Not With a Bang, But With a Whimper

This is How The World Ends - Part IV

If, as I have contented in the first three parts of this series of post, the following is true -

1. We Americans are woefully ignorant of our rights, our Constitution and political philosophy in general
2. Our Constitutional Republic from those nice stories in history books is long dead
3. Our election process is completely incapable of fixing any of this (or our other massive problems of wars, failed economies etc. etc.)

Then what does the future hold and what are the solutions (or coping mechanisms if no solution is apparent)?

Some talk of a revolution in our future - but revolutions are a complicated business. Middle classes do not start revolutions or even participate or support them until they are well under way and almost over. Sure the middle class often provide the intelligentsia of a revolution but that is a small part of the bigger requirement. The rich do not start violent revolutions - they buy what they want in influence and power. The true foot soldiers of any revolution are the dispossessed, the poor and down-trodden.

Therein lies the fix, the poor and downtrodden in the US are riding pretty fat and happy (by relative standards of poor and downtrodden) on a US government gravy train. There are enough people within government that are capable of reading that understand the key ingredients in civil discontent. So long as a willing and compliant middle-class exists to consume and pay taxes the government will be able to buy the happiness and contentment of the poor. It is as simple as that.

In any event, no sane man looks to revolution with glee. Anyone that believes the War of American Independence was a revolution simply does not understand what the term really means. It was a separatist, nah a secession movement, not a revolution.

The foot soldiers (those poor and down trodden) are apt to follow the banner of any fool with a plan and a promise once the shooting starts. Change for the sake of change is something rationale people fear, particularly considering the history of revolutions.

No, the government will keep the poor placated, and in the event they occasionally rise up in violent riots the government will put them down and the middle class will rejoice that their welfare was protected.

There are probably many in the middle class that would like the idea of change, even if it involved violence. They probably also have a solid idea of what they would do to put everything back the way it was meant to be. But, when the rubber hit the road as they say the mad middle class guy has a house, a mini van and he really does not have time to start a revolution because he has to be at work by 9am in the morning. Middle-classes almost always trade safety and security for rights and freedoms.

Secession then you say. Well as an strong advocate of the legality of secession and a proponent of states' rights you might think I would say this is the solution...I doubt it.

First, if we are honest about it there is but one government now. Our states have lost all of their rights and all of their will to attempt to assert any rights. Government down to the local level is intertwined via federal grants and regulations. In cases where the federal government has not overtly asserted some control or influence many of our state and local government officials deffer to the question of "what is the national standard".

Second, our states no longer have any semblance of a heterogeneous culture or common polity. A woman from Arkansas can be a Senator from New York for goodness sakes. People move, leave familial and cultural bonds in pursuit of paper money and trinkets. A secession movement would have a very hard time in any state with such a mix of people.

Third, the middle class is bought and paid for just as the poor - it is called social security. Until it fails people expect to get what is coming to them - secede and lose that...never. A soul sold for 30 pieces of silver.


Pretty grim stuff and I am simply not wise enough to see a way out of this. Early on in this series of post I used comparisons of the German people from 1933 on to relate to some of our traits. We talked about the coup attempts on Hitler's life and the fact that a real revolution was never a possibility in Germany. Hitler may have died in one of the coups but nothing essential would have changed. The undoing of the Germans had already occurred, they were powerless (I did not say blameless) to alter their fate. I fear we are in the same boat. We cannot vote our way out of this mess now (too may accommodations in the past), revolution is not a realistic possibility and neither is secession.

I like optimist, they inspire people. Doomsayers just scare the heck out of folks. Yet, I find it difficult to muster optimism about our future.

I will now do something I have never done in my life, quote Martin Luther King Jr.

I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God

This was from a speech called "It's A Dark Day In Our Nation" explaining why he opposed the Vietnam War but the words are applicable for any number of events in our recent and not so recent history.

We have done wrong. We have allowed greed, lust, gluttony, sloth, wrath, envy and pride to rule us. We have even turned those vices into virtues of sorts. We have abandoned the wise teachings, learned through history, of our forefathers in preference for our perceived enlightened wisdom of modernity. We have traded liberty and freedom for safety and security.

Commenting on the American experiment Alex de Tocqueville said, "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." and "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

Pretty astute for a Frenchman in the mid 19th century but correct nonetheless.

And thus the world we thought we always knew, in the final analysis, ended not with a bang but with a whimper.

Stumble It!

A Majority in 32 States Agree

With Ron Paul that Lincoln was wrong to start and prosecute a war against the southern states when they seceded from the union. An act not prohibited to them by the Constitution - the act of going to war against states exercising their reserved rights is not a power delegated to the executive branch or the federal government in general. I challenge anyone to provide evidence to the contrary. Apparently the majority of folks in the less metropolitan states understand this concept.

Take a gander at the map of the poll results - everywhere that people still live with some degree of that quality that has been considered historically "American" the majority agree that Lincoln was wrong.

