0 comment Monday, December 1, 2014 | admin
Over at the Mat Rodina blog, Stanislav writes from a Russian perspective on the possibility of Texas independence via secession.
He notes what correspondents in Texas, or expatriate Texans, tell him about the secession movement in that state. There is the opinion that Governor Perry is merely doing some political grandstanding, or political posturing, while at the same time distancing himself from the secessionist movement.
While most do not believe that their governor Perry was doing anything but trolling for votes in a hard reelection that is upcoming, it makes one wonder what it means in the Texas society if the path to reelection is through talk of succession [sic]. What the good governor may not realize is that such issues, which are already building or have built under the surface, given an outlet, will take on a life of their own. Like a breaking damn [sic], public opinion can and will switch quickly given the proper circumstance and the force that follows will sweep all ahead.''
That last point is something that I have emphasized in various ways; though today secession may not be feasible, given the right circumstances, things may turn on a dime:
''Thus, with 1 in 3 citizens of Texas pro independence, a move to 2 in 3 is only a crisis away and with the americans continuing to sink and their dollar continuing to turn to trash, that crisis is already under way.
The crisis is happening in Yekaterinburg, Russia. It is in the form of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting between Russia, China and six other SCO members. The US request to attend was denied. The jist of this meeting is to work out plans to de-dollarize the trade between the member states.''
this conference, and the potential economic consequences, is unsettling, so we'll see what happens.
Read the whole thing at Mat Rodina, including the interesting comments following.
And if you haven't seen the following articles, you might check them out:
This piece from the L.A. Times.
This piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal recently, which is ironic of course in that the WSJ is notoriously pro-open borders. One wonders if the corporate classes are actually now seeing some angle which would be to their benefit in a secession scenario.
Finally, this article, from a libertarian point of view, is interesting, but it does not acknowledge any ethnic or racial basis on which a breakup might occur; the writer, in true anti-collectivist, race-denying fashion, focuses on political or Democrat-Republican divisions among the states and envisions a pattern based on voting habits. Given the ongoing demographic changes being inflicted on this country, does he not see that today's red state will likely be tomorrow's so-called 'purple' state, and next year's or next decade's 'blue state', with a new ''minority majority"? It's happening as I write this.
He notes what correspondents in Texas, or expatriate Texans, tell him about the secession movement in that state. There is the opinion that Governor Perry is merely doing some political grandstanding, or political posturing, while at the same time distancing himself from the secessionist movement.
While most do not believe that their governor Perry was doing anything but trolling for votes in a hard reelection that is upcoming, it makes one wonder what it means in the Texas society if the path to reelection is through talk of succession [sic]. What the good governor may not realize is that such issues, which are already building or have built under the surface, given an outlet, will take on a life of their own. Like a breaking damn [sic], public opinion can and will switch quickly given the proper circumstance and the force that follows will sweep all ahead.''
That last point is something that I have emphasized in various ways; though today secession may not be feasible, given the right circumstances, things may turn on a dime:
''Thus, with 1 in 3 citizens of Texas pro independence, a move to 2 in 3 is only a crisis away and with the americans continuing to sink and their dollar continuing to turn to trash, that crisis is already under way.
The crisis is happening in Yekaterinburg, Russia. It is in the form of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting between Russia, China and six other SCO members. The US request to attend was denied. The jist of this meeting is to work out plans to de-dollarize the trade between the member states.''
this conference, and the potential economic consequences, is unsettling, so we'll see what happens.
Read the whole thing at Mat Rodina, including the interesting comments following.
And if you haven't seen the following articles, you might check them out:
This piece from the L.A. Times.
This piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal recently, which is ironic of course in that the WSJ is notoriously pro-open borders. One wonders if the corporate classes are actually now seeing some angle which would be to their benefit in a secession scenario.
Finally, this article, from a libertarian point of view, is interesting, but it does not acknowledge any ethnic or racial basis on which a breakup might occur; the writer, in true anti-collectivist, race-denying fashion, focuses on political or Democrat-Republican divisions among the states and envisions a pattern based on voting habits. Given the ongoing demographic changes being inflicted on this country, does he not see that today's red state will likely be tomorrow's so-called 'purple' state, and next year's or next decade's 'blue state', with a new ''minority majority"? It's happening as I write this.
Labels: Secession, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, StateS Rights, Tenth Amendment, Texas Independence
0 comment Monday, August 18, 2014 | admin
Over at the Texas Nationalist blog, (which is now added to my blogroll, by the way) Daniel Miller sounds the alarm for Texans to awake.
He lays out his case for believing that our American Republic is a lost cause.
While I would not like this to be true, I can certainly see all the troubling signs that he sees, and in addition I've been feeling rather pessimistic about the growing divisions among various groups of people -- not just minorities vs. Whites, but the open animus on the part of just about everyone toward Christian believers, plus the North-South rift, rural vs. urban, left vs. right, young vs. old, and all the rest of the ugliness.
We all know what happens to a house divided against itself, and our house is divided all kinds of ways. And the election next week shows little promise of changing anything substantial; the names and faces may change, but I see little evidence of the kind of change we need, given the deep divisions and hatreds that exist, and given the candidates from whom we have to choose.
Judge Andrew Napolitano made a recent statement that it is time for Texas to secede. Follow the link to listen to the audio via Third Palmetto Republic.
Has the time come? I don't know for sure, but it seems to be in the air. And if and when the time comes, I hope it will be Texas which takes that step.
Sam Houston, the first President of the Republic of Texas said:
"Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may."
I hope Sam Houston's words hold true in our time as they did in 1836.
He lays out his case for believing that our American Republic is a lost cause.
