America, Welcome to the Fourth Reich

American Fascism did not start with World War II. Before Operation Paperclip, the codename under which the US intelligence and military services extricated scientists from Germany, during and after the final stages of the conflict, the annals of internal despotism were well established. With the open door policy for German engineering, the political ideology of state worship was bound to travel across the Atlantic.

The Pampas of Argentina or the backwaters of Paraguay were the preferred location for those who openly professed their reprehensible loyalty to the Führer principle. However, do not blame all those ex-Nazis for selecting the shores of the Americas for their new domicile, their seeds were planted long ago in the offices of Wall and Broad Streets. Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will saga shares more, than what one wants to admit, about the dark side of American History.

Do not be confused. National Socialism is an abhorrent notion to most Americans. Nevertheless, the political foundation of that false ideology is based upon pure Fascism forged in a marriage of the Corporate/State that produces this demented offspring. The systematic destruction of the essential purpose and motivation for the American Revolution is undeniable with any objective examination of the regretful legacy of domestic tyranny.

This record of monocracy is one of a criminal class, as opposed to the iron fist of a single man. If you belief this is an erroneous assessment, consider the following chronicle.

From the beginning of the Republic, the Federalists conspired for the illegal passage of their central government constitution in order to form a competing world empire with their British cousins. Their leader was Alexander Hamilton, who championed making individual states subservient to the original crony capitalists. When the Father of our Country, George Washington admonished about the dangers on entangling alliances, the world was warned that the drive towards independent liberty was compromised under this new Federal system.

When Andrew Jackson rallied frontier populism against the establishment elites of his era, you had an opportunity to restore some of the former glory of the Revolution of 1776. The conflict over the abolishment of the National Bank symbolizes the eternal struggle that continues to this very day.

The Manifest Destiny of the U.S.-Mexican War demonstrated just how far the country strayed from the fundamental concept of independence from England. The expansionistic campaign had more in common with the Crown than the Boston Tea Party.

The early 19th century fascists looked to their next defender Abraham Lincoln, the lawyer for the railroad corporatist cabal and the worst of all despotic presidents, to complete the task.

Mark Dankof cites Thomas DiLorenzo’s work in the article, Lincoln in Fort Sumter, False Flags, and The Empire’s Coming Crusade.

Myth #1: Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves.
Myth #2: Lincoln’s war “saved the Union.”
Myth #3: Lincoln championed equality and natural rights.
Myth #4: Lincoln was a defender of the Constitution.
Myth #5: Lincoln was a “great humanitarian” who had no malice
Myth #6: War was necessary to end slavery.

The significance of the War of Northern Aggression is that the principle of independent sovereign states under the precepts of constitutional law died. With the prevention of secession, the liberty of a voluntary union was betrayed for the rule, under a loyalty oath, to an Amerikan Reich….

By Sartre – Breaking All The Rules –

FBI Raids Republic of Texas Meeting – Common Law Court

The Bryan Police Department, the Brazos County Sheriff’s Office, the Kerr County Sheriff’s Office, Agents of the Texas District Attorney, the Texas Rangers and the FBI raided a congressional meeting for the Republic of Texas held in Bryan, Texas.

More than 20 police and agents prevented the members from leaving, seized their cellphones, recording equipment, computers and fingerprinted them.

The raid was in response to to legal summons sent by Republic of Texas members to a Kerr County judge and bank employee. The organization demanded the judge and bank employee appear before Republic of Texas court held at the Veterans and Foreign Wars building in Bryan on the day the police raided the meeting.

State and federal officials say the chief justice of the international Common Law Court for the Republic of Texas had issued writs of quo warranto, mandamus and a subpoena not recognized by county, state and federal governments.

“You can’t just let people go around filing false documents to judges trying to make them appear in front of courts that aren’t even real courts,” Kerr County sheriff Rusty Hierholzer told the Houston Chronicle.

The group believes the state of Texas was illegally annexed by the federal government and Texas remains an independent nation under occupation.

Police told the newspaper they did not want a repeat of a 1997 week-long standoff between the group and police.

The Republic of Texas group cites public opinion polls that show significant support for the secession of Texas and other states from the federal Union.

A poll conducted last September during the Scottish independence vote shows one in four Americans are in favor of seceding from the United States.

