What is Independence?

What is Independence?

Obviously, we think this is an important concept, so much so that it is the central theme of our site. But what does it mean? Let’s take a look at the dictionary first:

freedom from the control, influence, support, aid, or the like, of others.

It seems pretty simple, doesn’t it? Would anybody disagree with the notion that we should be free from the control of others? Of course not. To suggest otherwise would imply that we are the property of others, that we are subjects or slaves.

The other parts of the definition all rest on the freedom from control: influence of others isn’t always a bad thing. It is good to sometimes seek advice or guidance from someone else. However, you are still free to choose what to do with that advice, and so you are free to choose how you will let that influence affect you, so long as you are free from control. The same is true of support, aid, or the like. So a more simple definition of independence, cutting down to the root of the issue, would be:

freedom from the control of others.

But why does this simple idea go out the window when we start talking about government?

There are many potential answers to this question. Our society seems to have a general premise that the government is our safe keeper, and without it we would be animals in the wilderness, and utter chaos would rule. Some treat government as if it represents a balance of power against the “corporations” (themselves government enabled entities) who they say would take over and act as governments themselves if it weren’t for our elected representatives. The Founding Fathers treated government  as a necessary evil, that if properly limited could serve to protect our rights, but we all know that lasted about 5 minutes.

So why is it that we would all react with disgust if we saw a person leading around his slaves and making them do his bidding, but we react with joyful celebration when we see the government do the same thing? (Democrats celebrating the enslavement of doctors, for example, or Republicans celebrating the enslavement of the pot smoker.)

Well this is the question of our times and for people who have traveled the philosophical and political journey that leads to Independence it is extremely difficult to understand how anyone could believe that control is OK in the hands of the government, while not OK for anyone else. Hopefully our efforts on this site can expose people to the reality that government is coercion and control of others, and that as such it is evil. Hopefully we can inspire a renewed interest in Independence, so that as the current status quo collapses upon itself, a free society can emerge.

The New Barbarians of Secession

The New Barbarians of Secession

By Russell D. Longcore

When secession finally occurs in the first American state, it will come first from the New Barbarians, not from the state house.

This article explores the definition of the word “Barbarian,” and how I perceive that secession will be moved forward into reality by the New Barbarians.

I am one of the New Barbarians.

From Wikipedia: “Barbarian” is a pejorative term used to refer to a person who is perceived to be uncivilized. The word is often used either in a general reference to a member of a nation or ethnos, typically a tribal society as seen by an urban civilization either viewed as inferior, or admired as a noble savage. In idiomatic or figurative usage, a “barbarian” may also be an individual reference to a brutal, cruel, warlike, insensitive person. The primary function of the word “barbarian”, and its cognates, is to differentiate members of one’s own society from people perceived as being outside of it, and to posit that one’s own culture is superior.

In history, the Barbarians were the Germanic tribes that overthrew the Roman Empire. Rome had become an empire covering most of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, and the cost of their armies and wars was bankrupting the government. Rome had conquered these vast areas, and conscripted many of the tribal warriors into the Roman armies. But the barbarians never lost their identification with their tribes, and eventually the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410 AD.

The present American society’s elected ruling class is filled with “the cream” of our civilization from bottom to top. But smelling of cologne and wearing expensive suits, they pillage, sack and destroy our free enterprise system through taxation and regulation. So they operate like barbarians under the cover of respectability and the citizens’ acceptance of their roles in the American government. They are the old guard, much like Rome at its end. Bloated, corrupt and hopelessly overextended, the ruling class can see their demise just over the horizon. But they cannot wrap their brains around a solution that includes the breaking apart of the United States of America by secession.

You think that the power structure of Washington doesn’t see the end coming fast? Watch this video from Ready.gov, a division of FEMA.

Dear readers, that “world upside down” video is not just about a tornado or hurricane. It is easy to see how this Public Service Announcement is meant for the coming economic collapse. If the very government causing all of this chaos is telling you openly to prepare for disaster, perhaps you should listen? There is another Ready.gov PSA I just saw in the past few days that is not available to post quite yet. It features a husband and wife being interviewed about how much food they have in the house to survive on in an emergency. They very matter-of-factly state that they have a little rice, some beans, a few cans of tuna, and some canned tomatoes. They seemed blithely unconcerned.

Do you still believe that the ruling class in any state government will voluntarily band together and secede from the Union? Think about all of the ways that Washington taxes and spends. Now consider that most of that taxation and spending is entirely unconstitutional. Now consider that Washington taxes and then sends hundreds of billions of dollars back to the state governments annually so the money can be spent on the local level. From roads to public safety to welfare payments to mortgage guarantees to myriad other programs, your state and local governments are complicit in the crimes of Washington. They are accessories after the fact. If someone steals property and you receive it, you’re as guilty as the perpetrator.

It is impossible for Washington to do what it does without the voluntary cooperation of the 50 state governments. Do not kid yourself. What the states do is entirely voluntary. The state politicians might bitch about unfunded mandates or DC regulations or Supreme Court rulings, but states have ALL the power to resist or just simply stop the Washington madness. But the states do not stop it. What does that tell you?

The ruling class, from bottom to top, cannot fix America. Consider:

1. They cannot forsake fractional reserve banking (counterfeiting).
2. They cannot reign in spending because of entitlement programs.
3. They cannot increase interest rates to curb inflation since that would make the debt payments balloon upward.
4. They cannot stop allowing the Federal Reserve to control the money supply (more counterfeiting).
5. They cannot fund the outstanding and future pension commitments, and cannot cover the pension defaults.
6. They cannot stop selling Treasury bonds to borrow more money, and cannot prevent the inevitable default of the bond market.
7. They cannot cease military expansion and war.
8. They cannot prevent the collapse of the US Dollar as world reserve currency.
9. They reject free-market solutions for all problems, and continue to fiercely defend Keynesian economics.
10. States are so inured to Federal funds that they are unwilling to even try to control Washington.

Witness all the cities, townships, counties and states that are functionally bankrupt. They can thank their betters in Washington for a fiat money system and decades of inflation for their present situation. And they can look in the mirror to see who enabled Washington to become the most criminal government in history. Yes…even more criminal than the USSR. The Soviets did not defraud the entire population of the planet with fiat money. Washington did.

The concept of state secession will have to come from the grassroots…the ordinary people…the great unwashed…the New Barbarians. Politicians are not leaders. My opinion is that a person cannot voluntarily agree to work in a criminal enterprise without becoming a criminal. (Ron Paul, call your office.) And while we all love a story of a bad boy turned good…or of a missionary to the heathen…we cannot expect government shills to voluntarily bite the hand that feeds them and promote a philosophically opposite concept. A few solons might get religion about secession, but I believe that most will oppose it. And the ones that do convert to the church of secession should be watched very carefully, since it would appear that they are simply trying to lead a new parade by running out in front of it. If a politician wanted to convince me of his altered beliefs, let him switch to secession now…while it’s still wildly unpopular.

The New Barbarians will develop as a tribe, rising voluntarily from the citizenry, with individual liberty, property rights and sound money as the organizing and sustaining principles of the tribe. (I wrote about tribes HERE.) For the purpose of this article, the word “tribe” is defined as “a social group comprised of numerous families, clans, or generations together with dependents or adopted strangers, all having a common character, occupation, or interest.” I am not suggesting that the New Barbarians will adopt all the characteristics of tribes. But I am suggesting that the New Barbarians will forsake the old ways of the US Constitution, and begin thinking as a single nation instead of a 50-state confederation. Most of the Constitution doesn’t apply to a single sovereign nation.

Think about secession for just a moment. There is no perceivable benefit for ANY present American state to continue as a member of the United States of America. I issued a challenge long ago for any reader to prove JUST ONE benefit of statehood. I’m still waiting. Yet, ALL of the unsolvable problems created by Washington and enabled by the States EVAPORATE at the moment of secession. No US taxation, no US regulation, no US national debt, no US wars, no more interference from Washington. In one instant, that state’s hard drive is wiped clean and they get to invent THEIR OWN new operating system.

The Founding Fathers of the mid-18th Century were the New Barbarians of their time. Their numbers were small. Their cause was individual liberty and property rights, and to be thirteen sovereign nations. Only 56 men signed the Declaration of Independence. It’s commonly accepted that those in favor of throwing off the tyranny of King George numbered less than 10% of the population of the 13 colonies. The rest of the colonials waited to see who won, and supported the winner.

The archetype of the New Barbarian is Daniel Miller, president of the Texas Nationalist Movement. Miller has been working for years for Texas Independence, not as a cause célèbre, but as a holy calling. He is a businessman from Nederland, Texas, dedicated to convincing his fellow Texans that their state’s highest purpose is as a new sovereign nation, not as just another American state. He crisscrosses Texas, speaking to home meetings as well as big crowds, reminding Texans of their heritage and culture, and offering the hope that Texas could actually escape from America and its coming catastrophic collapse and become a nation once again. In my opinion, the name of Daniel Miller should be at the very top of any list of potential first Presidents of a new Texas nation. Guys like Rick Perry and Ron Paul have careers as part of the problem, not as part of the solution.

The numbers of New Barbarians will explode after the economic collapse in America. There are only a few of us that are presently ideologues promoting secession. But once America descends into chaos, those that rejected the concept of secession will still be looking for answers that work…not more of the same. And they will be desperate, not willing or able to wait for government to offer some lame-assed pseudo-solution, or another Ponzi scheme to replace the one that just collapsed. At that point, the tribe will grow very quickly. Mass migrations of people will occur, as individuals and families pack up and move to the new nations.

One of the topics that most proponents of secession will not talk about is defending a secession by militia. I’m not saying that secession has to be done by some form of physical force, but I’m also not saying that military defense won’t be required. I keep the collapse of the Soviet Union foremost in my mind. Here was a purely communist 15-republic Union that simply dissolved in 1989. The giant Red Army did nothing. The Kremlin was powerless to stop secession. I believe that Washington will likewise be powerless to stop American states from secession. But I believe that DC will only be powerless after the dollar collapses.

The push for secession will come up from the people, not down from the politicians. Political power only acknowledges superior force. If the politicians fear the People, they will carry out the will of the People. When the People fear the government, there is only tyranny.

