Americans ready for secession

Though Scotland just voted to stay in Britain it seems secession as an idea still has some appeal. According to Reuters, 1 in 4 Americans are open to idea of their states seceding from the union.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted between August and September found that about 24% of those surveyed “strongly supported or tended to support” their state seceding form the union. The reason for the widespread antagonism towards the federal government was linked to disgust with gridlock and dysfunction in DC.

Even though a student of American history might reasonably think the south would be the only place such views would find a home, the poll revealed that interest in secession crossed party lines and regions. Though Republicans and western states polled higher, it appears more and more Americans are fed up with the federal government

Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.

The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states are generally warmer to the idea than Democrats and Northeasterners, according to the poll.

While the idea of secession seems absurd on some level, the revulsion is real. Polls have continually show that the American people – in all regions – hate the way Washington operates and do not trust nor approve of the federal government, including institutions like Congress which, in theory, is supposed to be one of the most inclusive and representative of the population as a whole.

Given the consequences the last time states tried to secede from the union it seems unlikely any states – even Texas – will go further than vociferously noting their displeasure with DC and calling for more federalism. But there surely will be a price to pay for so many Americans – from so many different backgrounds – hating the federal government and losing confidence it can function effectively.

Photo by Jeff Kubina under Creative Commons license.

Article source: http://news.firedoglake.com/2014/09/19/1-in-4-americans-open-to-secession/

Murdoch: The global revolution begins

On the eve of the vote for Scottish independence, Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch explained that the election is merely a symptom of an ”anti-establishment groundswell” sweeping through the Western world.

On Friday Murdoch spoke about the impending vote with Fox News’s Neil Cavuto. “I think there’s meaning in this, and I think it goes beyond Scotland,” he said via phone. “There’s a great anti-establishment groundswell which is seen in this vote in Scotland. You’re seeing it here in Britain in the anti-European party, whose one single issue is to get out of Europe. And I think you’re seeing it in France with the polling for Le Pen — I don’t think she’d win, but you know.”

“And really, you can take the United States and go across to middle America,” he continued. “What do they think of Washington, and Wall Street for that matter? People are really looking for change.” 

James Madison: The States Can Block Fed Gun Control

What do we do when the federal government simply ignores the Second Amendment and acts in ways that infringe on our right to keep and bear arms? Well, James Madison laid out a blueprint in Federalist 46 before the Constitution was even ratified.

James Madison wrote in Federalist #46;

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”

Here Madison says that the people of a whole possess the advantage of having arms and through their subordinate governments would be the greatest army on earth. It would be insurmountable odds for any standing army of any nation to conquer just by the vast numbers of the armed citizenry.

He further writes;

“Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.”

Madison illustrates that not only can an armed citizenry repel any outside foreign forces by large standing armies, but also, as the very last resort, can serve as a check on a tyrannical central government. It also illustrates that the natural right of self-defense and arms is indeed an individual right.

This, in its very essence, is why the founders restricted the authority of the central government when it come to arms though the Second Amendment.

But Madison goes on to provide a strategy that makes it possible to resist unconstitutional federal act without relying on arms – a moderate middle road between submission and revolution. He gave us a blueprint for stopping federal overreach before the Constitution was even ratified.

That tool is the non-cooperation, and he assured Americans that the power of the states could keep the general government in check.

The states simply do NOT have to cooperate with the enforcement of unconstitutional federal acts concerning the right to keep and bear arms. This strategy has even been affirmed by the courts under what is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

JAMES MADISON’S ADVICE

From Federalist #46:

“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

Let’s break down Madison’s prescription.

“Should an unwarrantable measure…” What does Madison mean by “unwarrantable?” The word literally means “unjustifiable.” Madison was clearly talking about federal acts with no constitutional justification. In other words, unconstitutional.

But notice something interesting, Madison implies that state governments can even resist a “warrantable” or justifiable federal act.

So what does Madison suggest states do when the feds overstep their authority? Oppose it!

“…the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand.” Madison anticipated the possibility of federal usurpation and clearly believed the states would serve as a check on federal power. He believed the states should and would resist unconstitutional acts.

So, what are the “means of opposition?”