Former Congressman Ron Paul believes secession is already underway in the United States.

“I would like to start off by talking about the subject and the subject is secession and nullification, the breaking up of government, and the good news is it’s going to happen. It’s happening,” Paul said last month during a speech at the Mises Institute.

“And it’s not going to be because there will be enough people in the U.S. Congress to legislate it. It won’t happen. It will be defacto. You know, you’ll have a gold standard when the paper standard fails and we’re getting awfully close to that. And people will have to resort to taking care of themselves. So when conditions breakdown, there’s going to be an alternative. And I think that’s what we’re witnessing.”

By Kurt Nimmo – Infowars –

Secession begins at home

As the Austrian Economist Mises wrote in 1927: “The situation of having to belong to a state to which one does not wish to belong is no less onerous if it is the result of an election than if one must endure it as the consequence of a military conquest.”

I’m sure this sentiment is shared by many of you. Mises understood that mass democracy was no substitute for liberal society, but rather the enemy of it. Of course he was right: nearly 100 years later, we have been conquered and occupied by the state and its phony veneer of democratic elections. The federal government is now the putative ruler of nearly every aspect of life in America.

That’s why we’re here today entertaining the audacious idea of secession — an idea Mises elevated to a defining principle of classical liberalism.

It’s tempting, and entirely human, to close our eyes tight and resist radical change — to live in America’s past.

But to borrow a line from the novelist L.P. Hartley, “The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.” The America we thought we knew is a mirage; a memory, a foreign country.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why we should take secession seriously, both conceptually — as consistent with libertarianism — and as a real alternative for the future.

Does anyone really believe that a physically vast, multicultural, social democratic welfare state of 330 million people, with hugely diverse economic, social, and cultural interests, can be commanded from DC indefinitely without intense conflict and economic strife?

Does anyone really believe that we can unite under a state that endlessly divides us? Rich vs. poor, black vs. white, Hispanic vs. Anglo, men vs. women, old vs. young, secularists vs. Christians, gays vs. traditionalists, taxpayers vs. entitlement recipients, urban vs. rural, red state vs. blue state, and the political class vs. everybody?

Frankly it seems clear the federal government is hell-bent on Balkanizing America anyway. So why not seek out ways to split apart rationally and nonviolently? Why dismiss secession, the pragmatic alternative that’s staring us in the face?

Since most of us in the room are Americans, my focus today is on the political and cultural situation here at home. But the same principles of self-ownership, self-determination, and decentralization apply universally — whether we’re considering Texas independence or dozens of active breakaway movements in places like Venice, Catalonia, Scotland, and Belgium.

I truly believe secession movements represent the last best hope for reclaiming our birthright: the great classical liberal tradition and the civilization it made possible. In a world gone mad with state power, secession offers hope that truly liberal societies, organized around civil society and markets rather than central governments, can still exist.

Secession as a “Bottom-Up” Revolution….

“But how could this ever really happen?” you’re probably thinking.

Wouldn’t creating a viable secession movement in the US necessarily mean convincing a majority of Americans, or at least a majority of the electorate, to join a mass political campaign much like a presidential election?

I say no. Building a libertarian secession movement need not involve mass political organizing: in fact, national political movements that pander to the Left and Right may well be hopelessly naïve and wasteful of time and resources.

Instead, our focus should be on hyper-localized resistance to the federal government in the form of a “bottom-up” revolution, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe terms it.

Hoppe counsels us to use what little daylight the state affords us defensively: just as force is justified only in self-defense, the use of democratic means is justified only when used to achieve nondemocratic, libertarian, pro-private property ends.

In other words, a bottom-up revolution employs both persuasion and democratic mechanisms to secede at the individual, family, community, and local level — in a million ways that involve turning our backs on the central government rather than attempting to bend its will.

Secession, properly understood, means withdrawing consent and walking away from DC — not trying to capture it politically and “converting the King.”

Secession is Not a Political Movement!

Why is the road to secession not political, at least not at the national level? Frankly, any notion of a libertarian takeover of the political apparatus in DC is fantasy, and even if a political sea change did occur the army of 4.3 million federal employees is not simply going to disappear.

Convincing Americans to adopt a libertarian political system — even if such an oxymoron were possible — is a hopeless endeavor in our current culture.