Secession is the only hope for humanity. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2011, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

21% Say States Have Right To Secede

21% Say States Have Right To Secede








One-in-five Americans believe individual states have the right to break away from the country, although a majority doesn’t believe it will actually happen.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 21% of American Adults think individual states have the right to leave the United States and form an independent country. Most (64%) believe states do not have this right, while 14% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Belief in the right of individual states to secede has been creeping up from February 2010 when only 14% agreed.  In June of last year,  18% said states have this right.

However, only 29% of adults feel it’s at least somewhat likely that some states will try to leave the United States over the next 25 years or so. This finding includes 13% who believe it’s Very Likely. But 62% say it is not very or not at all likely that some states will secede from the union. These findings are nearly identical to those found last year.

Just 19% believe it’s at least somewhat likely that the United States will split up into regional groups of states in the next 25 or so years, down from 23% a year ago. Seventy percent (70%) say this outcome is not likely. These results include eight percent (8%) who believe it is Very Likely the country will break up into regional groups and 27% who say it is Not At All Likely to happen.

Seventy-three percent (73%) think it would be bad if the United States split up into regional groups of states. Just eight percent (8%) feel that would be a good thing, while 19% more are not sure.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on May 30-31, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Men are more than twice as likely as women to believe states have the right to secede. But there’s virtually no disagreement between the two over the likelihood of states breaking away either individually or in regional groups.

Republicans and adults not affiliated with either major political party believe more than Democrats that states have the right to secede and that some are likely to do so in the next few years. But, still, a majority of all three groups view secession as unlikely.

There’s also little partisan disagreement that it would be a bad thing if the United States split up into regional groups of states.

In the midst of the legal battle between the U.S. Justice Department and the state of Arizona over the latter’s new immigration law, 67% of Likely U.S. Voters said a state should have the right to enforce immigration laws if it believes the federal government is not enforcing them.  However, voters are still divided over whether the federal government or individual states should be the primary enforcers of immigration laws.

Polling in April found that 41% of Likely Voters believe the federal government should establish a single standard for all health care regulations. However, slightly more voters (45%) say states should be allowed to establish their own individual standards for health care regulation.

More voters than ever oppose the new law’s requirement that every American must have health insurance and think states should have the right to opt out of some or all of the health care law.

In April 2009, a comment from Texas Governor Rick Perry was widely interpreted as suggesting voters in that state might consider secession “if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people.” At that time, 31% of Texas voters said the state had a right to secede from the union and form an independent country. But if put to a vote, 75% preferred to remain in the United States.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

A Line In The Sand: The Texas Independence Rally

A Line In The Sand: The Texas Independence Rally

February 28, 2011

courtesy Texas Nationalist Movement

(Editor’s Note: I have written lots of articles about the Texas Nationalist Movement. The most recent is HERE. The TNM is the premier secessionist organization on the North American continent. No other organization even comes close to their professionalism, focus, energy and RESULTS. In my opinion, only Texas has a chance to gain independence and nationhood in the foreseeable future.

The BIG rally is March 5th in Austin. If you can be there, be there on March 5th. That’s this coming Saturday, friends.)

March 5, 2011 is the 175th anniversary of William Barret Travis drawing the line in the sand at the Alamo. On this day, Texans will draw another line in the sand for the Texas Legislature.

Article 1 Section 1 of the Texas Constitution reads:

“Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the pres…ervation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.”

Article 1 Section 2 of the Texas Constitution reads:

“All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.”

The Texas Legislature has allowed other states to take the lead on issues of state sovereignty and independence. It is time that we gather together and send them a message that a line in the sand has been drawn.

Whether you are a Tea Partier, Tenther or anyone else who believes in these key principles from the Texas Bill of Rights, you need to be there to send that message with us.

The cutoff for filing new bills is March 11th. This could be our last chance to move the Legislature to action in this session. Let’s show them that the freedom and independence of Texas is more important than slot machines and iffy committee assignments.

To quote Col. William Barret Travis: “I shall have to fight the enemy on his own terms, yet I am ready to do it, and if my countrymen do not rally to my relief, I am determined to perish in the defense of this place, and my bones shall reproach my country for her neglect.”

Give his sacrifice meaning. Join us at the Capitol on March 5th.

For more information email mdd@texasnationalist.com or call 800-662-1836.

Here is the final schedule and details for the Line In The Sand Rally in Austin on the 5th of March. You will notice that the parade attendance for early Saturday morning has been cancelled as many of our members and participants will be traveling. The Texas Nationalist Movement has decided to focus all our efforts on the rally and activities after the rally.

Our goal is to get the attention of the Governor and the legislators by our numbers in attendance so that they will file the bill on a referendum vote by the people of Texas on Texas Independence. To accomplish that we must get the actual bill into the hands of as many legislators as possible on that day.

Setup for speakers and music —— 12:00 NOON

Start of official rally —— 1:00PM SOUTH STEPS OF THE CAPITOL

End of rally —– 4:00PM

Toward the end of the rally the TNM will be passing out copies of the bill for the referendum vote. We are asking everyone to take one and bring it personally into the Capitol en masse and make sure that every Representative, Senator, and the Governor get a copy. If we go in as a group, they cannot ignore us.

We are asking everyone to carry your favorite Texas flag. Carry your favorite sign about Texas Independence. Wear your “blue” TNM shirt. Be loud, be proud, be demanding, and know that we are the only option left to save a true Republic.

In conclusion, we are asking everyone to get on Facebook, Twitter, e-mail, personal mail, phone, fax and face-to-face with family and friends. As you watch what is going on in the world and in the United States, you can see that it is imperative for us to gather in large numbers on the 5th. We cannot fail ourselves or Texas. We will make a difference! BE THERE!

The Elephant in The Room

The Elephant in The Room

February 5, 2011

An Armed Citizenry vs. A Tyrannical Government

By Kirby Ferris
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

“What if the American government ever “goes bad” and becomes a police state? That tyrannical government, IF it could enlist the willing support of every American soldier and every American cop (which is thankfully doubtful), could field perhaps a total of 1.5 million armed personnel. These duped soldiers and cops would have to go to their jobs each day facing a bare minimum of 10 MILLION very, very motivated and angry armed American citizens. The other 55 million would sit on the fence waiting, with their guns, to see which way the tide was flowing.

Additionally, you must logically ask WHY the present government is so obsessively committed to “gun control”. If our government has become so overpowering, so omnipotent, and it’s a waste of our time to even imagine resisting tyranny, then why do “They” even worry about the citizens being armed?

And why did the political regimes that committed genocide though the history of the 20th Century, first REGISTER and then CONFISCATE firearms before marching unarmed masses off to killing fields?

If an armed government is so omnipotent, why have so many armed governments gone to the effort and expense of gun confiscation?

The Turks did it to the Armenians. Lenin did it to Russians. Hitler did it to many Germans and all Jews. Stalin gave Russians a horrific double dose. And Mao, the world record holding mass murderer, did it to Red China.”

JPFO Founder the late Aaron Zelman, in an “Open Letter to Michael Savage” in 2009

Amidst all the hysterical screaming of leftist politicians, pundits, and the mind controlling socialist media in the wake of the Tucson lunacy of Jared Loughner, it is easy to lose sight of the “elephant in the room”.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with “hunters’ rights”. It is not even to protect us from burglars, rapists, muggers, or even lunatics like Jared Loughner. These uses of a firearm for food or self defense are actually “spin offs” of the original intent of 2A.

An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry, this is true. However, an armed citizenry is the ONLY way to insure, to guarantee, that the potentially megalomaniacal egos of politicians, authoritarian police hierarchs (like Sheriff “Dimwit” Dupnik of AZ) and the military leadership are kept under a quiet, and yet very emphatic, restraint.

An armed citizenry whispers into the ears of every politician, soldier, and cop: “Steady there. Think again. Remember, if you get too far out of line, and come to enslave us, ‘We the People’ have retained the power to kill you.”

After all, these tax consumers all blithely refer to themselves as “public servants” don’t they? Then that makes “We the People” the masters, doesn’t it?

Don’t misread my words. All those hysterically addled leftist mind manipulators out there secretly know this is true. They hate it. But they know it is true, even through the fog of their gun phobic mental illness. Read “Raging Against Self Defense”.

If someone wants to accuse me of “hate speech” they’d better first begin by indicting, in absentia, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and virtually the entire cast of our Founders. I’m just an ordinary American who cherishes the liberty they created for me and my loved ones to enjoy. I, and millions of others, take this stuff very, very seriously.

A friend of mine once said it rather succinctly, right to the face of a 2A sympathetic police officer, a righteous and loyal American cop: “Obey the Constitution, and we won’t shoot you.”

The police officer was stunned…at first. And then he smiled and offered his hand to my friend. As these two patriotic Americans (my friend was a Marine Corp veteran) shook hands, the police officer said: “You got a deal.”

Want to learn more about these outstanding American police officers and soldiers? Go to the “Oathkeepers” website.

In closing: Friends, if you don’t own a gun, get one immediately (with at least 100 rounds of ammunition). Learn to use it well. And then pray that you never have to use it for the true reason our American Founders intended.

And one final suggestion: The more they tell us to “turn down the rhetoric”, the louder we must become. History teaches that this approach, and nothing else, will preserve our freedom. We cannot compromise with evil.

Frequent JPFO contributor and strategist, Kirby Ferris collaborated intensively with Aaron Zelman over the last two years. Ferris is now the Public Affairs Director of JPFO.

Copyright 2011, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

The Secession Solution

The Secession Solution

January 2, 2011

by Kirkpatrick Sale

Aristotle declared that there should be a limit to the size of states. But really, what did he know? He lived at a time when the entire population of the world was somewhere around 50 million—about the size of England today. Athens, where he lived, would have been under 100,000 people. He couldn’t even imagine a world (ours) of 6.8 billion, or a city (Tokyo) of 36 million. How is he going to help us?

He, at least, knew this much:

“Experience shows that a very populous city can rarely, if ever, be well governed; since all cities which have a reputation for good government have a limit of population. We may argue on grounds of reason, and the same result will follow: for law is order, and good law is good order; but a very great multitude cannot be orderly.”

So political units, Aristotle said, have to be limited. And it is with that understanding that we now may start contemplating what in today’s world would constitute the ideal, or optimum, size of a political state.

This is not some sort of idle philosopher’s quest but the foundation of a serious reordering of our political landscape, and a reordering such as the process of secession—indeed, only the process of secession—could provide. The U.S. provides abundant evidence that a state as large as 310 million people is ungovernable. One scholar recently said that we are in the fourth decade of the U.S. Congress’ inability to pass a single measure of social consequence. Bloated and corrupted beyond its ability to address any of the problems it has created as an empire, it is a blatant failure. So what could replace it, and at what size? The answer is the independent states of America.