Samuel Chase (a signer of the Declaration of Independence) and Justice of the Suprime Court stated in Ware v. Hylton (3 Dallas 199 at 224 U.S. 1798)

In June, 1776, the convention on Virginia formaly declared that Virginia was a free, soveriegn and independent state and on the 4th of July 1776, following, the United States in Congress assembled declared the thirteen colonies free and independent States; and that as such they had full power to levy war, conclude peace etc. I consider this as a declaration, not that the United States jointly in a collective capacity were independent States etc. but that each of them was a soverign and independent State, that is each of them had a right to govern itself by its own authority and its own law, without any control from any other power on earth. [emphasis mine]

The Treaty of Paris 1783, concluding the American War of Independence, supports this conclusion:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

Notice that Great Britian acknowledhes the independence of thirteen individual states as free and independent nations - not simply one joint government. The United States as a government was born from a contract between free and independent States and it was given only limited power to do specific things. As the 10th Amendment clearly states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The president did not and still does not have the power the use force against a state or states exercising their reserved rights - i.e. all rights of free and independent nations not specifically delegated to the Federal Government under the terms of the Constitution. Free and independent states are by definition free to enter into contracts and agreements and when they believe those agreements are no longer in their best interests they are free to leave those agreements. That is the meaning of being free and independent - any other definiton would inply that the states were captive and not free at all.

Alexis de Tocqueville the foremost observer of the creation of the American Republic, in Democracy in America, said:

The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right.

President James Buchanan stated succinctly in a speech before Congress, December 1860 that the Constitution does not delegate to the Federal government the power to use force against a state:

The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not " necessary and proper for carrying into execution " any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution.

Lincoln himself spoke highly of secession at one point in his career (when it was pragmatic and met his own ideological objectives)

Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one which suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right-a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own so much of the territory as they inhabit.

This excerpt is taken from Lincoln's "If You Can Secede You May" (Mexico) speech, cited in Rupert Emerson, From Empire to Nation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967), p. 450.

Clearly Mr. Lincoln was wrong to wage war against the South - he did not do it to free slaves for he never freed a single slave under his actual sphere of influence. Furthermore, slaver ended in every other Western nation without war, it was an intsitution destined to end in America as well without warfare. He invaded the South outside of his constitutional mandate and beyond his delegagted power to act. His actions caused the death of 400,000 Americans and in the minds of the uneducated and more nefariously those that wish to use the Federal Government for purposes that is was never created for changed our Republic into an empire.

Ron Paul was brave to answer Tim Russert correctly but it is more encouraging to see that many of my fellow Americans still understand history and the Constitution.

Stumble It!

AOL on Lincoln and Paul

Not that this is scientific at all but the results of this "poll" have been interesting to watch. Nationally, 57% disagree with the following "Ron Paul says Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War."

What is encouraging is that in the South (ten states), Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Alaska the numbers run in the majority in agreement with Dr. Paul. These are the states where the League of The South, the Second Vermont Republic, the Alaska Independence Party, and the Lakota Nation live and operate.

Perhaps, despite an egregious education system that does not teach the truth there is indeed hope for devolution and independence. If one can see how wrong that Lincoln was then it is not a great step forward toward seeing what is wrong with all that resulted from his actions.

My question - what is wrong with Texas, Missouri and Hawaii? (Places where people ought to vote differently) Do y'all like living under the yoke of an illegitimate empire?

Stumble It!

Descendants of Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse break away from US

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States, leaders said Wednesday.

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us," long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means told a handful of reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy, gathered in a church in a run-down neighborhood of Washington for a news conference.

A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States, some of them more than 150 years old.

They also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and will continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months, they told the news conference.

Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

It is about time someone took the first step, and who better than those that felt the boot of the American Empire most profoundly. Visit their website, if they are serious about making this stick they deserve our support; self-determination is supposed to be an "American" thing is it not?

Stumble It!

Hawaiian Independence

I had a chance to day to visit with a friend involved with the Hawaiian Independence movement that I have communicated with for some time. I may totally disagree with much of the politics of the movement but my eyes were opened anew today. I was able to visit areas that most tourist never see - the places that real Hawaiians live and work. The millions of tourist dollars that flow into this land never reach the actual owners - the kanaka maoli.

The fact is Hawaii was annexed under dubious circumstances - the Kingdom of Hawaii never surrendered its sovereignty freely. If it were not for the meddling of a few pre-neocons the Kingdom would still be free today.

As I said, I may disagree with their politics, but the Hawaiian people deserve a chance to determine their own destiny. (Of course Hawaiians do not like the term "secession" because they make a solid case that they never joined the union de jure - I agree, but the concept of freedom is the same)

Stumble It!

Setting The Record Straight

In case you come across comments I have left on other site or if you read my article about Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton and think I am deluded about the "politics" of the Scottish National Party - I am not. I know that the very reason nationalism resurfaced in Scotland, i.e. disdain for Thatcher's policies, has resulted in a Scotland that supports greater separation from Britain but closer ties with a unified Europe.

Personally I find this to be idiotic, to replace a tyrant a few hundred miles away with a larger tyranny just a few more miles distant makes no sense. Thomas Fleming has argued recently that secession is not such a good idea in many places that it is currently considered, in part because places like Scotland would simply replace the nation-state with multinational unions.

I disdain what Scotland has become - they simply took the enlightenment way to far. I will not abandon the idea of self-determination because some people would use self-determination to "determine" themselves out of liberty and freedom. I can at once support the notion of self-determination and oppose the idiotic ideas that may arise from it - separately and apart from one another.

Stumble It!

Re: A Simple Plea for Federalism

Nick Gillespie over at Reason comments on a story worth reading and considering.

From Ron Hart

My solution to the unworkable yet appealing idea of secession is to devolve more powers to the states and fewer to Washington. It is what our Founding Fathers intended. And if you read the Federalist Papers, you will realize that they never intended our central government in Washington to be this expansive and overbearing.