Politics is a trailing indicator. Culture leads, politics follows. There cannot be a political sea change in America unless and until there is a philosophical, educational, and cultural sea change. Over the last 100 years progressives have overtaken education, media, fine arts, literature, and pop culture — and thus as a result they have overtaken politics. Not the other way around.

This is why our movement, the libertarian movement, must be a battle for hearts and minds. It must be an intellectual revolution of ideas, because right now bad ideas run the world. We can’t expect a libertarian political miracle to occur in an illibertarian society….

All of us, regardless of ideological bent and regardless of whether we know it or not, are married to a very violent, abusive spendthrift. It’s time, ladies and gentlemen, to get a divorce from DC.

This article is adapted from a talk presented at the Houston Mises Circle, January 24, 2015. – Mises Institute –

Revolution or Secession?

America is sick. No news there. Like a patient with a fever, America seems dazed and confused. She knows that there is something gravely wrong, but just can’t quite seem to put her finger on the root cause.

We are way past the stage when rest and a little medication will help America’s natural immune system to overcome her problems. As with a severely disease-ravaged body, the time has come for surgery. Just as a ruptured appendix will kill you, so will America’s current malady kill her without radical surgery. We must excise the real problem.

Government is the Problem, not the Solution

And what, exactly, is the problem, you ask? Easy. Government. Federal government, in particular, though government at all levels has come to be part of the problem. Like a cancer left unchecked, the disease has metastasized to all parts of the body politic.

Today’s “Tea Parties,” held throughout America, merely are a symptom of America’s disease, much as a patient’s lunatic ravings are symptoms of an advanced fever. And, like the lunatic ravings of a fevered patient, these public meetings, protests and outcries will do little good. Petitions? A total waste of time.

Nor will the media do justice to the public protests. The media is part of the disease, you see. It is no accident that flagship newspapers throughout America are running aground and ceasing operations. They lost their way and stopped reporting the news, becoming mere parrots for establishment thinking. Little wonder that we stopped reading them. Less wonder that TV news has become a mere parody of its former self, becoming primarily entertainment for the masses of unfurrowed brows now populating America’s vast wasteland.

However, like a patient slipping in and out of the grip of a mounting fever, there are pockets of lucidity apparent throughout America. The Tea Parties are symptoms of those lucid moments. More substantial, though, is the growing anti-Federal-overreaching sentiment being expressed in state legislatures, best exemplified by Idaho’s recent sovereignty and anti-gun-confiscation legislation.

I rail against the bureaucratic and mindless nature of Idaho government at all levels, but the fact is that Idaho is light years ahead of such bastions of communism as California, Massachusetts and New York. Nor is it a coincidence that those three states are among the most financially troubled and corrupt states in the country.

Idaho – You Can See New America From Here

Idaho isn’t ideal, by any stretch of the imagination. Idaho needs a major overhaul, beginning with the way in which she bows to Federal pressure. Idaho certainly isn’t New America, but you can see New America from here.

Recently, I posed the following question to the primary list that receives these rants of mine: Should I seek the Constitution Party nomination for Governor of Idaho in the 2010 election? The response was overwhelming and uniformly positive. In fact, you were wildly supportive. What I didn’t expect – what came as a real shock to me – was the high percentage of out-of-state respondents who stated that they would move to Idaho if I won the Governorship. A great many said they would move here if I simply ran, then offered to help in the campaign.

I have tried to respond to each and every one of those email replies, something I simply cannot normally do, because of the sheer quantity of them. Thank you so much for your outpouring of support. Know that I read your emails – all of them – every single week. Please understand that I simply cannot answer or acknowledge but a handful. Again, however, I read them all and they all have influence upon my thinking.

But it is the obvious yearning for real change that is apparent in the many hundreds (well over a thousand) of emails I received, particularly those who expressed a desire to move to Idaho. That desire for change is what elected Obama, of course. And that is what is beginning to sink his poll numbers, as America realizes that his rhetoric about change was simply that – rhetoric. I find it particularly ironic to listen to MSNBC news anchors report that Obama’s poll numbers exceed 75% when MSNBC’s own on-line poll clearly shows 60% of Americans disapproving or outright hating the man’s performance as President.