Let us start by looking at modern nations to give us some clue as to population sizes that actually work.

Among the nations that are recognized models of statecraft, eight are below 500,000: Luxembourg, Malta, Iceland, Barbados, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and San Marino.

Of the 14 states generally reckoned freest in the world, 9 have populations below Switzerland’s, at 7.7 million, and 11 below Sweden’s, at 9.3 million; the only sizable states are Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany (the largest, at 81 million).There are other national rankings. Literacy: Of the 46 countries that claim a literacy rate of 99 or better, 25 are below 7.5 million. Health: Measured by the World Health Organization, 9 of the top 20 are under 7 million. In 2009 rankings of happiness and standard of living, the top countries were Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Netherlands, Australia, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Canada, Ireland, Denmark, Austria, and Finland; all but Canada and Australia have small populations.

Enough of that. The point, I trust, is well and simply made. The figures seem to suggest that there is an optimum size of a successful state, somewhere in the range of 3 million to 5 million people.

Surprisingly, a great many countries are also modest in geographic terms—underlining the point, often missed by critics of secession, that a nation does not have to be self-sufficient to operate well in the modern world. In fact, there are 85 countries out of the 195 counted by the United Nations that are under 10,000 square miles—that is to say, the size of Vermont or smaller.

And if we measure economic strength by per capita GDP, small countries prove to be decidedly advantageous. Seventy-seven percent of the most prosperous countries are small. And most of them are quite small indeed: under 10,000 square miles.

Administrative, distribution, transportation, and similar transaction costs obviously rise, perhaps exponentially, as geographic size increases. Control and communication also become more difficult to manage over long distances, often to the point where central authority and governance become nearly impossible.

I propose that, out of these figures and even more so out of the history of the world, results a Law of Government Size, and it goes like this: Economic and social misery increase in direct proportion to the size and power of the central government of a nation.

The consolidation of nations into power­ful empires leads not to shining periods of peace and prosperity and the advance of human betterment, but to increasing restriction, warfare, autocracy, crowding, immiseration, inequality, poverty, and starvation.

Small, then, is not only beautiful but also bountiful.

How does all of this apply to the United States today?

Of the 50 states, 29 have populations below 5 million people. Eight states and a colony in the 3 million to 5 million population class would be ideal secession candidates: Iowa, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama. Twelve—Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, and Arkansas—have between 1 million and 3 million people, and seven, including Vermont, have fewer than 1 million people but more than Iceland.

The argument for secession need not focus exclusively on population or geographic size—one might factor in cultural cohesion, developed infrastructure, historical identity—but that seems to be the sensible place to start in considering viable states. And since the experience of the world has shown that populations ranging from 3 mil­lion to 5 million are optimal for governance and efficiency, that is as good a measure as any to use to begin assessing secessionist potential and chances of success as independent states.

The only hope for re-energizing American politics is to create truly sovereign states through peaceful, popular, powerful secession.

Kirkpatrick Sale is director of the Middlebury Institute and the author of Human Scale.

Excerpted from Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture (Oct. 2010).

We Must Peaceably Dismantle The United States

We Must Peaceably Dismantle The United States

by Rob Williams

courtesy of BurlingtonFreePress.com

Here’s a question I hear asked more and more by friends and neighbors in the Green Mountains of Vermont: How might we in Vermont create a more sustainable world for ourselves, and for our children, and for our children’s children, in a 21st century Age of Limits?

Let me answer by starting with first principles: I believe the United States is no longer a functioning republic, but a dysfunctional empire.

An “empire,” you ask? What is this — “Star Wars?”

Indeed, the United States is an “empire” comprised of more than 700 military bases networked together in more than 130 countries around the world, an “empire” that spends more on annual “defense” — $1 trillion (not including special war-spending earmarks) — than the next dozen countries combined, according to Chalmers Johnson’s book “The Sorrows of Empire.”

The “United States of Empire” makes possible an unsustainable and inequitable global paradigm: 8 percent of the global population — us, the people of the United States — are consuming 25 percent of the world’s resources.

And we, all of us on planet Earth, are living at a historical moment when the twin sisters of peak oil and climate change are ushering in a 21st century world of energy scarcity that will look quite different than the 20th century world of energy abundance.

I believe that for us to survive and thrive in a new century, we must peaceably dismantle the United States of Empire, and create a new political and economic paradigm.

The UNtied States.

Vermont is perhaps uniquely suited, out of all 50 states in the empire, to spearhead such a decentralist project. This is 21st century Vermont’s radical, sustainable imperative: to peaceably secede from the United States and re-invent ourselves as a more resilient and independent republic.

Why Vermont? First consider Vermont’s political origins and culture.

Vermont is the only state to exist prior to the creation of the United States as its own independent republic, from 1777-1791.

The state of Vermont, moreover, was front and center throughout 19th century New England’s secession conversations related to militarism, war and expansion. Vermont was the first state to outlaw slavery within its borders, and Vermonters still speak out against tyranny of all kinds — nuclear war, genetically modified seeds, the unlawful conscription of National Guard troops by the U.S. government for foreign invasions — every March during our annual Town Meeting Day.

Today, outsiders find it easy to pigeonhole tiny Vermont. The national corporate commercial “news” media think they have Vermont pegged as the bluest of Blue States, chock-full of Obama-loving, latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies.

It is true that we have more than our fair share of Prius-drivers on Vermont roads, and that 70 percent of the Vermont electorate voted for Obama in the 2008 presidential election (if electronic voting machines, which even tiny and independent-minded Vermont possesses in some of our towns, are to be believed).

It is also true that Vermont political trends are not so easily understood. To wit: We were the first state to bless civil unions for gay couples, and, as a state of hunters and farmers, we have the most permissive gun-carry laws of any state in the country.

Rather than Red versus Blue, “radical” is my term of choice.

Culturally, historically and politically, Vermont, with its commitment to “live and let live tolerance,” its promotion of individual rights, when balanced with its attention to the common good (“Freedom and Unity” is our state’s motto) is a natural starting place for considering any state’s nonviolent secession.

The word “radical” is defined as “getting to the root cause of a thing.” And this thing called the United States is simply too big, too centralized, too corrupt, too inefficient and too impossible to govern anymore.

Vermont can help re-invent the United States as the UNtied States: decentralized, re-localized, with a small-is-beautiful paradigm as our guiding focus.

Free Vermont! Long live the UNtied States.

Rob Williams is a musician, farmer, historian, consultant, journalist and professor who teaches media and communications courses at Burlington’s Champlain College and serves as editor and publisher of Vermont Commons: Voices of Independence, a statewide independent multimedia newspaper (www.vtcommons.org). When he is not running, swimming, skiing or boarding in the Mad River Valley, he co-manages Vermont Yak Company (www.vermontyak.com), a farm business raising grass-fed yaks for meat and agri-tourism, and performs “pholkgospel grassicana” music with Vermont’s Phineas Gage Project, a “pherocious phour-part” acoustic power band.

Contact Rob Williams via his web site.

The Evolution of Revolution

The Evolution of Revolution

Sun, Aug 22, 2010

Political Philosophy, Timothy Baldwin

by Attorney Timothy Baldwin

In recent years throughout the States of America, there has been what is referred to as the State Nullification Movement. This movement is based upon the concepts expressed in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, drafted and advocated by founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Nullification’s idea is this: the United States Constitution (“USC”) is a union of sovereign States, as confirmed by the Declaration of Independence and Treaty of Paris of 1783 and as reflected in the Constitution of (for) the United States of America (USC, tenth amendment); the federal government is a creation of the sovereign will of the States and has limited power and function based upon the USC creating the union; any powers exercised by the federal government beyond that delegation are a nullity; and the States, as having their own powers delegated to them by the people of those States, have the power and duty to resist federal encroachments. This concept has picked up momentum as of late, particularly because people throughout the States are fed up and see no other effective method of preserving their lives, fortunes and sacred honor, but what many in this movement may not realize is that the Nullification Movement is merely a step in the process to a greater movement: the State Independence Movement.

The natural evolution of the political and societal experience is for government to encroach upon individual and societal rights and to assume a role contrary to what is good for those people, which is normally caused by a breakdown of individual, familial, religious and moral character and integrity. A (normally small) portion of society eventually realizes that the government reflects this larger problem and that merely voting for change in government administration cannot produce the necessities to protect freedom. The response becomes that of self-preservation. At first, any resistance is theoretical and benign and is conducted in the least disruptive manner possible. It has no force behind it but is a sort of warning statement to the opposing party. In reality, it is much than that. It is an evolutionary step towards the ultimate end of separation from the nullity. America’s own history holds the example of this truth.

Before 1776, the colonies were not without their problems with Great Britain throughout their existence. However, no serious controversy would have been identified as so catalytic as the Stamp Act of 1765. Without a doubt, the passage of that law by Parliament to directly tax the colonists alarmed them to such an extent that no law passed prior could compare in its political effect. Even most of the men who became infamous statesmen of the 1770s paid little attention to political actions made by Great Britain until 1765. Before then, “politics were apparently ignored…except so far as concerned their legal business.”[1] As soon as a law was passed that became collectively opposed, the first line of defense was the “State Nullification Movement.” This movement is reflected in Virginia’s nullification declaration of the Stamp Act, which Resolved in part:

“That the General Assembly of this Colony have the only and sole exclusive right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the inhabitants of this Colony, and THAT EVERY ATTEMPT TO VEST SUCH POWER in any person or persons whatsoever other than the General Assembly aforesaid HAS A MANIFEST TENDENCY TO DESTROY…AMERICAN FREEDOM.

“That…the inhabitants of this Colony ARE NOT BOUND TO YIELD OBEDIENCE.”[2]

In essence, this is the same declaration which has been made by over a majority of the States in America today concerning federal usurpations. So, what is the effect of such a declaration? As seen in the case of Great Britain in 1765, the nullification declarations set their “federal government” back because Great Britain repealed the Stamp Act. The reason may be clear for the impact of this nullification movement: “a declaration of resistance made, not be an individual writer, nor by a newspaper, BUT BY THE LEGISLATURE OF A GREAT COLONY; and, moreover, they were the very first declaration of resistance which was so made.”[3] The colonists felt victory had been accomplished, and indeed the nullification resistance was effective–but only for a short time.