If you want an abortion, then move to a state that allows it. If you want to smoke weed, then go to California. If you think that we should pay for everything a lazy welfare person demands, then go to a state that gives them flat-screen TVs and, instead of government cheese, offers an assortment of French cheeses that are both delicious and presented in a pleasing manner.

The basic reason that we fought for our independence is to do what we damn well please as long as it does not harm others. Yet at every turn, the federal government seems to want to make us do as they think we should, even if it comes down to using windmills, driving a Toyota Prius, or now, being forced to join the Hillary Health Care Plan....

Our free-spending federal government thinks it is doing things well, and is filled with enough hubris to believe that it should tell other countries what to do - it calls it foreign policy. The real answer is that less money and power need to be vested with them and more at the state level.

In this Hart has it just right, I would like nothing more than to remain united with other Americans in their states for the common good. If we take the Federalist Papers as the real intent of the Federalist and not some attempt to answer away criticism and get The Constitution accepted at all cost then we find within those documents good words. The Antifederalist certainly did not buy into the hype, their warnings have become reality.

However, laying that aside, The Constitution certainly is, at present, our best hope. If we could turn back the clock so to speak, to a time when the States had Rights and the Federal Government had limits and politicians always asked the question "is this constitutional" before proposing some new grand scheme things would indeed be much better. More than a supporter of secession I am first and foremost a supporter of a limited Federal Government, a strict interpretation of the Federal Constitution and freedom of the States and The People to do each and every thing they please that was never delegated to the Union. Citizenship belongs back with the states, as it was when the Union was formed.

Secession is not unworkable, it is just not necessary right now. That is not to say that it is not important to talk about it, to keep it in the public mind and to continually proclaim it as a legitimate right of our States. We simply cannot abandon our fate to one that forever ties our prosperity and freedom to the notion of Union. If we abandon the notion of secession, we thereby abandon all hope of restoring the Republic. Without the right to secede, all other rights become provisional and the 10th Amendment means nothing - it becomes something that is defined by the Federal Government itself - that is tyranny, benevolent or otherwise it is tyranny.

As I wrote in my last post, Ron Paul certainly is a wonderful breath of fresh air into the otherwise corrupt and perverse political landscape. Millions of us should get out and support him, we should support Constitutional Party candidates in local and state elections. We must lay aside the failed notions of pragmatism and "we simply must win". That has accomplished nothing, if you are a conservative like me you see this failure clearly within the GOP and the candidates they routinely roll out for our perusal. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans support any degree of restoration of the Republic - meaning a proper interpretation of the nature and role of the central government. We should not honor them with our treasure or concern - even if it means our votes will not be counted.

The solution to almost everything that ails The United States can be found within the simple notion of devolving back to what our government was intended to be - no other ideology, political party position or single-scope issue approach will save us.

Don't lose heart, don't take my words as defeatism - stand firm for those that believe and support the right things, no matter how many temporary defeats we may suffer. Heck, get involved!

Stumble It!

Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton?

Hold your horses cowboy - don't close that browser just yet. If you are like me, and for the sake of your wife and loved ones I hope you are not, you grew up believing that Ronald Reagan was "The Man" and Margaret Thatcher was the "Iron Lady". I joined the military with the words of Reagan echoing in my head about the need to stand on a wall and face down the bear of communism. Thatcher and Reagan were an inseparable team it seemed in the opposition to the Soviet Union.

There is another side of Margaret Thatcher that most Americans do not know about - but more on that later.

In 1913 Great Britain was prepared to consider and probably "grant" home rule to Scotland. I say "grant" because the notion that sovereignty could be withheld from a nation that preexisted Britain, a nation that only lost its independence after centuries of invasion, coercion and deceit is absurd. Britain could no more "grant" to the Scots that which was rightfully theirs than I can create gold via sheer will. That is not the point however, in 1913 a home rule bill passed the first reading of the British Parliament and everything seemed set. World War I ended the progress of the bill and in the fever-pitch following "The Great War" to grant self-determination to peoples across the world, the Scots were forgotten.

Fast forward to the 1980's, the voting patterns of Scotland and England clearly began to show a shift in what Scots thought was important versus the rest of Britain. Very young conservatives like me in America may have loved Thatcher for her foreign policy but Scots disdained her domestic policies and her paternalistic attitude toward their desires to do things their own way.

A commenter on a Guardian story sums it up:

Despite my very close English connections, I've never been comfortable being British after growing up under Thatcher and seeing how differently England and Scotland voted during those years. It left a great impression that fundamentally England and Scotland are very different - one more "me" oriented and one more socially aware. Several years living in England later on didn't change that view.

Most observers of the movement toward devolution and nationalism in Scotland point directly at Thatcher as the catalyst to reignite centuries old embers. Speaking of a Thatcher visit to Glasgow in 1997 SNP leader Alex Salmond suggested that her visit was "the best advertisement for Scottish self-government possible". A recent History Channel documentary I viewed "Essential Scottish History" spoke to this fact and her influence in galvanizing Scottish nationalism.

For nearly 300 years the Scots had tried it the Unionist way, for nearly 300 years they had seen the downside of representative democracy in action . As a minority, a suppressed nation, they came to know exactly what union meant. It took several attempts to elect the "right" people, pass the right bills etc. before they collectively woke up to this fact in sufficient numbers to push for a return of their own parliament but they did wake up, thanks in large part to Margaret Thatcher.

Perhaps you already see why I placed Hillary Clinton in the title line with Margaret Thatcher - perhaps I do not need to write the rest of this, I think you already get my point.