1. Disquietude of the people – This would include protests and petitions generated at the grassroots level. Madison expected the people would throw a fit when the feds usurped power – even using the word “repugnance” to describe their displeasure. That’s a pretty strong word. And inevitably, disquietude leads to action – first at the local level, then bubbling up to the state level. That leads to the next step.

2. Refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union - Noncompliance. Madison apparently knew what we know today. The feds rely on cooperation from state and local governments, as well as individuals. When enough people refuse to comply, they simply can’t enforce their so-called laws.

Noncompliance works and it should be happening at both the state and local level.

3, The frowns of the executive magistracy of the State - Here Madison envisions Governors formally protesting federal actions. This not only raises public awareness; executive leadership will also lead to the next step – legislative action. Prior to passage of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Gov. Garrard delivered a powerful message condemning the Alien and Sedition Acts and calling on legislative action.

4. Legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions -What exactly does Madison mean by “legislative devices?” He doesn’t make that clear. But we know they include resolutions, because he and Thomas Jefferson penned the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in response to the draconian and unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Together, these Principles of ’98 formalize the doctrine of nullification.

But do legislative devices stop at non-binding resolutions? Clearly not, because Madison said these measures would create “difficulties” and “impediments.” 18th-century dictionaries list “obstruction” as a synonym for impediment. In other words, these legislative devices could serve to block the operation of unconstitutional power. This infers actions including formal, binding prohibitions of state or local cooperation, and outright interposition: “to intervene or place an agency between two positions.”

So what do we have today? Do we not have a federal government that has long since usurped its powers enumerated to it by the US Constitution and disobeyed its further restrictions outlined in the Bill of Rights?

The clear course we have to take to once again have a resemblance of federalism and a constitutional republic is undoubtedly the non-cooperation/anti-commandeering doctrine of any and all federal gun restrictions, it is the rightful remedy.

The collapse of democracy

Part of the war cycle is just the general feeling or attitude shifts due to economics. We seem to be headed for such a fateful turn.

The police domestically have turned militaristic.

This is a very serious issue far beyond what most people would even guess. It tends to show the changing attitudes within society.

Couple this with Obama who seems to think he was elected to start a war. We are approaching a serious turning point that may reshape the world as did 1932 following the economic trend of the Great Depression.

The year 1932 saw Mao come to power in China. In Germany, Hitler came to power. FDR came to power in the United States. Even in Japan, the seeds of war were planted with the May 15 Incident, in which Prime Minister Tsuyoshi Inukai was assassinated by young military officers in an attempted coup. The killing spread fear among Japan’s liberal politicians and strengthened the militarists, who eventually led the country into the catastrophic Pacific War.

1932, which was also the low in the markets from 1929. The year 2007 began the changing process and we should be looking ahead now [for] the war cycle will turn upward.

We are witnessing the collapse of democracy or to put it in the proper perspective – the right of the people to vote even in a republic. Europe is hell-bent on removing any democratic process because Brussels believes they know best and the people are just too stupid to know what is best for them.

So 2007 marked the beginning of shift in attitude.

Rand Paul: Militarization of the Police State

The shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown is an awful tragedy that continues to send shockwaves through the community of Ferguson, Missouri and across the nation.

If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But, I wouldn’t have expected to be shot.

The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.

The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action.

Glenn Reynolds, in Popular Mechanics, recognized the increasing militarization of the police five years ago. In 2009 he wrote:

Soldiers and police are supposed to be different. … Police look inward. They’re supposed to protect their fellow citizens from criminals, and to maintain order with a minimum of force.

It’s the difference between Audie Murphy and Andy Griffith. But nowadays, police are looking, and acting, more like soldiers than cops, with bad consequences. And those who suffer the consequences are usually innocent civilians.

The Cato Institute’s Walter Olson observed this week how the rising militarization of law enforcement is currently playing out in Ferguson:

Why armored vehicles in a Midwestern inner suburb? Why would cops wear camouflage gear against a terrain patterned by convenience stores and beauty parlors? Why are the authorities in Ferguson, Mo. so given to quasi-martial crowd control methods (such as bans on walking on the street) and, per the reporting of Riverfront Times, the firing of tear gas at people in their own yards? (“‘This my property!’ he shouted, prompting police to fire a tear gas canister directly at his face.”) Why would someone identifying himself as an 82nd Airborne Army veteran, observing the Ferguson police scene, comment that “We rolled lighter than that in an actual warzone”?

