This post is going to be much longer than when I started out, so I'll summarize the whole thing now...

There is no damn reason for a free people to tolerate the political demands of hostile and tyrannical political groups

or, as I myself am fond of saying, you keep a boot on the neck of the left, or they will eventually put one on yours.

This also applies to Nazis (real ones, not "Nazi" as defined by liberals having temper tantrums), jihadists, Klansmen, and organized crime of any kind from foreign drug cartels to local street gangs. Basically any group that would enslave the common man for their own goals.

Now in order to make my argument, I'm going to start with some academic blablah...feel free to skip this next section and move on to the last if you don't want to hash through the overblown language of Pompous Egghead Steve.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact

This sentiment has been around in some form or another since the beginning of our country.

Thomas Jefferson, whose name is almost synonymous with liberty, had this to say upon the purchase of the Louisiana Territory...

A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.

The saying, The Constitution is not a suicide pact is most linked to Supreme Court Justice Jackson in the following dissent...Jackson, after discussing mob violence, and it's relationship to extremist activity, concluded his opinion as such...

This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.
TERMINIELLO v. CITY OF CHICAGO

While I'm not sure that Jackson applied the logic correctly to this case, the logic itself is sound. The primary purpose of the Constitution is to defend the citizens. Jackson is one of the most respected Justices from a Constitutional point of view, although I'm sure that the Left would be happy to use his arguments, in a twisted fashion, once they achieve full power.

Justice Jackson’s seat on the Court itself has had an illustrious history. Before Jackson took the seat, it was held by Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, among others. And following Justice Jackson’s death, the seat was held by his former law clerk, then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist, and then by Justice Antonin Scalia. Maybe there is something about the seat, because it would be difficult to assemble a group of finer writers to have served on the Court. This has not been lost on its occupants—including its latest occupant. Justice Scalia referred to Justice Jackson as “one of the most distinguished occupants of the seat to which I was appointed.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 541 U.S. 913, 925 (2004) (Scalia, J., denying motion to recuse). And in his first public statement as a Supreme Court nominee, then-Judge Neil Gorsuch remarked that “[t]he towering judges that have served in this particular seat on the Supreme Court, including Antonin Scalia and Robert Jackson, are much in my mind at this moment.”
Jessica Gresko, Gorsuch Would Be 8th Man to Hold ‘Justice Scalia’s Seat,’ ASSOCIATED PRESS (Feb.8,2017), https://apnews.com/70ac150bfd294b46a42b49ffe09b1b93.

Let's make something clear, Jackson understood the dangers of government abuse...

The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations. Or the prosecutor may choose a more subtle course and simply have a citizen’s friends interviewed. The prosecutor can order arrests, present cases to the grand jury in secret session, and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial. He may dismiss the case before trial, in which case the defense never has a chance to be heard. Or he may go on with a public trial. If he obtains a conviction, the prosecutor can still make recommendations as to sentence...and[,] after he is put away, as to whether he is a fit subject for parole. While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst
Jackson, as quoted in On Lawyers and Leadership in Government: Lessons from “America’s Advocate,” Robert H. Jackson

I'd like to point you back to these posts of mine, which have a slightly different take on the same concept:
Militant Democracy as a response to subverted or corrupt government? 1st edition
Militant Democracy as a response to subverted or corrupt government? Part Two
A follow up to Rich's essay - The Road To Tyranny: The US Constitution & The Death Of Democracy (Part I)

What does this have to do with us and informationwar, the Trump/Russia FISA memo, and the reaction of the Left?

I'm not forgetting about the Deep State when I single out the Left, but I do think the Deep State loses a LOT of it's electoral power when we realistically deal with the problem of the Left (see Baptists and Bootleggers).

My last post was an example of the shrill lies and calls for revolution from the media (the Ministry of Truth); the simple fact of the matter is that there is a broad swath of people (from a quarter to a third) of us that is so devoted to their idea of socialist paradise, that they will accept NO contradiction of their vision.

So you can have the Ministry of Truth predict Clinton having a 90% chance of winning, and then openly weep on TV when reality bitch slapped them, and still expect the Left not to accept that the media is both just not credible AND that the press is biased to the point of tears!

To me, it is obvious there is no rational or civil discussion with these people.

Add to that their complete rejection of anything that does not paint them as morally and intellectually (ROFL at this one) superior to anyone that does not agree with them.

Add to that that each and every compromise made with these people has been the launching pad for another attack on our rights.

Add to that that their vision of Utopia is economic slavery, "lawful" racism, and silencing of dissent.

Add to that their history of violating the principles of rule of law, the perfect example being the FISA memo, something they admit NO fault in

I will not extend the protection of liberty to those that would deny it to me.

No Courtesy, No Compromise, No Quarter

We have to define the law so there is no need to go beyond the law to defend the nation, yet at the same to minimize the danger of political abuse...

In the meantime, we have to defeat the forces that would abuse the law to enslave us.

Notes

You'll see I haven't gone into the dangers of this approach. Yes, they are there. It needs an entire post to list them out, and a return to a point I make over and over and over again...the struggle for liberty is constant, and requires that you as an individual contribute.

I want to thank the following Steemers for their contributions in past blogs, each and every one contributing to this ongoing discussion. (in the order that I see them in my comments LOL)
@everittdmickey, @richq11, @nxtblg, @johndickinson, @openparadigm, @valued-customer, @chieppa1, @sabrin514, and @funbobby51

My Books