Small minorities all across these united states are disenfranchised with the way things are, for their own reasons - some to the right others to the left. Most within these minorities still see the hope within one man - "if we can just get him/her elected all will be well." Of course the majority is either apathetic or still delusioned by the non-competition provided by the two non-opposing national parties (but those unwashed masses are not our concern).

On the right many of us support Tancredo or Dr. Paul (a minority if the MSM is to be believed) and within this group of supporters most actually believe. Heck, I want to believe - but I don't. I believe that despite our support Dr. Paul, for instance, simply will not win. The GOP has already established it has no intention of letting it happen - they want one of their men. What does that leave? A third party option that will ensure Hillary the win or sitting home, not voting for the scoundrel, false conservative the GOP trots out - which of course also ensures Hillary wins. Either way, Hillary wins.

I am not a defeatist, Dr. Ron Paul is the right man for the job, Tancredo (or better yet Alan Keyes) might make a decent VP but it will not happen. If it did happen and Paul stuck by his past voting record we would see a presidency with the most vetoes and the most vetoes overridden in the history of this republic. Not that this would be a bad thing, but the fact is what it is. (in it own way a Paul win would highlight just how wrong things are at the core)

Dr. Paul deserves our support, our earnest support. Above anyone else in government he has stood firm on a strict interpretation of The Constitution. Supporting him, despite the odds, is simply the right thing to do - a trigger point must come and it cannot come unless decent, feed-up people continue to dream and continue to see their dream shattered by the current system.

The election is Hillary's to win unless she herself losses it in the coming months - ours is but to stand firm on principles and support that which is right, not what is pragmatic. There is too much pragmatism in politics.

I would have thought that after 7 years of neoconic folly the body of conservatives would rise from the autopsy table and demand a man like Dr. Paul - we see this is not the case in the vast majority, why on Earth would any real conservative support Giuliani, Romney, McCain or Thompson? I don't know - I am without an explanation. After the lies, deceit and downright trampling of the Constitution under Bush I would expect a real conservative revolution but it has occurred only on the fringes.

I would like to think that after 4 years of Hillary real conservatives would wake up and say "enough", I would like to think that they would look at the GOP as an organization infested with false conservatives and bad ideology and demand a change. I would like to think that a combination of tyranny and lies under Bush and socialism and idiocy under Clinton II would wake my own people up and have them screaming in streets for freedom and independence from this republic gone astray - realizing that a vote does not equal a voice in a system this large.

I would like to see that and maybe we will, right now I am confused as to why more of my own people are not in the streets demanding that Ron Paul occupy the White House at the earliest opportunity.

The Scots woke up (partially) will we?

Stumble It!

Thomas Fleming on Secession

What could be done, ideally, with the Kurds? Many of my Southern friends answer, almost automatically: Guarantee the Kurds the right of secession, and all will be well. As I recently explained, in a speech that antagonized a group of secessionists meeting in Chattanooga, there is no such thing as a universal political system or principle that applies to all peoples in all situations. . (Thomas Flemming, HT Daniel)

A lot of folks that support the notion of self-determination and ultimately secession are aghast at Dr. Fleming's remarks at the Second Annual Secession Convention. Fleming further articulated his view point in a recent Chronicles article that honestly, I believe, closes the loop on the issue and puts us all back at the same table - more of less, minus his errors regarding the Kurds.

He does, however in my observed opinion, get a few things wrong.

It is a terrible charge to make against any nation, but the Kurds are the Albanians of the Mideast

By this he is implying that the Kurds would commit atrocities greater than Persians, Sunnis, Shiites, Turks etc that variously occupy portions of Kurdistan. My experience with the Kurds taught me that these are probably some of the best people in the Middle-East. I lived with them and fought with them for the better part of a year. I have lived around Turks, Arabs, Zionist, and Sunnis at various points during my "travels"(not as extensively as my time with Kurds) but I cannot help but recall fondly my memories of each and every Kurd I befriended. Saladin was a Kurd for goodness sakes, he taught the West what it meant to fight honorably and nobly long before we developed a sense of chivalry and real nobility. Kurds are not religiously fanatical, they do not as a group subscribe to the extreme versions of Islam - that would be the Arabs, and Persians. I just have to disagree that because Kurdish independence would mean potential violence we should not support it - in a moral sense, not with boots on the ground. This is the largest ethnic population on Earth yet they do not have a country.

His arguments relating to Kurdish complicity in PPK activities are not particularly noteworthy. The activities of the Persians in Iran, the Turks in Turkey and Arabs in Iraq carried out against the Kurds are no less tyrannical than the 4GW tactics utilized by the PPK against their oppressors. I too might be a "insert whatever label you like" if I had no other options for freedom.

Laying the Kurdish question aside Dr. Fleming does get it right in terms of describing secession and self-determination in general. People everywhere, at anytime do not have "natural right" to abolish government at will. His is a very paleoconservative viewpoint in that regard. Important things are best guaranteed by an overarching order. As Flemming describes:

...there is no such thing as a universal political system or principle that applies to all peoples in all situations. For some peoples, monarchy or autocracy may be the best system; for others an oligarchy based on wealth; while for some small-scale societies something like popular government may work, though the history of such experiments is not encouraging.

I could not agree more - it is foolish to think that democracy or any other ideology is universally applicable to all people in all places at all times. However, Dr. Clyde Wilson disagrees with Flemings take on self-determination and I think the truth ultimately lies closer to Wilson's viewpoint.