It is a relief to be rid of Bush, to be sure, but we still have the Bush mentality astride America. We still are in Iraq and we are there for good, too, as Obama’s administration finally has admitted. Any Iraqi troop drawdown will be sent to Afghanistan, where we actually are expanding the war, not to mention north Pakistan where America now is conducting extensive bombing, as well. Gitmo still operates. The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive warfare lives on. Domestically, personal liberty shrinks daily while the Department of Homeland Security operates more and more like the new Gestapo.

Probably, it is just coincidence, but have you ever noticed: Rearrange the letters in the name “Barack Obama,” drop a couple, add a few others and you end up with the phrase “George W. Bush on steroids.” Coincidence? You be the judge.

W’s tax and spend has become TAX AND SPEND under Obama. We have gone beyond simply saddling future generations with debt to be repaid for our current profligacy. Now America has sailed into uncharted (for her) waters by assuming debt that clearly never can be repaid. Debt that will bankrupt America with even a nominal increase in interest rates, in fact.

Depression? Yes, this is a Depression, though they will not admit it until it becomes all too obvious to more than just a few of us. Now, however, we have laid the groundwork for inflation akin to that experienced by Germany between last century’s major wars – what is known as Weimar inflation. In the process, America’s entire middle class will be dropped down to the poverty level. We have no more than another three years, in my opinion, before the real financial troubles grip all of us.

You know this, of course. You have read my rants and, possibly, my book by now. You have read others’, as well. You know what is coming, though you may yet have hope that the worst can be averted. It cannot. The time is past for normal measures. Now the time has come for major surgery.

Two Choices: Count ’em – Two!

We have two choices: revolution or secession. We cannot work within the system because the system has frozen us out and refuses to allow us back in. Our “elected” representatives view us with disdain and more than a little fear. Why else do you think they are strengthening the enabling legislation for the woefully-named Patriot Acts and, now, openly discussing gun registration and confiscation?

The Federal government is lost to us and running full force into the arms of the New World Order, per the orders of the real masters of America: the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), composed of some of the most evil men and women ever to inhabit Washington, DC.

Why else do you think that CFR-member bankers are being bailed out right and left while we are left to flail hopelessly in an ever-rising tide of debt and regulation? Why else do you think that AIG, which still pays its executives million-dollar bonuses for failing, is given billions upon billions of our tax dollars, which it then dutifully funnels to the banks and congressional pension funds that it insures? Why else do you think that major corporations that should have gone under long ago are being shored up with your tax dollars? Not to save the workers’ jobs, because our “leaders” certainly care nothing for them, but to save the banks and insurance companies who have propped up those failing corporations.

Just as Russia was looted late last century and left for dead, so is America now being looted – and by the same tribe of people. America will be left just as hollowed out as was Russia, unless we do something about it and do it quickly.

I sometimes come in for criticism for not advocating revolution in America, which is something that our founding fathers, if alive today, certainly would foment. I like to visualize George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine magically transported to this time, then setting off for Washington, DC in a red Cadillac convertible with a road map in one hand and a bazooka in the other. However, I cannot espouse violent revolution, folks. First, it goes against my basic, non-violent nature. Second, it is illegal and would get me arrested in a heartbeat. Just how much good would I be able to accomplish from a jail cell?

Used to be, I advocated change within the system. Then, when it became apparent, during the Bush administration, that such change was impossible, I began to advocate preparing for the inevitable collapse, both financial and, possibly, militarily at the hands of those that we have offended internationally (which includes everybody else in the world by now). Picking up the pieces was my new strategy for New America, which I envisioned rising, Phoenix-like, from the ashes of a fallen America.

While I still believe in preparing for the worst, I have become hopeful of a new avenue: secession on a state-by-state basis. Call it wishful thinking, if you like, but secession still strikes me as a viable alternative to simply waiting for the coming apocalypse.
Yes, Lincoln seemed to foreclose the possibility of secession with his War of Northern Aggression (you may know it as the Civil War), wherein he oversaw the wholesale slaughter of brothers by brothers in pursuit of his unconstitutional objective of “preserving the Union,” which didn’t then deserve to be preserved, as proven by the manner in which the North manhandled the South during the period we laughingly call “The Reconstruction.”

