for Bloomburg too and his “Big Gulp” controversy. Again, when you tell a child that he can’t have something or do something, inevitably, they will do it. There may be riots and wage. Obama didn’t keep his promises and he lied, and lied and lied. The future is bright indeed, but it is going to take a lot of work, tolerance of those that do not believe the way we do, respect for each other, and helping out our fellow man. If you want more of your Freedoms back – with all the regulations – we lost some, we are going to have to “fight” for it – not literally, but figuratively. We all need to keep track of our representatives and how they are voting. Personally, I want all of them as poor as church mice when they leave the White House – they have been in the kitty way, way too many times and they sat on their butts for 2 full years – one excuse after another. I am hacked at all of them and that is why they must go – their actions bordered on treason, if not, actual treason. At any rate, nobody should be worried, fearful, upset, or concerned about our current affairs, it is being worked out day by day. Can you not see the or feel the change in the wind? If the Father is with you, who can be against you? There is a lot of “junk” out there in the media, etc. If you want to help, start bombing them with media bias. You all write very well and as a “Citizen” you should be involved. You all have a lot of good ideas. So, Chill folks – I think it is under control.

    • Les Fuchs

      May 4, 2013 at 10:22 PM

      To: Kerry Reynolds
      Re:>I wrote the words to stop it.
      Will you share those words with us, or at least me?

      Re: >that is the law
      Yes, & the law is honored especially by “Law Enforcement agents,no doubt about that.

      Re: >I think it is under control.
      Me too,All is well. Wow!!! Thanks Kerry !!!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s