Soon after, Great Britain passed different laws which violated the same principle that the nullification movement declared immutable. In spite of Great Britain’s repealing the Stamp Act and despite the apparent victory of the colonies, the true crux of the problem was infuriated more than ever, which was this: the British Parliament [declared an owed reverence and subordination] as the supreme legislative, in all cases of necessity for the preservation of the whole empire.”[4] The true essence of the political struggle between the colonies and parliament was that of Sovereignty, Power and Independence. Great Britain presumed its own supremacy but the colonies believed, “We do not claim liberty as a privilege, but challenge it as a right.”[5] This is the same problem facing freedom today.

Great Britain could not accept the reality that the American colonies wanted to practice self-government and that they had a right to do so. They could not release the power they assumed was theirs. Even those agents of Great Britain who saw the inevitability of America’s independence would not cede their authority. They said, “It is not likely that the American colonies will remain part of the dominion of Britain another century, but while they do remain, the supreme, absolute legislative power must remain entire, to be exercised upon the colonies.”[6] The plan, thus, of Great Britain was to suppress any efforts of the colonies to secede or to gain political power, calling upon all colonists “to vindicate the constitutional authority of [Great Britain’s] government”[7] by remaining loyal to Great Britain and denouncing leaders like Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and the like. The bottom line analysis: they must remain in power and control.

The federal government today operates in a manner not unlike Great Britain’s government from 1765 to 1783. The efforts of the States to declare their rights are fundamentally rejected, regardless of an occasional victory obtained by the States to block the federal government from encroachment. The constitution of the federal government demands submission and declares ultimate sovereignty over the states in all matters whatsoever. Thus, the real struggle of sovereignty, power and independence continues and has yet to be truly decided. Ultimately, this decision cannot and will not be made by any court, especially the United States Supreme Court. Those political questions can only be answered by the people of a body-politic: “all power whatever in the State [belong] to the people thereof.”[8]

This was the decision made by thirteen different societies in 1776 after coming to the conclusion that–all the constitutional arguments in the world notwithstanding–declaring independence was the best way to secure their freedom, after only an eleven year struggle with Great Britain. All of the nullification acts notwithstanding, restoring freedom meant basing their decision upon the “laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”[9] So it is with the people of the States of America today. As it was then, Nature is taking its course and will forever do so, whether we acknowledge it or not. A new freedom for a new people is pregnant in the belly of a new era. The old is dying and the new is ready to be born. We should welcome this reality.

Today, some resist the evolution of societies’ composure in America. So too, in 1776, “many persons in America dislike[d] the word independence.”[10] Many perhaps recognize its reality, but do not possess the boldness required to encourage its growth. So too, in 1776, “[a majority] was but lukewarm in its devotion to the American side [of freedom]”,[11] “who naturally deemed neutrality to be the only wisdom.”[12] Some deem the effort of a body-politic to govern itself as criminal. So too, in 1776, “a total separation from the mother-country…[was considered] only as a disaster and a crime.”[13] Many tire out and willingly concede crucial ground for the sake of expediency and seeming gain through a political party. So too, in 1776, some “favored a submissive policy, believing that grievances would be redressed, ‘if these high points about the supreme authority of Parliament were to fall asleep.’”[14] However, others see the process for what it is: Divine Wisdom and Intervention providing the opportunity for true freedom:

“When I consider the[ir] corruption*–their load of debt,–their intestine divisions, tumults, and riots—their scarcity of provision,–and the Contempt in which they are held by the nations about them…I cannot but think that the Conduct of [the government] towards us may be permitted by Divine Wisdom, and ordained by the unsearchable providence of the Almighty, for hastening a period dreadful to [them].”[15]

Time will eventually prove that the State Nullification Movement was but a wheel turning in the evolutionary process of revolution. The federal government has revealed much about itself over the past two centuries. One blaring revelation is that real power will not be acknowledged as belonging to the individual bodies-politic composing the current union. The federal government declares supreme authority over all individuals and all societies of the States. Thus, regardless of nullification efforts, the federal government will continue to mock our labors of redress and appeal. Natural laws being what they are, this pressure from the top down will only intensify the speed in which the process of revolution takes place. To many, it is long overdue.

[1] George Pellew, American Statesmen, John Jay, Vol. 9, (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1899), 14.

[2] Moses Coit Tyler, American Statesmen, Patrick Henry, Vol. 3, (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Company, The Riverside Press, 1899), 70-71 (emphasis added).

[3] Moses Coit Tyler, American Statesmen, Patrick Henry, Vol. 3, (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Company, The Riverside Press, 1899), 79 (emphasis added).

[4] James K. Hosmer, American Statesmen, Samuel Adams, Vol. 2, (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Col, 1899), 101.

[5] Theodore Roosevelt, American Statesmen, Gouverneur Morris, Vol. 3 (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Col, 1899), 6.

[6] James K. Hosmer, American Statesmen, Samuel Adams, Vol. 2, (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Col, 1899), 132.

[7] Moses Coit Tyler, American Statesmen, Patrick Henry, Vol. 3, (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Company, The Riverside Press, 1899), 163.

[8] George Pellew, American Statesmen, John Jay, Vol. 9, (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1899), 14. Those who believe that the “State” composes the entirety of all the States as one body-politic are disillusioned and seriously mistaken.

[9] Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776.

[10] Theodore Roosevelt, American Statesmen, Gouverneur Morris, Vol. 3 (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Col, 1899), 48.

[11] Theodore Roosevelt, American Statesmen, Gouverneur Morris, Vol. 3 (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Col, 1899), 24.

[12] Theodore Roosevelt, American Statesmen, Gouverneur Morris, Vol. 3 (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Col, 1899), 59.

[13] Moses Coit Tyler, American Statesmen, Patrick Henry, Vol. 3, (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Company, The Riverside Press, 1899), 190.

[14] James K. Hosmer, American Statesmen, Samuel Adams, Vol. 2, (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Col, 1899), 213.

[15] James K. Hosmer, American Statesmen, Samuel Adams, Vol. 2, (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Col, 1899), 120.

Are Americans Really Different?

Fri, Aug 27, 2010

Political Philosophy, Secession, State Sovereignty, Timothy Baldwin

Are Americans Really Different?

Americans have historically prided themselves in being different from all other nations of the earth. Stemming from our independent lives and station from Great Britain–even while being politically subject to it–the foundation of America rested upon the ideal of independence, individualism, self-determination and freedom. A massive and motivating Secession Movement from Great Britain took only a few years to brew throughout the colonies, given only minor usurpations from their mother country, comparably speaking. The colonies’ sovereignty was deemed established not upon the winning of the war but upon their unilateral declaration: “these united Colonies ARE, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.”[1] Once their sovereignty was confirmed by the Treaty of Paris of 1783, constitutions were formed upon the American ideal of choice, reflection and wisdom, knowing that the Natural Law principles of self-government proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence were the undergirding foundation and were eternal in application to every generation.

Upon these same principles, many in America today believe that similar decisions as made by the founding generation must be made the people of the States. The fruits of the spirit of the federal government have evidenced its machinery intent of subjecting the people of the States to anti-American ideology.

However, masses of people scrounge around trying to find the answer in the system as is. “There must be someone to blame!” they claim. Some angrily point to the federal courts because of their “misinterpretation” of the U.S. Constitution. Some point to Congress for passing laws without having read the U.S. Constitution or with the attitude that if the law is unconstitutional, the courts will set it straight later. Others point to the President–as if he can do anything without the money Congress gives him to wage war, support his bureaucracy, grow his military-industrial complex and spread the wealth of the nation. Thus, every two and four years, the only method of reform that can be thought of is voting in new politicians in federal office. Meanwhile, the people see little importance in putting politicians in the State and local positions who have a true understanding of what federalism, state sovereignty and consent of governed truly mean in theory and application. And the cycle of enslavement continues.

Ironically, many of these same people who claim that the federal government has enslaved the people and destroyed the states throughout many generations and that there is a conspiracy of the highest order and most evil intent shun the thought that the States secede from the union. They reject (unwittingly or not) the notion that the nation is too large to be governed by one central authority; that self-government cannot exist as long as 400 plus million people are lumped into one system of governance; and that true government reform means breaking this empire up into smaller parts. They cannot wrap their minds around the ideal that the American dream demands that the States separate from the form of government that they acknowledge is enslaving them.

As has been observed, the U.S. Constitution is “in reality a version of the British Constitution,”[2] from which the colonies seceded in 1776. The only notable and distinctive element of difference in the U.S. Constitution was the concept of federalism—a federal system of sovereign states exercising their powers independent of the federal government and the federal government exercising its powers independent of the states. But even Great Britain exercised a type of federalism as the colonies were left to govern their internal affairs without interference. Were this not true, resisting the Stamp Act of 1765 would seem quite silly. So, can the experiment of dual sovereignty be considered a success? While most Americans may not recognize the failure of this experiment, the results from our debauched federal government clearly prove the failure. Yet, many Americans still attempt to use the same debauchery to bring freedom to the States which they claim are in slave status. Something is terribly wrong with this picture.

What will it take for Americans to realize that the States are naturally and morally justified in separating from the chains and cycle of tyranny? Perhaps more than anyone would care to admit. We obviously have not learned from the example of our founding generation, for they seceded under much less egregious circumstances than our political and social plight today. We cannot even learn from the modern-day examples of other countries. Consider the nation of Sudan, the South of which is undergoing a serious secession effort today. In a recent article entitled Moral Justifications Of Secession For Southern Sudan, the author writes about the moral justification of secession in Sudan, saying,

“In the two wars (1955-1972) and (1983 to 2005), the total number of deaths have been always estimated at between 3 million and 4 million…The prior occupation and annexation of territories of South Sudan by Sudanese Armed Forces, massive human rights violations and discriminatory injustice are seen as severe injustices that can morally justify secession.”

How astutely observant it is for human rights groups and other “free” governments of the world, including the United States federal government, to recognize a moral justification (i.e. natural right) of a people to secede from their existing political connections! I think a monkey could figure this out. So, does it really take the death of millions before the people realize that they should secede! I thought constitutions (and thus unions) were to be formed and remain under the pretext of forethought, consent, wisdom and reason, not upon the force of remaining until the country reaches utter devastation like Sudan.[3]

Amazingly, some Americans are more afraid of reforming the union than they are of the federal government, which they assert have total control over our lives with the intent to do so. Despite this assertion and belief, these people ignore America’s first principle: “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.”[4] Even Alexander Hamilton admits this necessity under the U.S. Constitution.[5] Yet somehow this observation of social and political nature has been foolishly rejected by many who claim to love freedom and America.