While I would not like this to be true, I can certainly see all the troubling signs that he sees, and in addition I've been feeling rather pessimistic about the growing divisions among various groups of people -- not just minorities vs. Whites, but the open animus on the part of just about everyone toward Christian believers, plus the North-South rift, rural vs. urban, left vs. right, young vs. old, and all the rest of the ugliness.
We all know what happens to a house divided against itself, and our house is divided all kinds of ways. And the election next week shows little promise of changing anything substantial; the names and faces may change, but I see little evidence of the kind of change we need, given the deep divisions and hatreds that exist, and given the candidates from whom we have to choose.
Judge Andrew Napolitano made a recent statement that it is time for Texas to secede. Follow the link to listen to the audio via Third Palmetto Republic.
Has the time come? I don't know for sure, but it seems to be in the air. And if and when the time comes, I hope it will be Texas which takes that step.
Sam Houston, the first President of the Republic of Texas said:
"Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may."
I hope Sam Houston's words hold true in our time as they did in 1836.
Labels: Politics, Secession, Societal Division, State Sovereignty, StateS Rights, Tenth Amendment, Texas
0 comment Wednesday, August 13, 2014 | admin
Even though I haven't blogged much about the state sovereignty movement lately, I am keeping an eye on what is happening around the country, and on the discussion here and there about the issue.
Terry Morris over at Webster's Blogspot has been doing a good job of keeping up with this on his blog, with this latest post and others.
On other blogs and forums, there is far less intelligent discussion of this issue, with a great many people still viewing the idea of state's rights and the implicit topic of secession with a skeptical or jaundiced eye. I am disappointed and sometimes disgusted at the lack of common sense on the subject which is evident in some discussions.
One such sophomoric article appears here, but a great many comments follow, with some sensible ones among them. The writer of the article makes the typical objection to state's rights and secession by opining that the previous attempt at seceding ended badly for South Carolina and the Confederacy, therefore the idea is tainted.
'Because the last time they got all uppity and started mouthing off about states� rights, we got our butts kicked.''
This is often the caliber of the arguments found in a lot of online discussions of state's rights and the Tenth Amendment, with the only other 'argument' being based on some kind of quasi-religious reverence for The Union.
Here Jack Hunter comments on the above-linked article and offers a sound examination of the Tenth Amendment movement and secession.
It's a very well-written piece; I recommend reading it all.
Thomas E. Woods describes here how, in the case of a powerful federal government overstepping its bounds, the only recourse was thought to be either arms or secession. However he spells out another alternative, which Thomas Jefferson himself outlined: nulllification.
He quotes Jefferson's words from The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:
Let us recall some of Jefferson�s most potent words, ratified by the Kentucky legislature:
Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming as to itself, the other party: That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge of itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.'
The great theorist of nullification was Calhoun, one of the most brilliant and creative political thinkers in American history. The Liberty Press edition of Calhoun�s writings, Union and Liberty, is indispensable for anyone interested in this subject-especially his Fort Hill Address, a concise and elegant case for nullification. Calhoun imagined a state holding a special nullification convention, much like the ratifying conventions the states had held when debating the Constitution, and settling the matter there.
[...]
The most common argument against nullification is that it would produce chaos, with a bewildering array of states constantly nullifying a bewildering array of federal laws. Given the character of the vast majority of federal legislation over the past several decades (and longer), it is difficult to imagine a libertarian viewing this as an especially grave difficulty.
Having said that, there is little reason to believe that chaos would actually ensue. Consider the historical record. That Americans generally acknowledged the right of a state to secede from the Union-a far more extreme remedy, surely, than nullification-is evident from the number of cases in which states threatened to exercise this option. Abolitionist and pro-slavery spokesman, protectionist and free trader, all at one time or another counseled secession. Yet was the Union overwhelmed with acts of secession before 1860? Most people have little desire to endure a state of crisis for frivolous reasons. But there can be no doubt that the ever-present threat that an oppressed state might withdraw had the salutary effect of restraining the federal government�s exercise of power.
Moreover, to the fear that nullification would lead to intolerable disorder, James Kilpatrick reminds us of the disorder that characterizes the present system: "If power-hungry federal judges may impose one unconstitutional mandate, they may impose a thousand, each more oppressive than the one before." Is this not its own kind of disorder? "But if the Constitution is over the [Supreme] Court, who or what finally is over the Constitution? It can only be the States, who under Article V alone have the power to amend or rewrite it."
In answer to the idea of the Union as being so sacred as to disallow any thought of secession, this piece argues that
The only real argument to hold the Union together is sentimental, since for many Americans the proposition of breaking apart our country sounds repellent and treasonous. But I ask you what is a worse fate for America: To remain geographically united while our founding principles burn to the ground? Or to fracture geographically while our founding principles receive a new lease on life?
To my mind, the first of these options commits the worst sin of modern times, which is to elevate the body over the soul. I would rather live in a small nation with America�s soul intact than a large nation with America�s soul extinct.''
I think he is right; to make some kind of idol out of The Union is to exalt the outward form over the spirit, to say that the idea of The Union is even more important than the idea of freedom and liberty, and as many of us see it, placing the 'nation-state' or the current Empire above the nation in the natural sense of The People, the kindred people who really constitute the nation.
Can there ever be agreement between people who pledge their allegiance to an abstract notion, and those whose allegiance belongs to a 'band of brothers'? Is there any hope of convincing the former group that the nation is the people and not The Union? Watching the debates that are taking place around this issue, I don't see much hope of doing so. And for that reason, because of the deep divides in people's beliefs about what makes up a nation and what their idea of proper government should be, we need to have an option to dissolve a 'union' which forcibly unites people of opposing beliefs and loyalties.
"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever."
"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." - Jefferson Davis
"The government of the uncontrolled numerical majority, is but the absolute and despotic form of popular government... If we do not defend ourselves none will defend us; if we yield we will be more and more pressed as we recede; and if we submit we will be trampled underfoot."