In various conversations with folks about the subject of secession I often run into those of a libertarian bent that disregard the notion that secession should take place using existing governmental structures, i.e. states with pre-esisting sovereignty. I believe their view that people can simply form together to secede is flawed. What they are talking about is a revolution not secession. Revolutions are justified under certain circumstances but it is incorrect to confuse legitimate secession from revolutionary thoughts. Secession is not revolution. Of the various theories of secession, I myself really only believe that the State-Federal Contract and the Partial Right Variant of Remedial Right theories hold much water.

I don't think Dr. Fleming's remarks at The Chattanooga Convention nor his recent post marks him as a non-supporter of secession. He is correct, self-determination is not something we ought to support for everybody everywhere all the time. However, we should also not be too judgmental of those that want their own freedom lest others might also judge us and ultimately end up lending support to tyrants.

Stumble It!

Ordinance of Secession

God bless my fellow sandlappers at SLM News from the glorious Palmetto State for the wonderful videos they produce.

Stumble It!

If You Really Want to Get Involved

I realize the number of folks that can see the ideas of States' Rights and Secession as legitimate is pretty small - but this is a growing minority. If you believe like I do that "small is beautiful", "politics should be local" and "there has to be a better way" perhaps you are ready to get involved.

Stumble It!

The Chattanooga Declaration - Point 1 Analysis

I plan to write seven separate posts dealing with each particular point of the Chattanooga Declaration in an effort to provide inarguable truths related to the necessity of such a declaration and the various secession movements within the united states.

1. The deepest questions of human liberty and government facing our time go beyond right and left, and in fact have made the old right-left split meaningless and dead.

Who seriously believes that there is any real difference between Republicans and what they claim to represent and Democrats and what they claim to believe. To be certain there are various points of difference in their approaches, otherwise their entanglements would not make for such fun sport. However, we are not talking about simple issues such as how many billions should be taxed from the people and where those billions ought to go, i.e. what government program. We are not talking here about subtle differences such as should the government have socialized medicine or merely expand current programs.

Just think honestly for a minute, Democrats and Republicans really do not disagree that much, in fact they agree much more than they disagree. They agree that the Federal Government can solve many problems. They agree that the fastest and best solutions to most problems is to write a new law. They all understand that most of these new laws require additional governmental resources and therefore more taxation. Each party, despite what words they may speak during the election cycle, trusts the Federal Government more than The People or the various states to solve problems.

I know, you may argue that the hot botton issues of each party are different - this is true. They appeal to different demographics but when in power their actions do not differ that much. The result of the actions of both parties has been a bigger Federal Government, more taxation, less liberty for individuals and an erosion of States' Rights. The facts supporting that statement are undeniable and therefore inarguable.

Therefore the deepest questions of human liberty simply cannot be answered within our current system. I am a Christian, I am conservative (paleoconservative to be exact) and a Southerner that was raised to respect certain things. However, I have traveled the world and seen many things. I do not like everything I have seen, I do not approve of everything I have seen and I would not intentionally condone everything I have seen in my home (read State of SC). I am, however a lover of liberty, God himself granted us liberty, the freedom to choose right and wrong, good and bad. Who am I to judge (i.e. force action upon) people exercising that liberty in their home (i.e. state/community)? How hypocritical it is to believe that a political system as large as the Federal Government could at once ensure the liberty of everyone and at the same time protect the moral virtues of everyone else.

Let us take two "hot-button" issues for a moment and examine them - gay marriage and abortion. I am opposed to both IN MY STATE, I disagree with both anywhere. Here is the kicker, as a lover of liberty I believe it is the RIGHT of people to determine locally how they view these issues and establish local laws accordingly. The counter-argument is that it would be too cumbersome in our current system to allow gay marriage in one state and not in another or that such would be unconstitutional. I say to that if the current system is what is preventing the exercise of liberty then the system should change. People should be able to resolve these issues locally, that is true liberty, that is protection of the minority view (insofar as such is possible).

We could similarly take every moral issue that plagues the current "right/left" divide and assign those back to the place where the founders always thought these matters would be resolved, the states. Secession is not a simple solution to complex problems it is the only solution that guarantees the protection of minority rights and viewpoints and ensures that liberty lives with us instead of as a word in a history text.

Stumble It!

Open Your Mind To Real Diversity

Joshua shared a link to a video related to the Chattanooga Declaration. I find it to be a particularly touching presentation of the wording itself.

Point #7 of the declaration sums it all up "Without secession, liberty and self-government can never be sustained, and diversity among human societies can never survive." Think on that for a moment. Put aside your false notions of "American nationhood" and if you just cannot do that read the article I previously wrote below. Big is not beautiful in all matters and when it comes to a political union big certainly can become oppressive to the minority view. We talk so often of our love for diversity but in politically correct terms that means only approved diversity - true liberty does not grow in such infertile soil.

The United States, America and The People: Our allegiance is to God, our families, our home, our country and then the government that represents us. So long as that government represents us well it is fit to stand. Whenever it may cease to serve its intended purpose it deserves neither our respect nor our loyalty. That is a very American point of view.

Do you agree? Sign the Declaration of States' Rights

Stumble It!

The Chattanooga Declaration

The Chattanooga Declaration was drafted and approved by delegates to the Second North American Secessionist Convention on 4 October 2007.

We, the delegates of the Secession movements represented at the Second North American Secessionist Convention, acknowledging our differences, yet agree on the following truths:

Read the Declaration

If you need a refresher read the Burlington Declaration as well.

Digg This and pass the word along!

Stumble It!