The reality is, the federal government has nothing without the cooperation and consent of the States. This was admitted throughout the federalist papers. Were even a few States to secede from the union, the federal government’s power to do anything in response would be exponentially limited. They have no assets as it is. They have nothing but debt. Their only sustenance is a people who chose to remain bound to their rule. That day is short lived.

The new Secession Movement has nothing but moral justification written all over it—a morality which considers preemptive prevention to be a better remedy. People can argue practicality all they want (just as some did in 1775-1776 in America), but the wave of freedom’s future will demand that your loyalty be revealed. A side must be chosen. Neutrality will not be tolerated, just as in 1776. You need to know: those who advocate secession today are not wackos and nut-jobs, despite the attempts by news commentators such as Chris Matthews, Geraldo and the like to categorize otherwise. Today’s secessionists are reputable and honorable doctors, lawyers, politicians, journalists, scholars, teachers, university professors, economics, insurance agents, deputy sheriffs, military officers, business owners and a myriad of regular Americans.

What people need are leaders who have a vision for the future of freedom in the States of America. These leaders are not found in Washington D.C. They are likely and virtually unknown on a national scale. However, as circumstances worsen, they will rise to the occasion and the opportunity of history will reveal invaluable statesmen, those like the founding fathers. It will be these leaders and those who follow them who will prove that at least some of the States are not like other nations of the world who wait until millions are killed or their lives destroyed before secession is justified. They will use the wisdom given by God to “provide new Guards for their future security” and to “secure these rights [of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness].”[6]

[1] Thomas Jefferson, American Declaration of Independence, 1776, (emphasis added).

[2] George Pellew, American Statesmen, John Jay, Vol. 9, (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1899), 69, statement made by Sir Henry Maine.

[3] “[We are called upon to decide whether] societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 1 (emphasis added).

[4] Thomas Jefferson, American Declaration of Independence, 1776, (emphasis added).

[5] “If such presumptions [of federal tyranny] can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 26 (emphasis added).

[6] Thomas Jefferson, American Declaration of Independence, 1776.

We Need A Revolution; Not A Movement

Sat, Aug 28, 2010

Chuck Baldwin, Federal Gov. Tyranny, Political Philosophy

by Chuck Baldwin
original found here.

The elections of 2008 (and the early elections of 2010) produced two significant phenomena: the “Ron Paul Revolution,” and the “Tea Party Movement.” And, mark it down: both of them will have profound effects upon the upcoming November elections–and upon the 2012 elections as well. Call them what you want, however, America doesn’t need another movement; it needs a genuine revolution.

The Tea Party movement, while still a force with which to be contended, has already been diluted and compromised. The primary elections plainly reveal the reality of this fact. The high spots so far are the defeats of Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Bob Bennett in Utah. The low spots so far are the reelection of John McCain in Arizona and the election of Dan Coats in Indiana.

John McCain’s election, in particular, demonstrates how many conservatives and “revolutionaries” still don’t get it. If any State in the union should have an up-close-and-personal look at what we are up against, it would be the people of Arizona. After all, they are on the front lines in the fight of one of the most important battles currently being waged in our country: illegal immigration. And John McCain is one of the worst offenders in terms of facilitating and encouraging this illegal invasion. Yet the people of Arizona reelected McCain to the US Senate. (It would interesting to know how many illegal aliens voted for McCain, would it not?)

Then again, John McCain received the enthusiastic endorsement of former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin. This endorsement obviously brought McCain thousands of Tea Party votes that otherwise would have gone to his principal opponent, J.D. Hayworth. McCain is not the only Big-Government globalist neocon to receive Palin’s endorsement. Many of Palin’s endorsees are neocons; which leads to one of the biggest problems with any so-called conservative movement: allowing celebrity-type “conservatives” to become the de facto leaders and spokesmen for what should be a true grassroots, people-generated rebellion. Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are the two biggest culprits in this regard.

Mark my words: Palin and Beck may see themselves as part of a conservative “movement,” but they want nothing to do with an old-fashioned, honest-to-God, Patrick Henry-style revolution. In fact, they are doing everything in their power to keep such a revolution from taking place.

This does not mean that Palin and Beck do not contribute some good things to freedom’s fight. They do. The problem is, for every good thing they contribute they counterbalance it by supporting establishment principals, such as John McCain and Newt Gingrich, and attacking non-establishment players and ideas, which serves only to keep the Big-Government power structure firmly ensconced in Washington, D.C.

Get real, folks, and start thinking for yourselves. Ask yourself why Fox News never (or hardly ever) invites non-establishment patriots to appear on their network. Why do you not see former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts on Fox News? Why do you not see former Georgia congressman and Presidential candidate Bob Barr on Fox News? Why do you not see former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura on Fox News? Why do you not see former Director of the US Office of Economic Opportunity and Presidential candidate Howard Phillips on Fox News? Why do you not see Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin on Fox News? The list is endless.

Fox News is not “fair and balanced.” It is as controlled and manipulated as any other media news network. The only thing it balances is the other networks’ infatuation with the Democrat Party, by promoting Republican candidates and ideas. What it does not do is educate and inform the American people with the truth as to what both major parties are doing to destroy our country. But remember, Fox News is owned by Keith Rupert Murdoch, the same man who helped finance Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the US Senate, and who is as much of a globalist as anyone in Washington, D.C., or New York City.

As an aside, and speaking of Hillary Rodham, I predict that she will replace Vice President Joe Biden BEFORE the 2012 elections. I’ve said that in private for many weeks, and now say it in this column–remember, you heard it here. The Clinton-Bush Crime Syndicate (CBCS) needs Hillary in the White House badly, and Obama has readily accepted a subservient role in the criminal affairs of CBCS (for very profitable reasons, no doubt). And with the CBCS bosses pretty much running things at the White House (they don’t worry about domestic or social issues, providing that these do not interfere with their international criminal activities), is it any wonder that Obama has already taken more vacations than most Presidents take during an entire term?

And it is the influence of globalists and neocons upon national and international politics that the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck simply do not get–or do not want to get. And because many Tea Partiers are so enamored with these two (and allow them to do much of their thinking for them), they remain clueless as well.

Ladies and gentlemen, America is in the throes of socialist and Marxist political upheaval. The curtain could fall at any time. The American people need to wake up to this truism: a “conservative” movement–even a conservative Tea Party movement–will not save us. The only thing that will save us is an old-fashioned State revolt.

Arizona had the opportunity to become a modern-day version of 1775 Massachusetts. But Arizona has probably forfeited that leadership role by 1) reelecting John McCain, and 2) being willing to allow federal courts to dictate law to a sovereign State. Instead of taking its case to the federal courts, Arizona should simply tell the federal government that it will enforce its own State laws (including the newly enacted anti-illegal immigration law) regardless of what any federal court says or doesn’t say. At some point, that is exactly what some State (or group of states) in this union is going to have to do, or liberty will be forever lost.

As long as freedom lovers are content to remain satisfied with the status quo by allowing party politics and media celebrities to dominate their efforts, there will be no stopping this socialist avalanche that is crashing down upon us. The Tea Party movement of 2010 (if left free of Big-Government neocons) could certainly translate into positive developments this November; that is for sure. A revival of the “Ron Paul Revolution” in 2012 could also make a significant contribution, but it is going to take a State revolution to seal the deal. I, for one, am ready.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:


Edwin Vieira on Secession, New World Order and the American Republic

Mon, Jul 26, 2010

Russell Longcore

by Russell Longcore,

In response to Dr. Edwin Vieira’s article, Russell Longcore writes:

Mr. Vieira has a long record of opposing secession. He has written extensively about the constitutionality of secession, and has concluded that it is not possible. Of course, I disagree with many of Vieira’s opinions.

Mr. Vieira also has his educational pedigree from Harvard, one of the very universities that helps fill the District of Columbia with eager and willing big-government sycophants. It would be indelicate of me to write him off as a Yankee lawyer predisposed to protecting the interests of Harvard and the DC gang. Indelicate…not necessarily incorrect. But one can be right on some issues and wrong on others.

I am far less concerned about the machinations of the New World Order crowd than Vieira and Baldwin.

Vieira’s assertion that America could resist the New World Order with adherence to its Declaration of Independence and Constitution is naivete at its highest exhibition. What he omits is that the Declaration of Independence is a document that asserts the sovereignty of thirteen “free and independent States.” Jefferson’s label of the “United States of America” was a decription of states united under a common purpose, not a new nation. There was no new nation at that moment. Even under the Articles of Confederation that were ratified after the war, the states were independent and sovereign nations.

So, a Declaration of Independence is only fit for a state asserting its sovereignty against the tyranny of an empire. It is absurd for a fifty-state conglomeration of un-sovereign serf states to make noises about independence when they cannot muster the courage to become individually sovereign once more.

As to the efficacy of the Constitution, I refer you once again to the Lysander Spooner epic work, “No Treason.” Spooner proves unerringly and irrefutably that the US Constitution has not now, nor ever at any time, held status as a legally enforceable document. So, I find that Vieira’s reliance on a constitutional argument is fatally flawed from its foundational premise.

Keeping a nation of fifty states and over 300 million people together as a single national unit has proven unworkable. When “We The People” was written by Thomas Jefferson, the population of the thirteen colonies was less than 3 million. So, each state was only a few hundred thousand souls. Smaller units of government more closely available to the people always function more efficiently. So, from the most elemental argument, smaller states are inherently more desirable than big nations.

Vieira is entirely correct that no state can secede without the power of the purse and the power of the sword. He is also correct to assert that no state possesses either of these powers and that no state is even preparing to secede.

The practical blueprint for secession that Vieira desires is quite simple, but not found in Baldwin’s article. But here it is:

1. Establish a money system based only upon gold and silver. That is the power of the purse.

2. Re-establish the “well-regulated militia.” That is the power of the sword.

3. Call a constitution convention in the state to rewrite the existing state constitution into a document of governance fit for a nation.

4. Draft a Declaration of Independence and an Ordinance of Secession.

5. Present the Declaration and Ordinance to the proper Federal authorities.

Done! Secession completed. Now the REAL work begins.