- John C. Calhoun
"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis
Terry Morris over at Webster's Blogspot has been doing a good job of keeping up with this on his blog, with this latest post and others.
On other blogs and forums, there is far less intelligent discussion of this issue, with a great many people still viewing the idea of state's rights and the implicit topic of secession with a skeptical or jaundiced eye. I am disappointed and sometimes disgusted at the lack of common sense on the subject which is evident in some discussions.
One such sophomoric article appears here, but a great many comments follow, with some sensible ones among them. The writer of the article makes the typical objection to state's rights and secession by opining that the previous attempt at seceding ended badly for South Carolina and the Confederacy, therefore the idea is tainted.
'Because the last time they got all uppity and started mouthing off about states� rights, we got our butts kicked.''
This is often the caliber of the arguments found in a lot of online discussions of state's rights and the Tenth Amendment, with the only other 'argument' being based on some kind of quasi-religious reverence for The Union.
Here Jack Hunter comments on the above-linked article and offers a sound examination of the Tenth Amendment movement and secession.
It's a very well-written piece; I recommend reading it all.
Thomas E. Woods describes here how, in the case of a powerful federal government overstepping its bounds, the only recourse was thought to be either arms or secession. However he spells out another alternative, which Thomas Jefferson himself outlined: nulllification.
He quotes Jefferson's words from The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:
Let us recall some of Jefferson�s most potent words, ratified by the Kentucky legislature:
Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming as to itself, the other party: That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge of itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.'
The great theorist of nullification was Calhoun, one of the most brilliant and creative political thinkers in American history. The Liberty Press edition of Calhoun�s writings, Union and Liberty, is indispensable for anyone interested in this subject-especially his Fort Hill Address, a concise and elegant case for nullification. Calhoun imagined a state holding a special nullification convention, much like the ratifying conventions the states had held when debating the Constitution, and settling the matter there.
[...]
The most common argument against nullification is that it would produce chaos, with a bewildering array of states constantly nullifying a bewildering array of federal laws. Given the character of the vast majority of federal legislation over the past several decades (and longer), it is difficult to imagine a libertarian viewing this as an especially grave difficulty.
Having said that, there is little reason to believe that chaos would actually ensue. Consider the historical record. That Americans generally acknowledged the right of a state to secede from the Union-a far more extreme remedy, surely, than nullification-is evident from the number of cases in which states threatened to exercise this option. Abolitionist and pro-slavery spokesman, protectionist and free trader, all at one time or another counseled secession. Yet was the Union overwhelmed with acts of secession before 1860? Most people have little desire to endure a state of crisis for frivolous reasons. But there can be no doubt that the ever-present threat that an oppressed state might withdraw had the salutary effect of restraining the federal government�s exercise of power.
Moreover, to the fear that nullification would lead to intolerable disorder, James Kilpatrick reminds us of the disorder that characterizes the present system: "If power-hungry federal judges may impose one unconstitutional mandate, they may impose a thousand, each more oppressive than the one before." Is this not its own kind of disorder? "But if the Constitution is over the [Supreme] Court, who or what finally is over the Constitution? It can only be the States, who under Article V alone have the power to amend or rewrite it."
In answer to the idea of the Union as being so sacred as to disallow any thought of secession, this piece argues that
The only real argument to hold the Union together is sentimental, since for many Americans the proposition of breaking apart our country sounds repellent and treasonous. But I ask you what is a worse fate for America: To remain geographically united while our founding principles burn to the ground? Or to fracture geographically while our founding principles receive a new lease on life?
To my mind, the first of these options commits the worst sin of modern times, which is to elevate the body over the soul. I would rather live in a small nation with America�s soul intact than a large nation with America�s soul extinct.''
I think he is right; to make some kind of idol out of The Union is to exalt the outward form over the spirit, to say that the idea of The Union is even more important than the idea of freedom and liberty, and as many of us see it, placing the 'nation-state' or the current Empire above the nation in the natural sense of The People, the kindred people who really constitute the nation.
Can there ever be agreement between people who pledge their allegiance to an abstract notion, and those whose allegiance belongs to a 'band of brothers'? Is there any hope of convincing the former group that the nation is the people and not The Union? Watching the debates that are taking place around this issue, I don't see much hope of doing so. And for that reason, because of the deep divides in people's beliefs about what makes up a nation and what their idea of proper government should be, we need to have an option to dissolve a 'union' which forcibly unites people of opposing beliefs and loyalties.
"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever."
"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." - Jefferson Davis
"The government of the uncontrolled numerical majority, is but the absolute and despotic form of popular government... If we do not defend ourselves none will defend us; if we yield we will be more and more pressed as we recede; and if we submit we will be trampled underfoot."
- John C. Calhoun
"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis
Labels: Constitution, Federal Government, Secession, State Sovereignty, StateS Rights, Tenth Amendment, War Between The States
0 comment Wednesday, July 23, 2014 | admin
Found among the comments on this thread at TexasDarlin's blog, posted by 'Feeling Hoodwinked':
From We The People USA
I saw today that Obama had been in touch with some Dem Senators to introduce legislation to amend the 10th Amendment.
By doing this, they hope to prohibit state's from being able to declare Sovereignty (which is what the 10th Amendment is about).
They will rush this through and surely pass it, as it is a Dem dominated Congress (as we saw first-hand with Porkulus bill)...
I have not been able to find anything about this supposed counter-effort by the administration, but I would be interested if anyone else has read or heard anything about it, although the same quote is the basis of another discussion here.
I did find a couple of pieces which are worth a read, including this one, State Sovereignty Movement Keeps Growing and this fairly lengthy piece: Firestorm brewing between U.S. States and Federal government.