I submit that today’s Union – today’s America – has lost its legitimacy even moreso than did Lincoln’s and I call for a modern wholesale secession by the various States now making up the United States. I call for this to be an orderly, lawful and peaceful secession. A non-violent revolution of a sort, in fact.

The United District of America

Just imagine, for a moment, the result if all 50 states were to secede at once, leaving the Federal government to preside over merely the District of Columbia. The states then could recall all of their men in uniform from wherever posted, seize all federal property within their boundaries and demand that all federal employees either throw in their lot with the state or move to the District of Columbia. There literally would be nothing the Federal government could do about its well-deserved predicament, particularly with its major tax revenue sources cut off.

Secession is Our Legal Right

The Constitution certainly has the legal basis for secession still in place: It resides within the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states and the people all “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states.” You see, because secession is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or its Amendments, such power resides still within the states themselves and the people. This is a crucial fact that we must keep in mind at all times.

Similarly, the legal precedent for secession is laid out in America’s Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government … 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.”

It is the utmost in irony that none other than Abraham Lincoln, who did more single-handed damage to the US Constitution than, even, George W. Bush, rose up in Congress in January 1848 before he became President and stated: “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 that 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 of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Mind you, Lincoln meant even down to neighborhoods being able to secede from the Union.

The US Constitution: a Breached Contract

View the Constitution as a contract between us, the States and the Federal government. The Federal government has breached that contract in more ways than I have hours left in my life in which to recount its transgressions against all of us, both individually and as States.
For example, though its duties are few, the Federal government simply refuses to perform many of them:

Rather than “provide for our common defense,” our Federal government initiates foreign wars without provocation and without congressional declaration – wars that actually heighten the danger of our being attacked from without. Similarly, it refuses to protect our southern border and declines to protect us from the de facto invasion by countries to our south.

The Federal government has abdicated its responsibility to “coin money (and) regulate the value thereof” by delegating to a private, foreign-owned corporation (the Federal Reserve Bank) that duty, which has managed to steal 98 cents out of every dollar issued since its inception in 1913. This single failing is responsible for the current financial catastrophe now befalling America.

Rather than “provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia…reserving to the States…the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the Militia,” the Federal government has done its best to destroy anything resembling militias in America, preferring instead to implement an unconstitutional and permanent “standing army.”

“The privilege of Habeas Corpus” repeatedly has been suspended in direct contravention of the US Constitution.
Our system of lobbying, campaign funding and proven election fraud on the part of officials has robbed us of our constitutional guarantee of a “republican form of government,” accountable directly “to the people.”

We have installed as President a person who is not “a natural born citizen” and, quite possibly, not even “a citizen of the United States,” incredible as that may be to contemplate, let alone comprehend.

Previously, I have written at length as to how each and every single element of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights has been abrogated or abridged by unconstitutional legislation, ultra vires judicial decisions and by executive fiat. Very little remains of the original ten Amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. In particular, the Tenth Amendment has been stripped of its mandate that “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.”

Remedies for a Breached Contract

I could go on almost endlessly, but the foregoing list alone more than comprises the “substantial breach of contract” required by the law before the non-breaching party to a contract may suspend its own performance and proceed to elect a legal or equitable remedy.
Under prevailing law, an innocent party has a choice of remedies that it may enforce against a breaching party: monetary damages (including punitive), rescission (and restitution), reformation and specific performance.

Specific performance seems foreclosed to us, as we have tried unsuccessfully, both in the courts and by the ballot box, to force the Federal government to perform its side of the bargain. Its response has been to further oppress us and to continue to refuse to fulfill its obligations under the contract.

Reformation, or a simple rewording of the breached contract, similarly seems foreclosed to us, as that would require an agreeing and capable breaching party, particularly since we are lacking the judicial authority to supervise and then enforce such a rewriting of our contract. I think we all will agree that the Federal government will be anything but agreeable to our demands for a reformation of our contract and we certainly will not agree to its being reworded to reflect the current reality of our arrangement.

That leaves to us monetary damages or rescission. Since the Federal government has no independent means to pay us our considerable damages, our only effective remedy left is that of rescission.

Rescission refers to the cancellation of a contract and the return of the contracting parties to their pre-contract status. That means secession, folks. We have only secession on a state-by-state basis available to us as a remedy for the substantial and egregious breach of contract that our Federal government has foisted upon all of us.