The practical blueprint for secession omits the practical realities of politics. To wit, no state government will consider secession until Washington’s system collapses. No state will voluntarily secede until the economic system is so hopelessly, irrecoverably destroyed that Washington can offer nothing more than hyperinflation and martial law. And even in the face of that desperate situation, only a handful of states will secede. The rest will meekly await their orders from their DC masters.

In conclusion, Vieira has deemed secession both unconstitutional and impractical. I assert that while secession is presently impractical, the constitutionality of secession is irrelevant.

Secession is the Hope for Mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

A Failed Experiment Gives Occasion to Restore Freedom

Fri, Jul 16, 2010

Political Philosophy, Timothy Baldwin

by Attorney Timothy Baldwin

There is no question that the United States Constitution was considered to be an EXPERIMENT. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike admitted it was an experiment, and it has been described as such ever since. Evidently, Americans use the term not knowing what it actually means or implies. So, what was it that made this form of government experimental? Before answering the question, let us initially identify what was NOT unique about the U.S. Constitution–aspects that many probably consider to exhibit the unique and singular greatness of the U.S. Constitution, but in reality, are not unique at all and were in fact borrowed.

First, the separation of powers in the federal government was not new. That element of government had been around literally since Moses governed Israel in Canaan. Great Britain exercised a separation of powers as well: executive power in the Monarch, legislative power in Parliament and judicial power in the courts. Second, that the form was a democratic-republic was not new. The European states and countries had exercised self-government to a greater degree than just about any other people in the history of the world. Thirdly, the experiment was not in having a bill of rights. Such an acknowledgement of people’s rights had existed in the European countries since the Magna Charta in 1215. Neither did the experiment lie in such components as term limits, voting, limited government authority, a two-house congress and the like. All of these had been well established throughout the governments of the world. All of those aspects were a given, but were only debated in terms of preference and compromise.

The U.S. Constitution was in fact not new on virtually every component of its composure. So, what made it an EXPERIMENT, such that the freedom it (along with the State constitutions already in place) was supposed to protect was very susceptible to abuse and destruction? What was it about the U.S. Constitution that would transform its character from one governing the consent of the governed to one governing by the force of the Supreme Sword of the federal government? What was it about the nature of the constitution that carried with it serious risk in its implementation? And indeed it was risky, for why would the form of government be considered an experiment if the risks (now and the future) would not seriously jeopardize freedom? If the potential abuses were not serious in nature and scope, then there would be no need in describing the form of government as an experiment.

In short, the EXPERIMENT was the attempt to form distinct parallel lines of powers to the State governments and Federal government with respect to their separate delegations; to allow “two sovereigns” to “occupy” the same territory over the same people; and to entrust each representative in those governments to stay within its own sphere of delegation; to allow for a standing military in the hands of the federal government and a militia army of the people in the hands of the States. This was the experiment in the world of political and social science: having two “sovereigns” with completely different purposes over the same people throughout different states with different interests. For many during that day, it was literally considered impossible; thus, the experimental nature of attempting to.

I submit, that while a good run was made of the experiment, the results of the test are in, and the experiment proves to have failed. I understand that it is hard for Americans to reach this conclusion for a variety of reasons, and this is not surprising, for as our founders said, “all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” After a while, this disposition to suffer reaches the level of voluntary and consensual slavery. To avoid that treachery, freedom-loving Americans need to get over themselves and their substance-less pride and do what is right for freedom’s sake.

Do I love America? Absolutely. I love its history, legacy and heritage. I study it every day. But I love freedom more–freedom that I want to experience myself, not just read about in history books. I can assure you, however, I have no permanent affection towards forms of government. They are merely tools to reach an end, namely freedom. Government is our servant and we its master. When government becomes destructive to freedom, I have no qualms about abolishing the existing government and forming new government to secure what God has granted to me, my wife, my child, my family, my community and my body-politic.

Do I believe that the U.S. Constitution equates to freedom? Absolutely not; no more than I believe that a law acknowledging my right to defend myself grants me the right to blow a would-be rapist to smithereens if he were to attempt to hurt my wife and child. I believe what human history proves, that a constitution is only one of the measures in society to protect freedom; that a “constitution may happen to be free, and the [citizen] not” (Charles de Baron Montesquieu and Julian Hawthorne, ed., The Spirit of Laws: The World’s Great Classics, vol. 1 (London: The London Press) 183); and that a constitution can become practically useless in restraining government. I believe that constitutions should be formed and re-formed by a body-politic as they deem it necessary to protect themselves.

I do not understand the mentality of those shallow-thinking citizens who have the bumper sticker approach to government, “Support America. Be American!” as if to say, resistance to government or abolishing government contradicts our patriotic duty and is un-American. To the contrary, doing your patriotic duty means being ever vigilant and honest in your evaluation of political and societal conditions. It means being liberal-minded (not in the political-party sense) in our approach to government, and if necessary, instituting new forms.

Is it so surprising that the societal and political changes over 250 years would completely change the character and nature of a union and the application of the “Supreme Law of the Land”? The union and the U.S. Constitution were actually bound for deconstruction, just as all governments are and all political unions that attempt to be perpetual. That the Tower-of-Babel-mentality can be successful mocks common sense and historical proof. Human nature does not allow it. The form of government of the U.S. Constitution was an experiment, admittedly not destined to live forever, for as soon as society’s character and nature change, so does the constitution governing those people.

Do you think that the philosophy, beliefs, cultures and morals of a people can substantially change but the “Supreme Law of the Land” remain the same as to those completely different people in completely different times and circumstances? Get real. Justice Joseph Story, one of the most nationalistic-minded of the founding generation, admits the same thing. Concerning the inevitable fall of the political experiment, the U.S. Constitution, he says,

“[T]he fabric [of the constitution] may fall; for the work of man is perishable. Nay, it must fall, if there be not the vital spirit in the people, which can alone nourish, sustain, and direct, all its movements.” (Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the United States Constitution, (New York, NY, Harper and Brother, 1868 reprinted), 100-101.)

This “vital spirit” of freedom has so long been absent in this country and in such a shortage of knowledge, virtue and energy that to suggest freedom can be restored in America through the current union and form of government calls into question the judgment of those who honestly hold that opinion.

Does this mean that freedom cannot be restored in America? Absolutely not. Freedom can be restored and it will, but only in those places where the people believe in and practice independence, honesty and self-government enough to part with the federal government that has filled the gap of the people’s irresponsibility and lust for comfort and money with tyranny and oppression.

Does the U.S. Constitution contain good principles? It sure does. It contains principles that had been accepted through political enlightened thought for centuries, just as the British Constitution did. Yet, despite containing good principles, the founding generation believed that constitutions notwithstanding, there comes a time when to remain in a political association shirks our duty to God and man.

Do I believe the U.S. Constitution is perfect? Absolutely not. Neither did the founders as they said they were only forming a “more perfect union,” in anticipation that their posterity (and even current generation) would retain the priority of their virtue, morals and good faith. This description of the U.S. Constitution necessarily means that there could be a better constitution; a better form of government; and an even more perfect union. But such a “better” government will not be obtained by keeping a union so large with a constitution that “grants” to the federal government plenary power to govern hundreds of millions of people for the supposed “general welfare” of “all” and to pass any and all laws “necessary and proper” in the “pursuance” of (e.g. “living constitution”) such ends; and where the people in the States have lost virtually all control over internal polity and interest in the name of the “Supreme Law of the Land” imposed upon us since Chief Justice John Marshall rendered his opinions in the early 1800s.

I propose this truth: a constitution is to be judged by its practical merits and revealing experience and not upon some indeterminable “intent” of what the “founding fathers meant.” Moreover, I ask, which founding fathers? The ones that preferred a monarchical form of government and believed the U.S. Constitution to be a consolidating effect upon the people as one body-politic? The ones that believed that Great Britain’s form of government was the best in the world and should be replicated here and who thought the U.S. Constitution was a stepping-stone to that end? The ones that imposed nationalistic practices in the federal government even during the first term of the United States’ first president? Hoping for a return to “what the founders intended” is chasing a moving shadow and ignores the reality of what this union has become “in pursuance of” the U.S. Constitution, all the intentions in the world notwithstanding.

You may argue that those nationalistic-supremacy ideas were not the ones accepted by the founding fathers (which ones?), yet history proves that the federal government has reached its current status largely with the consent of all three federal branches throughout the past two centuries, in the authority of the U.S. Constitution, even from the very beginning. Has the constitution stopped this power crave and expansion? Do you think that the U.S. Supreme Court Judges have not put good reasoning to their opinions when they analyze the constitutional powers granted to the federal government? Are they all just a bunch of idiots or conspiratorial maniacs, or has the constitution not adequately maintained the lines of parallel power between people and federal government and between State government and federal government, that being the very core of this constitutional experiment?

The federal government even fought a Civil War against fellow Americans to retain this “constitutional” Nationalistic Supremacy over the people of the States to govern themselves, all under the authority of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution’s effect to this national-supremacy-end has only intensified since then and gotten progressively worse. If it took over two hundred years to get to this point, which you may perceive as constitutional degradation, how long do you think it would take to get back to 1787-intent using the same constitution that has empowered the federal government during those 200-plus years? Let us shed these illusions based merely in the wishing and not in the reality.

America’s founding generation told their posterity that this form of government was an EXPERIMENT. Like them, we should recognize the reality that one day new forms of government would need to be instituted for freedom’s sake, just as they showed us in the Declaration of Independence, which cited not the English Constitution as a basis of their right to live freely, but the Natural Laws of God. These laws are based upon the principles self-preservation, -defense, -improvement and -government. We, their posterity, must make similar decisions, using their good example, to secure freedom for ourselves and our posterity. May we endeavor to experiment in freedom once again.

The State of Secession

Mon, Jul 5, 2010

Secession, Timothy Baldwin

from “Secession University”
original found here.

Partly due to the efforts of the 2009 version of “Let a Thousand Nations Bloom,” I started a small service, SecessionNews.com, described by some as a “Drudge Report” of secession. For a year now, I have reviewed each day’s relevant and significant (at least, in my opinion) secession-related articles and news reports. In doing so, I have read well over 1,000 online articles and posted excerpts from more than 500 of those that I believed would be of value and benefit to anyone interested in the topic.