And on the topic of secession, I trust you've all read or heard about The Occidental Quarterly's essay competition on the subject of secession and racial nationalism. Some of you here could probably submit good entries on those subjects.
From We The People USA
I saw today that Obama had been in touch with some Dem Senators to introduce legislation to amend the 10th Amendment.
By doing this, they hope to prohibit state's from being able to declare Sovereignty (which is what the 10th Amendment is about).
They will rush this through and surely pass it, as it is a Dem dominated Congress (as we saw first-hand with Porkulus bill)...
I have not been able to find anything about this supposed counter-effort by the administration, but I would be interested if anyone else has read or heard anything about it, although the same quote is the basis of another discussion here.
I did find a couple of pieces which are worth a read, including this one, State Sovereignty Movement Keeps Growing and this fairly lengthy piece: Firestorm brewing between U.S. States and Federal government.
And on the topic of secession, I trust you've all read or heard about The Occidental Quarterly's essay competition on the subject of secession and racial nationalism. Some of you here could probably submit good entries on those subjects.
Labels: Jeffersonian Principles, State Sovereignty, Tenth Amendment
0 comment Sunday, June 29, 2014 | admin
I don't know about the rest of you, but I find it dizzying to keep up with the changes that are underway in this country, as seen in each day's news. And I think that the people in power now are rather giddy from the ease with which they are able to work these drastic changes. I think they are positively shocked at how easy it has been to work their will.
Look back on the last few months and ponder how quickly the promised 'change' has come, and none of this change, as far as I can see, promises good things.
James Lewis says, of the new administration, in the above-linked article from American Thinker:
These are not just rank amateurs, they are willfully ignorant amateurs, who also happen to be grandiose narcissists, and who now have free reign over the levers of power in the United States. We are all watching the Titanic steaming full speed ahead right before that diamond-hard iceberg tears off all the steel rivets from her skin. If you're not aghast, you're just not paying attention.''
And yes, I am aghast, and most of all, aghast at the recognition that many Americans are not equally aghast. That's one of the most troubling parts of the whole situation.
Still, there are some sane people still in possession of the keenness of judgment to recognize what is going on. Karen De Coster is one such person.
The speed with which the federal government intends to take over private institutions and usurp states� rights and individual autonomy is unprecedented. When the Bush-Obama regime maneuvers are compared to the Hoover-FDR New Deal era, it looks like today�s hare vs. yesterday�s turtle. The state�s various propaganda arms, from big media to institutionalized special interest forces, are being empowered to publicize and sell the agenda of the totalitarian state by painting it in glossy colors that warm the hearts of unresisting Americans. There are, however, growing pockets of dissenters who conclude that life, liberty, property, and the futures of their children are more important than the trivial things that occupy the minds of the submissive class. For that reason, the state�s militarized police force, which has been given unparalleled powers by the contrived crises following 9-11, has snowballed in size and is being fortified in expectation of confronting rebellion from those citizens who intend to resist the tyranny of an over-reaching Leviathan.''
She discusses a topic to which we keep returning lately: the state sovereignty movement, and the increasing talk of secession from various quarters. She notes that there has been, and remains, a knee-jerk resistance to the idea and a discomfort with it as being in the realm of extremism. There are, as she notes of the libertarian movement, people who scoff at talk of secession and ask for what they consider more 'practical' solutions, 'practical' meaning:
''....the code word for something that is acceptable to the majority of the Oprahized masses. This kind of thought is known as "libertarian lite," or as I call it, "car wash libertarianism." The car wash libertarians persuade others � "especially those new to libertarianism � to stay away from the radical, "crazy" stuff and hold true to the agenda of getting "our people" elected through legitimate political means. The car wash libertarians still have a voice in the modern LP, which is also known as GOP 2.0. These libertarians are in the game not for reasons of deep-rooted principles and love of liberty, but for the social, bonding aspects, with some mild libertarianism sprinkled on the side. They love attending their local meetings and dinners each month and discussing who is going to run for what local post, and when, and applying strategy.''
Yes, there are these people among 'conservatives' as well. And many of them obstinately refuse to recognize that we are running out of time for what they call 'practical', gradual options.
The rapid-fire socialization of America, I hope, will have the effect of turning many of these libertarians toward more radical plans of action.
''The Feds are engaged in a sweeping series of measures to take complete control of the financial system (which is forever destroyed) and selected business entities; ratchet up plans for perpetual war; socialize health care; further implant federalized education and criminalize homeschooling; grab guns and ammo; remove children from the homes of dissenters; commence race wars and class wars; force young adults into mandatory state service camps; send protesters to FEMA camps; and on and on and on.
At this point, none of this can be undone through time-consuming, political means. Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, and the other agents of Obama's unfreedom brigade were brought to Washington D.C. for one very specific purpose: to centralize every last bit of property and life and put it all under federal rule, from money to education to personal behavior. Note the condescending and arrogant behavior of King Obama on the 60 Minutes television show as he laughed at the inability of majority opinion to do a damn thing to stop his freight train of power grabs and federal takeovers.
Perhaps the most significant move on the part of the Feds, outside of crushing the free market through rapid nationalization, is the move on the part of the centralizers to extinguish the single most important characteristic of a free society � the right to bear arms. A society in which individuals cannot bear arms is a society doomed to eternal serfdom and oppression from self-serving overlords.''
Read the rest at the link.
The last sentence in the second paragraph above, about 'sending protesters to FEMA camps', is an idea that has been rumored for some time now, and the more cautious consider it to be urban legend or tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory. I am not sure what to believe on that, but there is little doubt about the accuracy of the rest of the agenda she delineates in the excerpt above; the measures mentioned are all well within the realm of fact and public record.