A couple of years ago, I wouldn’t have thought it possible. I still think it is a long shot. But, the various states’ rights, or “sovereignty” bills introduced in a variety of states lately makes me think that a building movement toward secession not only is likely, but inevitable. Idaho is a bit ahead of the curve in that regard, being one of the few bastions of individuality and free thinking left in these “United” States of America. I have a clear vision of what New America looks like. While Idaho does not yet even approach that vision, you can see New America from here.

Our Own Private Idaho

Thinking of moving someplace relatively independent and free thinking? There’s New Hampshire, but it just killed its own states’ rights bill and, besides, it is surrounded by states firmly in the grip of socialists and communists. There’s Alaska and there is much to commend it. There’s Montana. There are parts of Texas and North Carolina and Arkansas. From where I sit, though, there is little else.

Though I generally discourage others from moving to Idaho, so as to preserve its relative lack of population and pristine condition, these are unusual times. Therefore, I hereby issue a call to all who are seeking somewhere else to live within the United States – a place with greater freedom: consider Idaho. We need you, your independent nature and your open mind. Tough times are coming for all of America. Come to Idaho for the freedom – stay for the adventure.

New Idaho – you can see New America from here.

By Edgar J. Steele (deceased)- NickelRant.com –
Forward as you wish. Permission is granted to circulate this article.

The Liberty to Leave

As the Scots debate independence, the British government has responded with every argument imaginable—except the threat to invade. Prime Minister David Cameron is no Abraham Lincoln.

So also it appears with Catalonia’s push for a referendum to secede from Spain, though the latter responded far less gently to Basque separatism in past years. No one threatened military action during Quebec’s lengthy flirtation with independence from Canada. The Czechoslovakian government peacefully, even cheerfully, bade farewell to Slovakia two decades ago.

Still, not everyone is willing to accept smaller territories going their own way. Yugoslavia broke up with an orgy of violence. Oddly, the United States supported every resulting independence bid, except those mounted by Serbs. The latter were expected to live under Muslim-Bosnian, Croatian, and Kosovar-Albanian majorities, irrespective of the rulers’ brutality. Washington even mounted a military campaign to break Kosovo off of Serbia, while reacting hysterically to similar Russian behavior toward Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which seceded from the country of Georgia. Washington responded equally badly to Crimea’s departure from Ukraine, though no one really knows the wishes of that majority-Russian land, since the official referendum was anything but fair.

In international politics the only rule regarding secession is that you get to do it if you can either convince or force the other party to agree. And there is no consistency even within a country. Today it is hard to imagine Washington launching drone strikes or sending in the 82nd Airborne if Texas voters approved an ordinance of secession.

Yet the U.S. government waged war on its own people during the American Civil War. In fact, it really wasn’t a “civil war,” which typically involves two or more parties seeking to control the territorial whole. In this case, it was a conflict over coerced union. Should states be prevented from severing a political connection they no longer support?

By DOUG BANDOW – The Freeman –

Confused History–Fascism and Secession

By Al Benson Jr. –

Fascism, like communism and/or socialism, is a system of collectivism and government control, thus it belongs on the left side of the political spectrum, not on the right. If you are going to view the entire political spectrum from left to right, then you need to place all political systems with total government on the left, and on the right are systems with no government–anarchy–where everyone does that which is right in his own eyes, and that, in a sense, is almost as bad as the leftist position, due to the fact that man is a sinner and, if left to his own devices, he will trample the rights of others for his own personal benefit. And so there needs to be some government, but again, because man is a sinner, the amount of government needs to be limited and defined as to exactly what government can and should do (protection of life and property) and what it is not permitted to do.

So, in a sense, wondering if Lincoln would have ended up as a socialist or a Fascist is almost like saying “Would Lincoln have ended up in socialist party A or socialist party B?” Many forget that the term Nazi stood for “National Socialist.” The main difference between fascists and socialists or communists was that the Fascists were more concerned (at least theoretically) with practicing their total control in a nationalist venue, whereas the communist/socialist had bigger plans and he wanted (and still wants) to do it all on an international scale. Had Lincoln chosen Fascism he would still have been a socialist, just a little different kind than those friends of his that Donnie Kennedy and I wrote about in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.