With a year’s worth of reading articles and thousands of their related comments, I have acquired some instinct as to the mood of the country on the idea of seceding from an all-too-intrusive and abusive federal government. Therefore, after a year of being fully immersed in the subject, I offer my modest view on the current state of secession in these not-so-united States of America.

Before getting to the meat of it, I’ll say it straight away: It has not been a good year for the notion of secession. One might think that due to the calamity of the current socialist movement in Washington, the public would be clamoring for workable solutions—say, withdrawing from such government—but so far, the public reaction has been more consternation than action.

That’s not to say there haven’t been some very positive and noteworthy developments. Chief among them are the slate of secessionist candidates running for statewide offices in Vermont. While we must wait until November to gauge the support of Vermonters for an independent and free Vermont, it would be an upset of major proportions should any of them win. [Our hope is that they at least make a respectable run of it.]

Another positive development of significance has been the advancement of secession scholarship by the likes of Russell Longcore (DumpDC.com) and Timothy Baldwin (LibertyDefenseLeague.com). Their thoughtful insights and prolific writing on the subject have lifted the level of discourse and advanced the cause with common sense and logic. If you spend much time at all pursuing the blogs where discussions of secession are crackling, you often will find little common sense or logic; therefore, the frequent reflective opines from Longcore and Baldwin become noteworthy. That is not to say, however, that a number of others have not written thoughtfully and well on the subject, too.

On the national stage, economist and modern thinker Walter Williams did speak favorably of secession to a huge radio audience when he filled in for Rush Limbaugh a month or so ago. While many like me hold the reasoned opinions of Williams in higher esteem than Limbaugh’s, he doesn’t have the same cachet, doesn’t garner the same attention, so his refreshing comments went largely unnoticed by the media.

The same can be said for Judge Andrew Napolitano’s fearless defense of both secession and nullification on his Fox Business show as well as when he fills in for Glenn Beck. Unfortunately, the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity are much too comfortable with their preeminence to risk the blowback that secessionist talk would bring. And that, my friends, epitomizes the current state of secession in these un-united States: It’s just much too hot of an issue for the politically timid to handle. Talk of withdrawing from the Compact in the presence of politicians and media elites is akin to raising the Confederate battle flag at an NAACP meeting.

This makes it quite significant that, while not directly secession-related, the idea of nullification has experienced such a truly remarkable rise in acceptance—and application. A growing number of states are now in various stages of approving state sovereignty bills, effectively nullifying a number of federal encroachments, including ObamaCare, medical marijuana, federal gun laws, and the REAL ID Act. The implication of this movement cannot be overstated, since it re-legitimizes the long-forgotten sovereign authority of the states. Public approval of something that, until recently, could have been equated to “heresy” means nullification could very well be the first step to the public’s acceptance of its first cousin, secession, as another valid option to blunt an abusive federal government. The public need not be convinced of the necessity of full withdrawal from the Union, mind you. Just the threat of it might be all that’s needed.

Perhaps my pessimistic view is clouded by the contrast I routinely see with secessionist movements bubbling up in one foreign country after another. This past year has seen many areas outside the United States openly debate and consider the option of seceding. Currently, nearly 50 developed and undeveloped countries throughout the world have active secessionist movements, and surprisingly, in the most substantial cases, the United States government generally supports those wanting to secede.

The most amazing contrast exists between the attitudes of the citizenry in third-world and first-world countries. The concept of withdrawing from an oppressive government is accepted by the public in the less developed countries, whereas the “sophisticated” public here in the United States deems secession to be unconstitutional at best and even treasonous by many, demanding that the people remain shackled to their government, no matter how tyrannical it may become.

Yet many Americans feel increasingly oppressed by their government, as witnessed by their ongoing gatherings of protest, waving their “Don’t Tread on Me” flags. One of these rallies brought on perhaps the most earthshaking event of the past year, when some in the crowd began shouting “Secede,” and Texas Governor Rick Perry responded, “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that.”

At first, one might think this was a positive development for the idea of secession—a governor supposedly egging on his state to secede. But in reality, the reaction to Perry’s words turned out to be a setback for the public’s acceptance of this most sovereign right. First, the governor didn’t call for secession, and actually praised the Union, saying, “There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it.” Granted, he did seem to accept the right of Texas to secede (a momentous statement for a governor to make), even though he didn’t actually say that secession was an absolute right.

This rather innocuous statement resulted in a tsunami of negative reaction that still resonates today. Virtually every article related to Governor Perry mentioned something akin to, “Governor Perry called for secession during….” The result of this overreaction was to strike fear into any and all politicians whenever the subject of withdrawing from the Union was broached. It’s as if secession is now the new “third rail” of politics, never to be mentioned, much less supported.

The problem with secession in this country is the widespread ignorance of the public on the right to secede. This fact was reinforced just the other day when a Rasmussen poll reported that only 18% of the public believed a state had the right to secede. A year ago, according to a Zogby poll, one-third of the public believed a state had that right. It wasn’t that they were asked if their state should secede, just if they had the right to do so—a very disappointing indictment of the American education system.

Here in Charleston, where I write these words only a few blocks from where South Carolina seceded in 1860, great fear gripped the city’s timid and weak leadership this year when it came to proposals for memorializing the sesquicentennial of perhaps the most significant event in this city’s history—approving the Ordinance of Secession. It all began when a group wanted to establish a memorial to that event and to those that signed the ordinance, but no official could be found with the courage to back the idea.

Yet, the top contender for the biggest disappointment of the year is the Tea Party movement. These good folks are sincere, but they have misplaced ideas as to the best solution for tyrannical government. Somehow, they have convinced themselves that sending “better” politicians into the quagmire of corruption called Washington will solve our problems. Not only do they shun workable solutions such as nullification and secession, but they actively disparage such Founder-like efforts. An example of such can be found on the Austin Tea Party website where they proudly proclaim, “We do not support secession.”

Despite such negative developments, I do remain positive about the outlook for the coming year. As the nullification movement gains strength, we may benefit from their coattails. As the public becomes more aware of the sovereign rights and authority of our states, they could also become more accepting of the sovereign right of a state to withdraw from a Compact that has been repeatedly violated by the federal government.

Those who are already in the ranks of the sovereign-rights advocates can help advance the cause of secession. It is simple, only takes a few minutes of time, and could actually be great fun. Here’s how: When you finish reading an article supporting or rejecting the idea of secession, become a part of the conversation. Endorse the informed. Correct the clueless. If enough of us do this, the public just might become aware of the duty that their state has to reject an abusive and tyrannical government. Perhaps then, next year’s report on “The State of Secession” will have a few more victories to celebrate.

The Process of Revolution, Part 1

Thu, Aug 12, 2010

Political Philosophy, Timothy Baldwin

by Attorney Timothy Baldwin

Freedom mostly—if not only—comes by revolution. Revolution is the change of political power from one to another. In the case of America’s founding, power transferred from Great Britain to the individual States of America. Inevitably, revolution results in the division and separation from that form or system of government causing the plight. Rarely, if ever, does freedom come by gradual progression. Just the opposite: tyranny comes by gradual progression. Of course, revolution does not have to be violent and only becomes violent when those in control of the existing government forces its will upon those who would chose to be free from its dominion. When a people attempt to be free from a system of government which they deem to be destructive to the ends and purpose of government, those who demand their allegiance and loyalty only heighten the problem and exacerbate the resentment of the people. Consequently, revolution is the result of a government which rules in a manner inconsistent with the principles of a free society, enabling the people to choose different forms of government under different constitutions.

The United States of America is in such a process and has been for generations. Meanwhile, the most sincere and intelligent have written and spoken extensively on the U.S. Constitution, trying to explain the essential components of its nature and character, in efforts of providing an effectual remedy of the form, laws and procedures that are pushing the revolution at an increasing rate. Astute authors have written on the paradoxical character of the constitution as one being unknown to those who are “under its control” and yet supposedly being the best in the world. Millions of words have been written in the attempt to provide the answer to what the constitution is, how it is to operate and how freedom is to be restored through it. Yet, after two hundred and fifty years of political process and societal change, the questions have never been resolved. Even worse, the decline of freedom falls even faster, despite the plethora of knowledge on the subject.

The reason is open and obvious. A constitution will only reflect the philosophical and moral state of the society at large. Where society does not believe in and operate according to natural laws of God and rights of man, then the government (which is to be bound by the constitution) most certainly will not govern in a manner consistent with the underlying foundations of natural law which forms the constitution. The further in time and spirit society is removed from the principles forming the constitution, the more impossible it is for the constitution to serve as an adequate limitation on the government ruling those people. This is the reason why large societies can hardly—if ever—remain as a free Republic. It is an inevitable reality of human nature, and societies should act accordingly to this fact. The more societies refuse to govern themselves under these maxims, tyranny will become proportionately or even exponentially entrenched.

Most societies never learn this truth, and they suffer as a result. America is no different. It is a hard reality to accept that forms of government must be changed to meet the natural makeup and composition of societies as they grow and change, since this implies and necessitates hard work, knowledge, education, fortitude, resilience and structural change and separation to societies’ unions and constitutions. Human nature ironically holds on to the very form of government which causes the demise many say they despise. At last, real remedies are ignored until the pressure reaches an explosive point of violent revolution. Those societies that are intelligent and smart enough to proactively plan for changes in constitutions, societies and forms of government will preserve freedom through peaceful revolution. This plan is fought against, of course, by those interested in universal union and commerce and those higher powers, as they force the status quo against those crying out, freedom for a change!

America’s history proves this much and serves as a lesson to determine where we are in the process of revolution. Recognize first that the colonies had a British Constitution which had been enacted over several hundred years of debating and fighting for fundamental rights. Consequently, the British Constitution of the 1770s was considered to be one of the best in the world, having separation of powers, checks and balances, trial by jury, right of habeas corpus, due process, elections, and the guarantees of the rights of Englishmen, not to mention one of the best economies in the world. The colonies operated independently of Great Britain relative to their internal affairs and relied on Great Britain regarding their external affairs. Thus, the British Constitution operated in a federalist nature. Those in both America and Great Britain cherished their constitution and their individual rights. The British Constitution was worthy of loyalty, devotion and allegiance. Government violations of the constitution were not considered binding laws, but usurpations on the rights which they all shared. On this ground, they all stood.