All of this should be enough to galvanize the 'practical' people into a realization that it is much later than we like to think, and that things are proceeding very rapidly. Maybe it's time to look for less 'practical' yet more effective solutions if we do not want to be dragged further into this new order of which we've heard so much. We may no longer have the luxury of being able to hope for 'throwing the rascals out in 2012' or even in 2010.
While we still have some freedom left, time to use it or lose it.
Look back on the last few months and ponder how quickly the promised 'change' has come, and none of this change, as far as I can see, promises good things.
James Lewis says, of the new administration, in the above-linked article from American Thinker:
These are not just rank amateurs, they are willfully ignorant amateurs, who also happen to be grandiose narcissists, and who now have free reign over the levers of power in the United States. We are all watching the Titanic steaming full speed ahead right before that diamond-hard iceberg tears off all the steel rivets from her skin. If you're not aghast, you're just not paying attention.''
And yes, I am aghast, and most of all, aghast at the recognition that many Americans are not equally aghast. That's one of the most troubling parts of the whole situation.
Still, there are some sane people still in possession of the keenness of judgment to recognize what is going on. Karen De Coster is one such person.
The speed with which the federal government intends to take over private institutions and usurp states� rights and individual autonomy is unprecedented. When the Bush-Obama regime maneuvers are compared to the Hoover-FDR New Deal era, it looks like today�s hare vs. yesterday�s turtle. The state�s various propaganda arms, from big media to institutionalized special interest forces, are being empowered to publicize and sell the agenda of the totalitarian state by painting it in glossy colors that warm the hearts of unresisting Americans. There are, however, growing pockets of dissenters who conclude that life, liberty, property, and the futures of their children are more important than the trivial things that occupy the minds of the submissive class. For that reason, the state�s militarized police force, which has been given unparalleled powers by the contrived crises following 9-11, has snowballed in size and is being fortified in expectation of confronting rebellion from those citizens who intend to resist the tyranny of an over-reaching Leviathan.''
She discusses a topic to which we keep returning lately: the state sovereignty movement, and the increasing talk of secession from various quarters. She notes that there has been, and remains, a knee-jerk resistance to the idea and a discomfort with it as being in the realm of extremism. There are, as she notes of the libertarian movement, people who scoff at talk of secession and ask for what they consider more 'practical' solutions, 'practical' meaning:
''....the code word for something that is acceptable to the majority of the Oprahized masses. This kind of thought is known as "libertarian lite," or as I call it, "car wash libertarianism." The car wash libertarians persuade others � "especially those new to libertarianism � to stay away from the radical, "crazy" stuff and hold true to the agenda of getting "our people" elected through legitimate political means. The car wash libertarians still have a voice in the modern LP, which is also known as GOP 2.0. These libertarians are in the game not for reasons of deep-rooted principles and love of liberty, but for the social, bonding aspects, with some mild libertarianism sprinkled on the side. They love attending their local meetings and dinners each month and discussing who is going to run for what local post, and when, and applying strategy.''
Yes, there are these people among 'conservatives' as well. And many of them obstinately refuse to recognize that we are running out of time for what they call 'practical', gradual options.
The rapid-fire socialization of America, I hope, will have the effect of turning many of these libertarians toward more radical plans of action.
''The Feds are engaged in a sweeping series of measures to take complete control of the financial system (which is forever destroyed) and selected business entities; ratchet up plans for perpetual war; socialize health care; further implant federalized education and criminalize homeschooling; grab guns and ammo; remove children from the homes of dissenters; commence race wars and class wars; force young adults into mandatory state service camps; send protesters to FEMA camps; and on and on and on.
At this point, none of this can be undone through time-consuming, political means. Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, and the other agents of Obama's unfreedom brigade were brought to Washington D.C. for one very specific purpose: to centralize every last bit of property and life and put it all under federal rule, from money to education to personal behavior. Note the condescending and arrogant behavior of King Obama on the 60 Minutes television show as he laughed at the inability of majority opinion to do a damn thing to stop his freight train of power grabs and federal takeovers.
Perhaps the most significant move on the part of the Feds, outside of crushing the free market through rapid nationalization, is the move on the part of the centralizers to extinguish the single most important characteristic of a free society � the right to bear arms. A society in which individuals cannot bear arms is a society doomed to eternal serfdom and oppression from self-serving overlords.''
Read the rest at the link.
The last sentence in the second paragraph above, about 'sending protesters to FEMA camps', is an idea that has been rumored for some time now, and the more cautious consider it to be urban legend or tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory. I am not sure what to believe on that, but there is little doubt about the accuracy of the rest of the agenda she delineates in the excerpt above; the measures mentioned are all well within the realm of fact and public record.
All of this should be enough to galvanize the 'practical' people into a realization that it is much later than we like to think, and that things are proceeding very rapidly. Maybe it's time to look for less 'practical' yet more effective solutions if we do not want to be dragged further into this new order of which we've heard so much. We may no longer have the luxury of being able to hope for 'throwing the rascals out in 2012' or even in 2010.
While we still have some freedom left, time to use it or lose it.
Labels: Jeffersonian Principles, Liberty, Secession, Socialism, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenth Amendment
0 comment Tuesday, May 27, 2014 | admin
Here's a very fine piece by Larry L. Beane II which I found over at LewRockwell.com. It's titled ''The Founders Knew Latin'', which indeed they did. Latin, up until perhaps the middle of the 2oth century was considered part of a well-rounded basic education, and the Founding Fathers were steeped in it. As the article points out, many of the concepts of the Constitution are contained in Latin phrases like 'E Pluribus Unum', which we may remember, Al Gore mistranslated as ''Out of one, many.'' His faulty translation, turning the meaning of the phrase on its head, may have been a Freudian slip, as today most of the important principles of the Founders have likewise been inverted.