Small is Beautuful - Everywhere

Pat talks about the possibility of another secession movement in Europe -

Belgium, created by the European powers in 1831, is the likely next nation in Europe to break up – into a Dutch-speaking Flanders in the north, tied to Holland by language and culture, and a Francophone south, Wallonia, tied to France by language and culture.

What puts the breakup of Belgium on the front burner is that this nation of 10 million has been without a government for three months. In June, Yves Leterme, the leader of the Flemish Christian Democrats, won the general election, but was blocked from forming a government by Wallonia, which fears Leterme is a closet nationalist bent on secession.

One can only wonder how many years or decades will pass before the peoples of the now sovereign nations of Europe will dream of regaining their independence from the ever more repressive and inept EU. I hope the land of my ancestors (Bonnie Scotland) escapes Great Britain and the EU before it is "too late".

Stumble It!

Wish I Could Have Made It

Here is a short news video of the Second North American Secessionist Convention. I have corresponded over the years with several of the folks seen in the video but because I am out of the country so much I have never met most of them face to face. I hope to rectify that circumstance before the next meeting. Think what you will of this "crazy" notion of secession but small is beautiful.

I know all th old arguments about replacing a large tyranny with many smaller ones and there is much merit to that argument. I would say simply rather the devil I may know than the faceless master from far away. What we have is simply unsustainable, the idea of our Republic is all that remains - merely an idea. As Mr. Berry once said you may need large organizations to mass produce cars but almost everything else can be done locally and small - that includes government. At least with government in small scales the real sovereigns (i.e. The People for those that missed civics) can exert some real control on those that represent them and ultimately in a diverse mix of smaller nation-states all men should be able to find a home that fits their moral, religious and political liking.

Stumble It!

The Second Annual Secession Convention

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. - In an unlikely marriage of desire to secede from the United States, two advocacy groups from opposite political traditions — New England and the South — are sitting down to talk.

Seems the Second Annual Secession Convention made the Drudge Report.

Stumble It!

Truth and Honor Do Live

I had a discussion recently with Kirkpatrick Sale of the Middlebury Institute related to the attitudes and accusations of some folks in Vermont discussed in a previous post. We talked about principles, the reality that different people ought to be able to have different views and how dangerous it is to allow a few tyrants to shut down all discussion because they use a few unfounded "keywords".

I am exceedingly pleased that the Middlebury Institute will have none of that; they are willing to stand on principles and remain true to their charter.

Below is a statement released today from the Middlebury Institute:

ON COLLEGIALITY

A statement about who are colleagues and allies, what it means to be part of a movement, and how to regard the League of the South.

Concern has arisen in some quarters in recent weeks regarding secessionist organizations that express values—or are charged with expressing values—that others do not like, and questions have been raised about alliances with such groups. The Middlebury Institute would like to establish a basic response to such concerns and questions.

First, the secessionist movement is made up of organizations of many different kinds that are alike in their advocacy of secession—of secession in general and of secession of their particular part of the planet. That is what makes them colleagues and allies—because in this difficult task of making secession and separatism a legitimate political goal they stand shoulder to shoulder with each other.

Second, it is not up to any organization in the movement (or its friends) to judge the attitudes, philosophies, or beliefs of others. While one would hope to have those compatible with one’s own, it must be understood that different people in different places will have different ideas, desires, goals, and strategies—that, after all, is the whole point of secession. A group is for secession precisely because it does not want to be part of a larger entity whose beliefs and actions it does not like, and wishes to live free on its own terms.

Third, the kind of people who insist on telling others how to live and think so as to have one unanimous right-minded uniformity are dangerous people and precisely the kind that establish national governments and pass laws applicable to entire populations. Fascism is one obvious and ugly form of this, but mass industrial democracy is a similar, if often more benign, form. And it is exactly this that secession and separatism are opposed to.

Fourth, as to the League of the South, it is demonstrable that as an organization it is not racist and would not establish a racist state if they were successful in secession. (The official position of the LOS on this matter is added below as an appendix.) The Middlebury Institute has offered to be a co-sponsor with the LOS of the next Secessionist Convention this year squarely because it believes it to be an honorable and legitimate—and non-racist—organization sincerely and intelligently devoted to peaceful secession from the empire.

We accept the fact that there may be people in the LOS who have expressed intemperate and intolerant opinions—but of what group, we ask, could that not be said? (And the scare-mongering charges along these lines by the Southern Poverty Law Center have much more to do with its desire to squeeze money out of people made to be afraid of hobgoblins than by any genuine exposure of misbehavior.] Moreover, even if there are, as individuals, LOS people we could from our point of view deem racist, that would matter not one whit as to whether they were legitimate colleagues in the secessionist movement. It is irrelevant.

People turn to secession because they want their own form of government, on their own terms, and hope to create a state that will live out their beliefs, principles, ideals. It is no more justifiable for one organization to question or criticize or castigate those goals if they work toward a Christian-directed government that outlaws abortion and adultery than if they work for a secular democracy favoring gun-control and same-sex marriages. The beauty of secession is that it looks toward having a world where those and many other kinds of states can exist, free and independent, and not impose its ideas on others or have others’ ideas imposed on it.

Ultimately we in the secessionist movement stand divided, but we stand together. We believe in secession, each of us, and though the ends we work for may be different—and what a thriving, vibrant, multi-variant world that would bring us to—the means we use unites us all.

Kirkpatrick Sale

Director, Middlebury Institute February, 2007

Stumble It!

Where Has Truth Gone

I have read with great interest two developments as of late related to certain friends of liberty.