Olson added, “the dominant visual aspect of the story, however, has been the sight of overpowering police forces confronting unarmed protesters who are seen waving signs or just their hands.”

How did this happen?

Most police officers are good cops and good people. It is an unquestionably difficult job, especially in the current circumstances.

There is a systemic problem with today’s law enforcement.

Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart of the problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies—where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement.

This is usually done in the name of fighting the war on drugs or terrorism. The Heritage Foundation’s Evan Bernick wrote in 2013 that, “the Department of Homeland Security has handed out anti-terrorism grants to cities and towns across the country, enabling them to buy armored vehicles, guns, armor, aircraft, and other equipment.”

Bernick continued, “federal agencies of all stripes, as well as local police departments in towns with populations less than 14,000, come equipped with SWAT teams and heavy artillery.”

Bernick noted the cartoonish imbalance between the equipment some police departments possess and the constituents they serve, “today, Bossier Parish, Louisiana, has a .50 caliber gun mounted on an armored vehicle. The Pentagon gives away millions of pieces of military equipment to police departments across the country—tanks included.”

When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands.

Given these developments, it is almost impossible for many Americans not to feel like their government is targeting them. Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them.

This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of St. Louis, Missouri. It is what the citizens of Ferguson feel when there is an unfortunate and heartbreaking shooting like the incident with Michael Brown.

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.

The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it.

Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security. This has been a cause I have championed for years, and one that is at a near-crisis point in our country.

Let us continue to pray for Michael Brown’s family, the people of Ferguson, police, and citizens alike.

Paul is the junior U.S. Senator for Kentucky.

Come the Day

"For look, the day shall come, burning like a furnace, and all the proud, and every wrongdoer shall be stubble. And the day that shall come shall burn them up," said The Lord of hosts, "which leaves to them neither root nor branch."

Thanks to my old world blogging, I now stay far under the radar. I bought a few hardscrabble acres many years ago for cash under a shell corporation name. I rarely leave the place. When I do, I'll stay with my homeless brethren in town. So far, I haven't had any official unwanted visits. I hope you understand... no real names  & no photos.

There are various remnants of what you might call government still around... some worse than others. The People have essentially been reduced to prisoners & slaves. Those holding power have been absolutely corrupted.

The roots of this madness began many years ago. A shadow US government was set up after 9/11 under the Continuity of Operations Plan, to ensure that certain agencies maintain control under a broad range of circumstances. They basically staged a coup shortly after the collapse & set up their headquarters in a hollowed-out mountain in western Virginia... Mount Weather, look it up.

Pseudo-governments have sprung up to fill the void. There's a former Austin radio host who set up camp in the caves & hills outside of Llano... he lives like some kind of hill country Walter Kurtz. I hear a couple thousand people up there regard him as a god... & he's starting to believe them. They've been fighting a pretty effective hit & run war against the new police state... problem is, they feel justified to take anything they want as a tithe.

We're now at the mercy of the Unholy Trinity... FEMA, Homeland Security & TSA. Bureaucrats have replaced all elected officials & the constitution has been terminated. FEMA wields enormous power, herding folks into refugee camps to die of disease or violence. The Homeland Security Dept uses data collected by the NSA to eliminate pretty much anyone they want to. As you've seen, the airport Nazis from TSA now have check points on all main roadways. Summary executions, disappearances & expropriation are standard operating procedure with all these folks... Little wonder that we have a guerilla war going on.

Universal Soldier

He's 5 foot 2 and he's 6 feet 4
He fights with missiles and with spears
He's all of 31 and he's only 17.
He's been a soldier for a thousand years

He's a catholic, a Hindu, an atheist, a Jain
A Buddhist, and a Baptist and Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill
And he knows he always will kill
You'll for me my friend and me for you

And He's fighting for Canada.
He's fighting for France.
He's fighting for the USA.
And he's fighting for the Russians.
And he's fighting for Japan
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And He's fighting for democracy,
He's fighting for the reds
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one, who must decide,
who's to live and who's to die.
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
how would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone
He's the one who gives his body
as a weapon of the war.
And without him all this killing can't go on

He's the universal soldier
And he really is the blame
His orders comes from
far away no more.

They come from him.
And you and me.
And brothers can't you see.
This is not the way we put an end to war