The Latin motto "e pluribus unum" also captures the plural nature of the Union. It was never meant to be collapsed and rolled into into "one nation." This is even evident in common grammatical usage, for while the architects of the Union were still living, the singular verb "is" was not paired up with the plural subject "United States." But within decades, the federal government became increasingly heavy-handed with the states. The struggle between the forces of centralization and decentralization intensified between 1830 and 1861, when political compromises failed, and the Union fell into disunion. Seven states of the deep south had seceded and formed a new federation, acting on what is often called the "compact theory" of the American union of 1789. This approach to the Constitution holds that the states are sovereign, and that the Union is a "compact" between them. The compact theory holds that unless power is delegated to the federal government, that power remains reserved to the states or to the people � a concept written directly into the Constitution itself as the Tenth Amendment. A clear and concise overview of the compact theory and its historical implications, past and present, can be found in chapters three and four of Thomas Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. In spite of the Tenth Amendment and the intent of the founders, by the 1860s, those who opposed secession and who ultimately annexed the seceded states by raw military force were denying the compact theory, and offered instead its diametric opposite: the "nationalist theory." Though this theory had been around for decades, it was a minority view without teeth until Lincoln and his associates put it into force by force. This alternative view saw the Union as "one nation" that gave birth to the states and not vice versa � though one will hunt in vain for the words "nation" and "national" used to describe the Union in the Constitution itself.
Please click over and read the whole thing. It's a very good exposition of what is at stake in the renewed call for state sovereignty and the focus on the Tenth Amendment.
And hopefully We The People, Deo vindice, will once more see the Union as a federation in light of the compact written to limit government and defend our God-given rights, instead of continuing in our ignorance to be bullied, tricked, and manipulated into accepting the great lie of the expansive and boundless "one nation, indivisible" that must be worshiped and obeyed as a god. Maybe we are ready to join the founders and say unambiguously, "Satis est!"
Satis est, indeed.
The Latin motto "e pluribus unum" also captures the plural nature of the Union. It was never meant to be collapsed and rolled into into "one nation." This is even evident in common grammatical usage, for while the architects of the Union were still living, the singular verb "is" was not paired up with the plural subject "United States." But within decades, the federal government became increasingly heavy-handed with the states. The struggle between the forces of centralization and decentralization intensified between 1830 and 1861, when political compromises failed, and the Union fell into disunion. Seven states of the deep south had seceded and formed a new federation, acting on what is often called the "compact theory" of the American union of 1789. This approach to the Constitution holds that the states are sovereign, and that the Union is a "compact" between them. The compact theory holds that unless power is delegated to the federal government, that power remains reserved to the states or to the people � a concept written directly into the Constitution itself as the Tenth Amendment. A clear and concise overview of the compact theory and its historical implications, past and present, can be found in chapters three and four of Thomas Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. In spite of the Tenth Amendment and the intent of the founders, by the 1860s, those who opposed secession and who ultimately annexed the seceded states by raw military force were denying the compact theory, and offered instead its diametric opposite: the "nationalist theory." Though this theory had been around for decades, it was a minority view without teeth until Lincoln and his associates put it into force by force. This alternative view saw the Union as "one nation" that gave birth to the states and not vice versa � though one will hunt in vain for the words "nation" and "national" used to describe the Union in the Constitution itself.
Please click over and read the whole thing. It's a very good exposition of what is at stake in the renewed call for state sovereignty and the focus on the Tenth Amendment.
And hopefully We The People, Deo vindice, will once more see the Union as a federation in light of the compact written to limit government and defend our God-given rights, instead of continuing in our ignorance to be bullied, tricked, and manipulated into accepting the great lie of the expansive and boundless "one nation, indivisible" that must be worshiped and obeyed as a god. Maybe we are ready to join the founders and say unambiguously, "Satis est!"
Satis est, indeed.
Labels: Constitution, Founding Fathers, Nullification, State Sovereignty, StateS Rights, Tenth Amendment, War Between The States
0 comment Sunday, May 11, 2014 | admin
South Carolina has introduced a state sovereignty resolution in their state legislature:
On February 12, legislators from the State of South Carolina introduced a bill to affirm the rights not only of their own state, but of all states under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution. (h/t Paul Graham and George McLeod) Here�s the full text: TO AFFIRM THE RIGHTS OF ALL STATES INCLUDING SOUTH CAROLINA BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Whereas, the South Carolina General Assembly declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is not expressly delegated by them to the United States of America in the congress assembled; and Whereas, some states when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, "that it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several states to be by them exercised"...
The whole thing may be found at the link.
And Tennessee apparently has introduced such a resolution, although I have not been able to track down a link to a newspaper article about it. If anyone has such a link, please share it with us.
It's good to see more Southron states getting into the act.
On February 12, legislators from the State of South Carolina introduced a bill to affirm the rights not only of their own state, but of all states under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution. (h/t Paul Graham and George McLeod) Here�s the full text: TO AFFIRM THE RIGHTS OF ALL STATES INCLUDING SOUTH CAROLINA BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Whereas, the South Carolina General Assembly declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is not expressly delegated by them to the United States of America in the congress assembled; and Whereas, some states when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, "that it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several states to be by them exercised"...
The whole thing may be found at the link.
And Tennessee apparently has introduced such a resolution, although I have not been able to track down a link to a newspaper article about it. If anyone has such a link, please share it with us.
It's good to see more Southron states getting into the act.
Labels: Decentralization, South, State Sovereignty, StateS Rights, Tenth Amendment
0 comment Friday, May 9, 2014 | admin
It's been interesting, watching the response to Holder's 'nation of cowards' remarks over the last several days. Responses are still appearing on various blogs and webzines.