First in Vermont, it seems that certain elements of the radical left have attacked the Second Vermont Republic group for associating with racist. The North American Secessionist Convention in 2006 drew groups from all over the United States and from across the political spectrum. The sole intent of the convention was to discuss ways to place secession on the table as a legitimate option for states and regions.

Obviously if everyone agreed all the time on just how the world ought to work, what role government ought to play and what laws should and should not be enacted there would never bee a need to talk about secession or devolution. The simple fact is, however, the larger a government becomes and the more people that it holds sway over the less influence individuals and small groups have over their government. Disagreements are natural, the desire to have more influence on one’s government is natural – secession and devolution are natural answers to this dilemma.

The problem is not that most people would not agree with the notion that racism is bad; the problem is a common definition of racism. Are there any racist in the League of The South? YES. Are there any racist in the NAACP, SPLC, ADL, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Catholic Church, Church of Scientology, PETA, Habitat for Humanity and Nation of Islam? YES. Racist come in all sizes, shapes and colors.

The LoS is not a racist organization. Many people paint any group that talks about the benefits of preserving culture as racist. This is false and dishonest.

Many use the term racist to stop all dialogue. Label a person such and nothing else they have to say matters, and it does not matter that the claim is baseless and unproven. Racism exists in many areas of our society, often celebrated in the media and courted by politicians. This is never challenged. However, if groups like the LoS believe that they also have a culture worthy of protection and preservation they are labeled racist. There is something terribly wrong with that. There is also something terribly wrong with dismissing the ideas of any group that has any dealings with the LoS based upon the false claim that the LoS is racist. I hope the SVR remains true to the principle of standing by truth.

In my home state of SC Christian Exodus has made several waves in the last two weeks. Two of the local papers published articles about the group filled with half-truths, perversions of the truth and outright lies. I will not address the articles specifically (I have done so here) but rather the bigger issue. I have known and corresponded with the leadership of this group since its inception. I have had long and detailed discussions with local politicians, pastors and regular people – by email and in person when I am available to actually be back home. I full well know the intent and purpose of CE and I know that none of the theocratic intentions that the media has recently painted the group with are true. In fact, what the group stands for is exactly what most South Carolinians that I know stand for. The disconnect between achieving massive support and the lies spewed elsewhere has been solely a function of the group’s inability to get their message out.

It is too easy, it seems, for misinformed or undereducated, editors to print something as truth and then be accepted as authority. This is just the world in which we live I suppose, people do not educate themselves, and they latch onto buzz-words and accusations and make that reality in their minds.

Unless we, as a collective, demand that more truth exists in our world we deserve to become victims of the lies we accept.

Stumble It!

The Governator Takes a Stand

The governator declares secession for California - well not quite but at least there is one governor willing to use the phrase "nation-state".

From his second inaugural speech.

And yet here in this nation-state of California , people from all over the world live in harmony. I call California a nation-state because of the diversity of our people, the power of our economy and the reach of our dream. Every race, every culture, every religion has been drawn to California .

I may not want to live in a nation-state that apparently has no inherent culture as Schwarzenegger suggest for California, but I certainly support their right to establish within their borders the sort of republic and nation-state that they can live with - so long as what they do does not affect me and my nation-state.

Stumble It!

The South Was Right

About most things prior to 1861. This assertion often becomes bogged down in straw-man arguments over slavery. Slavery was not the only cause of the war - there were in fact issues of profound importance at play in that conflict.

It is relatively safe to say now that the south was indeed right in terms of her view of the federal compact, the role and power of the Federal government and the importance of the local versus the centralized and distant.

As such it is important to mark significant days for remembrance. We mark July Fourth as the day that thirteen sovereign colonies declared their independence from Great Britain - seceding in effect.

It is important to remember the anniversary of Secession Day as well.

Wise men have described true conservatism as taking from the past and applying that to the present to preserve what is good for the future. The good folks in Alabama seem to understand that.

This year Alabama will celebrate their Secession Day (11 January) with speeches and a viewing of Aaron Russo's film "America: Freedom to Fascism".

I cannot imagine a more appropriate way to remember the stand that our forefathers took than to look hard at where we are now and where we ought to go and what we ought to do. Remembering history is worthless if we are unwilling to learn from it and keep true to the principles we find there.

If you are in Montgomery on 27 January 2007, go to the State Capital Auditorium at 9:30 am and support this effort - you just may learn something. If you have already seen the film, go there to show your support.

Keynote speakers for the event include: Dr. John Eidsmoe, Professor of Constitutional Law and Philip Davis (Ret) Attorney in Alabama State Attorney General's Office.

Stumble It!

Catch a Little Lithuanian Flu

You are invited to contribute to the discussion -

The charter of the American Secession Project is simple. We desire to place the concept of secession in the mainstream of political thought. Our intent is to proclaim that secession is a viable and legal right and a practical solution to contemporary problems.

Stumble It!

Free Scotland

The Guardian asks a relevant question:

"Many nations have prospered after gaining independence from their neighbours. Why should the Scots be different?"

Indeed why should the Scots be any different. As a Southerner of Ulster Scots decent I have a particular affinity for the history and plight of Scotland and the Scots. The British Empire was built upon the bones of the Scots - the empire is long gone.  It is time for Scotland to regain again what is hers.

A recent opinion poll in Scotland demonstrates that -  "52% of the electorate [support partition]. Those regarding themselves as Scottish had risen from half to three-quarters in 25 years, while those saying "British" had halved to just 20%."