Certain questions then should be raised at this point regarding the manner in which the American colonies remedied their political struggles with Great Britain. Why did the American colonies separate themselves from the best constitution the world had ever seen? Did the American colonies violate the Supreme Law of the Land by separating themselves from a constitution which was designed to protect and preserve freedom? Why did the American colonies not attempt to use the constitutional process more than they did (they declared independence after only eleven years of “serious” conflict with Great Britain)? Were the American colonies bound to operate under the British Constitution? Were the American colonies justified in seceding from Great Britain? Were the American colonies or was Great Britain the cause of all the deaths during the war? By separating from the British Constitution, were the American colonies lost without the ability to form their own constitution on principles conducive for their freedom?

All of these questions, and more, reach the heart of the issues regarding revolution because revolution always involves a conflict between an established system of government verses the natural rights of societies to govern, protect and perfect themselves, regardless of what a constitution purports to mean. Indeed, history, science and nature reveal that at some point, constitutions ironically become the very source of societies’ political problems. Consider this: what is the source of which the federal courts have used to opine in opposition to what you consider to be constitutional?—the source that Congress uses to regulate matters which you may consider to be unconstitutional?—the source that the President uses to implement executive orders, treaties and laws that you claim oppose the constitution? Their source: the United States Constitution. While many would claim that the power wielded by the federal government is unconstitutional, such persons fail to realize that the very document that they claim is violated is the same document that generations of politicians in the federal government have used to possess this power; it is the very same document that generations of Americans have implicitly or expressly consented to as being the supreme law of the land in its then-and-now form.

How can vast and numerous societies remain free with such a disparity in discernment and perspective under one constitution? Since when could 400 million people across and beyond an entire continent be governed under one central government? It is impossible. Rome tried but naturally failed: its vast population,[1] diversity, complexity and territory were the germinating seeds waiting to burst forth with growth of separation and division—thankfully so. The current composition of the United States union will be no different. We are not immune from those natural laws that govern all societies in every generation.

The reality is, several revolutions have already taken place in the United States, which have accomplished the goals of centralization of power and incorporation of nationalistic principles. Admittedly, those battles have been won and established. The success of these revolutions are evidently shown and proven. Consequently, many people in America feel helpless, hopeless and impotent, becoming obstacles to the process of revolution which will prove to burst forth. The continued success of the current tyranny is doomed for destruction as the process of revolution continues to naturally unfold. It behooves those men and women of freedom to assist in the destruction of this current reign and to do their duty to man and God.

Read parts 1,2.

Copyright © Timothy Baldwin, 2010

[1] A high estimate of the population of Rome estimates a population of 14 million at its zenith.

[2] Moses Coit Tyler, American Statesmen, Patrick Henry, Vol. 3, (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1899), 329.

[3] James K. Hosmer, American Statesmen, Samuel Adams, Vol. 2, (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Col, 1899), 243.

[4] Ibid., 194

[5] Ibid., 192.

[6] Ibid., 193.

[7] Ibid., 193-194.

[8] Ibid., 233 (emphasis added).

[9] Ibid., 216.

[10] Ibid., 242 (emphasis added).

[11] Ibid., 283.

The Process of Revolution, Part 2

Thu, Aug 12, 2010

Political Philosophy, Timothy Baldwin

by Attorney Timothy Baldwin

The United States Constitution has become the very form and substance of what dynamic patriots like Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Samuel Chase, Samuel Adams and others warned against, “namely, that the new plan of government…seriously endangered the rights and liberties of the people of the several States.”[1] If their predictions have come true, who is to be believed regarding the quality of a constitution as it existed in its original form or now in its amended form?—those who opposed the constitution or those who advocated the constitution? Who was correct in their predeterminations of the natural effect of the constitution on freedom and the States? What lessons of human experience are to be learned from the experimental form of government ratified at that time?

Is the constitution so clear and certain that it would prevent the States in the union from fighting a bloody war, killing hundreds of thousands of fellow Americans, all in the name of “preserving” the constitution? If a constitution is so unclear as to its nature and character that it takes a war to determine who is “correct”, can that constitution be deemed a good constitution or a free constitution? And as such, how can it be considered a “more perfect union”? Simultaneously, if a war is what it takes to determine the “true” nature of the constitution, then where comes the notion that the constitution was one formed by the intelligence, pre-thought and consent of the people? And if a war must be fought to determine whether the constitution was a nation of one body-politic or a federation of several bodies-politic, how can those who wish to be governed under those completely different principles ever avoid the ultimate clash of conflict when it comes to how to the federal government should act and how the constitution should be construed? These same questions applied to the American colonies and Great Britain in the 1760s and 1770s. Their plight is our plight. Their dilemma is our dilemma. Their questions are our questions.

Like most Americans today who claim to love freedom, most of the founding fathers held on to the hope that they could enforce the British constitution’s limitations upon their “federal” government. Even up until 1775, most of the founding fathers rejected the idea of secession and thought that the British constitution could be successfully used against their government and that the constitution required their loyalty. “They wish[ed] for nothing more than permanent union with [Great Britain].”[2] However, there was one man who saw things differently, as his hope was not so misplaced as theirs. His “ideas…[we]re those higher and broader ones which [we]re to rule the world of the future.”[3] His distinctive quality: he saw that arguing constitutional law to redress government usurpation was literally and effectually worthless and only perpetuated the enslaving status of the colonies. This man was Samuel Adams.

During the intensity of conflict between the colonies and Great Britain, constitutional arguments had been brought to the forefront of public discussion. The constitutional issue: whether or not Parliament possessed the supreme power to govern the internal affairs of the colonies. (Sound familiar?) The colonies thought their constitutional rights of self-government were obviously violated—similar to those States today who have passed nullification acts just as some of the colonies did in response to the Stamp Act of 1765. They believed themselves to be correct in their constitutional positions. “The patriots published the debate, pro and con, far and wide, confident that their side had been well sustained.”[4] No one could have convinced them otherwise, and they were the best minds society had.

But all of their belief and good grounds notwithstanding, the British Constitution would not give way for their argument. “For centuries the principles of the primeval liberty had undergone wide perversion. Kings had persisted, and people had acquiesced in all sorts of arbitrary procedure.”[5] As a result of the time-induced “perversion” of their constitution, Great Britain’s agents had a very good response to the constitutional concerns of the colonies, such that “a good basis for [their] argument existed in the British Constitution as it was.”[6] How could the colonies argue against the most influential constitutional scholars that America and Great Britain had ever known? Moreover, how could they convince a government and society in Great Britain whose interest were opposed to the interests of America? The societies in question had gone their separate ways, and a constitution would never preserve freedom for the weaker party in that scenario. Despite the colonies’ inability to win their cause on constitutional principles, the process of revolution moved forward—but on different grounds.

In 1774, just two years before the colonies declared independence from Great Britain, Lord Hutchinson described what he saw as the shift in reasoning concerning the cause of freedom in Massachusetts, that being, an appeal to natural rights at the exclusion of constitutional arguments. He says,

“The leaders here [in Massachusetts] seem to acknowledge that their cause is not to be defended on constitutional principles, and [Samuel] Adams now gives out that there is no need of it; they are upon better ground; all men have a natural right to change a bad constitution for a better, whenever they have it in their power.”[7]

Samuel Adams, the father of the American Revolution, abandoned arguing constitutional principles and law and proclaimed the true and surer foundation of freedom: the Natural Rights of a society to govern itself in whatever form and composition best suited to preserve freedom—constitutions notwithstanding. Like John Locke, Samuel Pufendorf, Samuel Rutherford, Hugo Grotius and other political philosophers of old, Samuel Adams proclaimed that “the public good is above all other considerations; and every rule of morality, when in competition with it, may very well be dispensed with.”[8] Even knowing the history of Englishmen who “thought it their duty to themselves and their posterity to contend with [the kings of England] till they were restored to the footing of the Constitution,” [9]Adams recognized that the laws of Nature and Nature’s God required a separation from this same constitution because the constitution’s practical effect prolonged and cemented their slavery.

Despite Adam’s forthright, honest and indeed accurate analysis of the colonists’ political and societal condition, most of the founding fathers did not appreciate his suggestion that the British Constitution be abandoned and seceded from. In fact, during the first continental congress meeting in 1774, Samuel Adams was told without equivocation not to spread his message of secession to the group. They knew what Samuel Adams was about, and it would not be accepted among the representatives of the other colonies. Samuel Adams was preemptively told before the meetings began,

“[Y]ou must not utter the word independence, nor give the least hint or insinuation of the idea, either in Congress, or any private conversation; if you do, you are undone; for independence is as unpopular in all the Middle and South as the Stamp Act itself. No man dares speak of it…You must not come forward with any bold measure; you must not pretend to take the lead.”[10]

It was the course of reconciliation upon the British Constitution that was the action plan for the entire colonies. Yet, as history proved, thoughts of reconciliation and “getting back to the constitution” did little or nothing to restore freedom in the colonies. Had Samuel Adams given up on what he knew to be the answer for freedom and had those founders sustained that misperceived position of 1774, the United States of America would not have seceded from Great Britain to gain their independence. Yet, the process of revolution continued upon the grounds which were initially rejected: secession and self-government based upon the laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Samuel Adams was right, and it is a good thing the leaders of the colonies eventually saw the truth this Massachusetts statesmen proclaimed. Samuel Adams knew well the process of revolution, and he welcomed it.

Today, most Americans do not think in Samuel-Adams-terms. They think in terms of those founders who rejected independence as the right plan of action until the very last minute. Or they think like those Tories and loyalists, which had played no part in implementing freedom in America. Regardless, the process of revolution will—indeed, it must—favor the side of those who are willing to be as bold and forthright as Samuel Adams in their assessment of the actions needed to be taken, regardless of how many others do not see where we are in the process. Like the rising and setting of the sun, this natural process cannot be stopped. We should only recognize it, prepare accordingly, and like Samuel Adams, welcome it.

Read parts 1,2.

Copyright © Timothy Baldwin, 2010.

[1] Moses Coit Tyler, American Statesmen, Patrick Henry, Vol. 3, (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1899), 329.

[2] James K. Hosmer, American Statesmen, Samuel Adams, Vol. 2, (Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin and Col, 1899), 243.

[3] Ibid., 194

[4] Ibid., 192.

[5] Ibid., 193.

[6] Ibid., 193-194.

[7] Ibid., 233 (emphasis added).

[8] Ibid., 216.

[9] Ibid., 242 (emphasis added).

[10] Ibid., 283.