Disappointingly, but predictably, some Republicans and 'conservatives' are going the route of protesting that they have seen the light and 'moved beyond race', and now if only the liberals would let blacks do the same, we could all get along. Or there are the responses which essentially concede the blacks' grievances, and issue mea culpas about how we were a terribly 'racist' country but we are all better now; we've learned our lesson. We've repented and paid our debt to society, so give us some credit.
Those kinds of weak and defensive responses are useless, and worse than useless, because they are simply playing along with the politically correct games. They just keep us caught in this endless loop of grievances and demands for apologies, and then apologies and supplications for mercy from our side. Somebody has to break the cycle; if only someone of national stature would do just that, publicly, and repudiate the whole thing. If only we could see a chain reaction of individuals who finally see through the PC conditioning, and resolve to break it and refuse to play the game anymore. Yet many people are looking for a leader to set the example and give 'permission' as it were.
Another discussion that is interesting, though exasperating at times to watch, is the discussion about secession which has been going on this thread at AmRen as well as in a number of other places where the 'state sovereignty' movement is being talked about.
I just want to get one nitpick out of the way first: I wish some of those discussing the topic would learn that the word is SEcession not SUCcession, as so many people seem to be spelling it everywhere, including the AmRen thread. What is it with this confusion? The words don't even sound alike, unless one mispronounces 'secession' as 'suh-cession' as some are wont to do.
End of rant.
But apart from that, the most exasperating thing for me in reading those discussions is the ubiquitous naysayers. You know what I mean: the ones who say 'Secession (or succession, as the case may be) is a fantasy. It's impossible. You're dreaming. Never happen, in a million years. Impossible.''
All I can say is, it's a good thing that attitude didn't prevail back in 1776.
And I am baffled by the people who think that secession is somehow 'illegal' or immoral or shocking or radical (which it may be) or disloyal or un-American or just plain evil. Do they not know that our country came into being by means of secession? If it is wrong now, it was wrong in 1776.
And there are always those who, having been taught the orthodox pro-Northern view of the War Between the States, believe that the South was treasonous and criminal to have seceded from the Sacrosanct Union. There is not much chance of persuading these people otherwise.
It may well be that the naysayers and the doomsayers are right, but I take issue with their dogmatic attitude, and the underlying assumption that they have some kind of crystal ball which gives them perfect knowledge of the future, or some kind of superior knowledge of what is and isn't possible. There are just so many variables and unknowns in our present situation; there are many possible paths that may unfold. Who would have guessed, say, five years ago, that we would be exactly where we are now? Who could have guessed ten years ago that things would be as they are today? We've all seen some staggering changes in our country and in the West generally. You'd think the unexpected twists and turns we've seen over the last decade, or even the last few years, would humble most of us and make us realize that we are in uncharted territory, and that none of us can anticipate exactly what the future holds. We can extrapolate or make educated guesses, but there are a great many unknown factors and variables. So I think those who make categorical statements about what CANNOT happen are on shaky ground, and should not be taken seriously.
And more than that, I think those who make these sweeping pronouncements about how certain futures are 'impossible', or who tell us our fate is sealed, are harming our prospects of working any kind of change for the better. They may not succeed in discouraging people -- if that is their aim in making their gloomy announcements, but they tend to dampen enthusiasm and contribute to the attitude of resignation and passivity which some are prone to these days. So I think these naysayers should be tuned out.
Those who counsel caution and realism are not in the same category as the ''we're doomed, nothing can ever change for the better'' crowd, however.
I think that there are a number of scenarios which might open up a number of unforeseen possibilities.
Many of the naysayers seem to take an 'all or nothing' attitude: either we regain the whole country, or nothing. And since the former seems unattainable, it seems we are doomed. Some like to focus on the problems, which they proceed to tell us are insurmountable. I wonder if our forefathers had to deal with so many people like this in their generation, when they founded this country?
My favorite excuse given by the naysayers is that ''the feds would never let anybody secede.'' This whole mindset is so passive and fatalistic that I am inclined to call it truly un-American. It's just alien to our way of thinking, the idea that we are helpless pawns who can only do what others 'let us' do, rather than what we have the natural right to do.
Our founding forefathers spelled out for us why we have a right to separate ourselves from a government which is destructive of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly 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. But 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.''
The Declaration of Independence alone tells us all that we need to know about whether or not we have a 'right' to separate from any given government. And it seems to be becoming clear that our existing system is not responsive to our collective will, and that it is beyond repair or reform, and impervious to our concerns.
Some of us still think we can tweak our existing system a little, or elect better people; good luck with that hope. Sadly, I think it is a vain hope, as we will likely see over the next few months and years. However I am open to being proven wrong.
If our system could be once more restored to what it was meant to be, a legitimate government based on the 'consent of the governed' and responsive to the will of the people, then I would be happy to stay with the system our forefathers designed for us. But I see little hope of that; the existing evils are becoming entrenched and are expanding.
And as our Founding Fathers said more than once, the system they designed was made for a particular people and a particular time and place. It was meant for a 'moral and religious people', for an educated electorate, and for a people with a common faith, ancestry, and way of life. It cannot be expected to function in a multicultural bedlam, divided every which way.
This brings up an obvious problem which is illustrated by the discussion on the AmRen thread: there is much dissension even among those who are supposedly all pro-White: you have the unbelievers who don't care for Christians, the regional disagreements, the 'culture is more important than kinship' people, the pro-secession people vs. those who think secession is 'surrender.' How do we deal with all these sharp differences?
All I can really say at this point is that it's necessary to keep options open, and 'never say never', because things can change quickly, just as they have been changing over these recent months and years. I simply think we can expect more surprises, for which we must be flexible and prepared to adapt.