Alone, in all of Europe Scotland (the Picts) resisted assimilation into the Roman Empire and resisted assimilation with the South until 1707.  Just like my native Southland - Scotland has always provided a disproportionate number of warriors to fight in the wars of empire.  WWI was particularly devastating to Scotland, as entire villages lost an generation of fine young men.  Scotland has paid her dues - she has earned the right to reclaim her freedom and independence. In 1997 she regained her parliament - but this is not enough.

From the Guardian-

The Scottish debate shows British politics at its most conservative. Any sign of a desire for local autonomy, in any part of the United Kingdom, is seen at Westminster as uppity insubordination by people ignorant of their best interests. Unionism may have disappeared from Britain's industry, but it is the ruling ethos of its politics. Big is beautiful if British. The prevailing wisdom holds that anyone, be they Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish or, for that matter, Iraqi or Afghan, must be better off under the benign custodianship of London. Imperialism is still Westminster's default mode. Surely nobody could be richer, safer or freer than with a British soldier on every corner and a British subsidy under every belt.

If resistance to Scottish independence is conservative it is the neoconservative sort - true conservatism defends the traditional.  In this case 10000 years of Scottish history outweighs 200 years of Union.

It appears that support for independence might be running a bit higher than 52%, one Kevin Williamson reports that the Daily Record closed a poll on the subject - on St. Andrew's day no less without explanation. "Could it have been because the poll was running at 65% in favour of Scottish Independence."

Murray Ritchie presents an excellent argument against the lies that unionist typically tell. These are the same lies centralizers all around the world use to persuade people that their culture is not worthy of independence.

As Stuart Dickson points out the Scottish National Party is not doing so bad in their goal to achieve independence via the ballot box.

These are interesting times in which we live. Free Scotland!

Stumble It!

Secession Fever

Excerpts from a must read article by Thomas Naylor

Secession fever is spreading across America just as it did back in 1776 and 1861. More than forty states now have active political independence movements committed to the peaceful withdrawal of their respective states from the Union. As a result, the United States may never be the same. Indeed, in the not too distant future, it may cease to exist, just like its former nemesis, the U.S.S.R.

How can this be? Our government has lost its moral authority. It has become a cross between an oligarchy and an autocracy disguised as a democracy—just like the former Soviet Union. Our nation is no longer sustainable economically, politically, militarily, socially, culturally, or environmentally. Because of its size, it is ungovernable and, therefore, unfixable.

Stumble It!

Devolution Anyone?

Keith Humphreys - a CE delegate to the 1st North American Secession Convention in Vermont - has started a digital project to keep alive the collaborative progress achieved at that event

The very idea or mention of secession is so misunderstood and easily dismissed by those that refuse to ponder it. Take a gander at reasonable men, from all corners of the United States, talking about why secession is a viable solution our current problems.

I have conversed or met most of the men you see in the video, all are reasonable, thoughtful and rational people. Here and here are more videos.

From a paleoconservative point of view devolution is the only solution that can ensure what is important is preserved. Consolidation necessarily means that tradition, culture and heritage is destroyed.  Still unconvinced?

All across the world the winds of devolution are again blowing - in the mid-80's nobody would have thought it possible that the Soviet Union could collapse without great violence - but it happened. Quebec just may finally achieve the nationhood most Quebecers have long desired. Even in Scotland the old embers of individual nationalism and identity have sparked new flames.  Why not in these United States?

My hat is off to the men that have worked for so long toward the day when we could again talk about the issue of secession - particular kudos to Professor Donald Livingston, Kirkpatrick Sale, Dr. Michael Hill, Dr. Clyde N. Wilson and others to numerous to mention as well as to groups like The Middlebury Institute, The League of the South, The Abbeville Institute and others.

We all stand on the shoulders of giants - those that came before, in this case Burke, Jefferson and Calhoun but the men and groups above have certainly done their part in this generation.

This is the absolute only solution to all of our problems.

Stumble It!

Burlington Declaration

Product of the 2006 North American Secessionist Convention

Burlington Declaration

We, the participants in the First North American Secessionist Convention, though representing many different and diverse groups and constituencies, agree on the following principles as representing the truths of natural law and historical experience:

1. Any political entity has the right to separate itself from a larger body of which it is a part and peaceably to establish its independence as a free and legitimate state in the eyes of the world.

2. Governments are instituted among peoples, deriving their just powers from the consent of their citizens, and whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the legitimate goals of life, liberty, prosperity, and self-determination, it is the right of the people in democratic fashion to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

3. Any government formed by and dependent upon a constitution to regulate its actions and affairs has certain legitimate powers delegated to it, but any powers not so delegated are reserved to the people of that state and their democratically chosen political bodies.

4. Nations once independent should engage in peace, commerce, good will, and honest friendship with all nations, and observe good faith, justice, and harmony toward all, but establish entangling relationships with none, nor engage in colonial dominance, political or economic, over any.

5. Direct democracy, with one vote for each and every citizen (as the polity shall designate citizenship), has proven to be a desirable form of governance among people, but it can operate with justice and equality only when at a small enough scale that each person may be known to every other person; when representative forms of government are undertaken, they should likewise best be established at a scale small enough so that each representative can be informed of the opinions and beliefs of the general run of the people in the constituency or community which that person is chosen to represent. It is within this body of principles that we ask all governments to operate and it is by them that we ourselves, individually and the organizations we represent, intend to be guided.

Burlington, Vermont
November 4, 2006

Stumble It!