Disappointingly, but predictably, some Republicans and 'conservatives' are going the route of protesting that they have seen the light and 'moved beyond race', and now if only the liberals would let blacks do the same, we could all get along. Or there are the responses which essentially concede the blacks' grievances, and issue mea culpas about how we were a terribly 'racist' country but we are all better now; we've learned our lesson. We've repented and paid our debt to society, so give us some credit.
Those kinds of weak and defensive responses are useless, and worse than useless, because they are simply playing along with the politically correct games. They just keep us caught in this endless loop of grievances and demands for apologies, and then apologies and supplications for mercy from our side. Somebody has to break the cycle; if only someone of national stature would do just that, publicly, and repudiate the whole thing. If only we could see a chain reaction of individuals who finally see through the PC conditioning, and resolve to break it and refuse to play the game anymore. Yet many people are looking for a leader to set the example and give 'permission' as it were.
Another discussion that is interesting, though exasperating at times to watch, is the discussion about secession which has been going on this thread at AmRen as well as in a number of other places where the 'state sovereignty' movement is being talked about.
I just want to get one nitpick out of the way first: I wish some of those discussing the topic would learn that the word is SEcession not SUCcession, as so many people seem to be spelling it everywhere, including the AmRen thread. What is it with this confusion? The words don't even sound alike, unless one mispronounces 'secession' as 'suh-cession' as some are wont to do.
End of rant.
But apart from that, the most exasperating thing for me in reading those discussions is the ubiquitous naysayers. You know what I mean: the ones who say 'Secession (or succession, as the case may be) is a fantasy. It's impossible. You're dreaming. Never happen, in a million years. Impossible.''
All I can say is, it's a good thing that attitude didn't prevail back in 1776.
And I am baffled by the people who think that secession is somehow 'illegal' or immoral or shocking or radical (which it may be) or disloyal or un-American or just plain evil. Do they not know that our country came into being by means of secession? If it is wrong now, it was wrong in 1776.
And there are always those who, having been taught the orthodox pro-Northern view of the War Between the States, believe that the South was treasonous and criminal to have seceded from the Sacrosanct Union. There is not much chance of persuading these people otherwise.
It may well be that the naysayers and the doomsayers are right, but I take issue with their dogmatic attitude, and the underlying assumption that they have some kind of crystal ball which gives them perfect knowledge of the future, or some kind of superior knowledge of what is and isn't possible. There are just so many variables and unknowns in our present situation; there are many possible paths that may unfold. Who would have guessed, say, five years ago, that we would be exactly where we are now? Who could have guessed ten years ago that things would be as they are today? We've all seen some staggering changes in our country and in the West generally. You'd think the unexpected twists and turns we've seen over the last decade, or even the last few years, would humble most of us and make us realize that we are in uncharted territory, and that none of us can anticipate exactly what the future holds. We can extrapolate or make educated guesses, but there are a great many unknown factors and variables. So I think those who make categorical statements about what CANNOT happen are on shaky ground, and should not be taken seriously.
And more than that, I think those who make these sweeping pronouncements about how certain futures are 'impossible', or who tell us our fate is sealed, are harming our prospects of working any kind of change for the better. They may not succeed in discouraging people -- if that is their aim in making their gloomy announcements, but they tend to dampen enthusiasm and contribute to the attitude of resignation and passivity which some are prone to these days. So I think these naysayers should be tuned out.
Those who counsel caution and realism are not in the same category as the ''we're doomed, nothing can ever change for the better'' crowd, however.
I think that there are a number of scenarios which might open up a number of unforeseen possibilities.
Many of the naysayers seem to take an 'all or nothing' attitude: either we regain the whole country, or nothing. And since the former seems unattainable, it seems we are doomed. Some like to focus on the problems, which they proceed to tell us are insurmountable. I wonder if our forefathers had to deal with so many people like this in their generation, when they founded this country?
My favorite excuse given by the naysayers is that ''the feds would never let anybody secede.'' This whole mindset is so passive and fatalistic that I am inclined to call it truly un-American. It's just alien to our way of thinking, the idea that we are helpless pawns who can only do what others 'let us' do, rather than what we have the natural right to do.
Our founding forefathers spelled out for us why we have a right to separate ourselves from a government which is destructive of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly 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. But 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.''
The Declaration of Independence alone tells us all that we need to know about whether or not we have a 'right' to separate from any given government. And it seems to be becoming clear that our existing system is not responsive to our collective will, and that it is beyond repair or reform, and impervious to our concerns.
Some of us still think we can tweak our existing system a little, or elect better people; good luck with that hope. Sadly, I think it is a vain hope, as we will likely see over the next few months and years. However I am open to being proven wrong.
If our system could be once more restored to what it was meant to be, a legitimate government based on the 'consent of the governed' and responsive to the will of the people, then I would be happy to stay with the system our forefathers designed for us. But I see little hope of that; the existing evils are becoming entrenched and are expanding.
And as our Founding Fathers said more than once, the system they designed was made for a particular people and a particular time and place. It was meant for a 'moral and religious people', for an educated electorate, and for a people with a common faith, ancestry, and way of life. It cannot be expected to function in a multicultural bedlam, divided every which way.
This brings up an obvious problem which is illustrated by the discussion on the AmRen thread: there is much dissension even among those who are supposedly all pro-White: you have the unbelievers who don't care for Christians, the regional disagreements, the 'culture is more important than kinship' people, the pro-secession people vs. those who think secession is 'surrender.' How do we deal with all these sharp differences?
All I can really say at this point is that it's necessary to keep options open, and 'never say never', because things can change quickly, just as they have been changing over these recent months and years. I simply think we can expect more surprises, for which we must be flexible and prepared to adapt.
Labels: Ethnonationalism, Secession, State Sovereignty, Tenth Amendment