The same night, I also came across an informative article by Tom DiLorenzo, originally published on LewRockwell.com back in July of 2013. For those who may not know, Tom DiLorenzo is an economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland and is the author of several books, among which are The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked. In this article Professor DiLorenzo made several comments pertaining to the Declaration of Independence. He stated: “The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states’ rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the ‘free and independent’ states, as they are called in the Declaration…If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against.” Folks, I hate to have to say it, but that day has arrived, if only we will take our heads out of the sand and confront the sad fact. Ahh, but it’s so much easier to just watch the Reality shows and tune all that nasty stuff out. And the Christians will agree and say “Well, we don’t need to worry about all that. The Lord will return anytime now (momentarily if not sooner) and rapture us all out of this mess so we don’t have to deal with it. We don’t have to get involved. After all, politics is a dirty business anyway.” The fact that it might be a little less dirty if Christians had stayed involved instead of tucking tail and running, is a concept that totally eludes them. But I’m getting carried away here with one of my main concerns–Christian couch potatoes.

Professor DiLorenzo continued: “This was the fundamental understanding of the Declaration of Independence–that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British Empire-…” We seem to have lost that concept today. People don’t even want to think about it. I’ve been taken to task for even saying it in some quarters.

Interestingly enough, Professor DiLorenzo quotes the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat for January 11, 1861, where it said: “The founders of our government were constant secessionists. They not only claimed the right for themselves, but conceded it to others. They were not only secessionists in theory, but in practice.” Such an editorial would never make it into a newspaper today–it would be considered “politically incorrect” and the vast majority of newspapers in our day strictly adhere to political correctness (Cultural Marxism)…

 
Continue Reading

Ron Paul: Secession Is a Grand American Tradition

From LewRockwell.com –

On the heels of a failed attempt in Scotland to separate from the UK, longtime American lawmaker Ron Paul is opening up about his take on secessionism in the United States.

Recent polling suggests that roughly a quarter of Americans support the notion of being able to have their state separate from the rest of the US, and Paul — the 79-year-old former Republican congressman and three-time presidential hopeful — says citizens who celebrate that inkling are expressing something inherently American.

“Americans who embrace secession are acting in a grand American tradition,” the ex-lawmaker wrote in an editorial published on Sunday by the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. “The Declaration of Independence was written to justify secession from Britain. Supporters of liberty should cheer the growth in support for secession, as it is the ultimate rejection of centralized government and the ideologies of Keynesianism, welfarism and militarism.”

Paul goes on to cite a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll that found roughly 23.9 percent of Americans strongly support or tend to support the idea of having their state break away from the US in acknowledging that the secessionist movement isn’t something solely making waves in Scotland right now, where residents voted earlier this month 55.3 percent to 44.7 percent in favor of staying with the UK.

“Even though it ultimately failed at the ballot box, the recent campaign for Scottish independence should cheer supporters of the numerous secession movements springing up around the globe,” Paul wrote on his website.

“The possibility that people will break away from an oppressive government is one of the most effective checks on the growth of government. It is no coincidence that the transformation of America from a limited republic to a monolithic welfare-warfare state coincided with the discrediting of secession as an appropriate response to excessive government,” he added.

 
Continue Reading

Five Lessons Learned From The Scottish Referendum

By Ryan McMaken – A Nation Beguiled –

Government authorities in the UK have declared that the “Yes” campaign for secession has failed by a margin of approximately 55 percent to 45 percent. Yet, even without a majority vote for secession, the campaign for separation from the United Kingdom has already provided numerous insights into the future of secession movements and those who defend the status quo.

Lesson 1: Global Elites Greatly Fear Secession and Decentralization

Global elite institutions and individuals including Goldman Sachs, Alan Greenspan, David Cameron and several major banks pulled out all the stops to sow fear about independence as much as possible. Global bankers vowed to punish Scotland, declaring they would move out of Scotland if independence were declared.

According to one report:

A Deutsche Bank report compared it to the decision to return to the gold standard in the 1920s, and said it might spark a rerun of the Great Depression, at least north of the border.

 
Continue Reading

Scottish Independence: What Would Braveheart Do?

By Patrick J. Buchanan – VDare.com –

No matter how the vote turns out on Thursday in Scotland, either for independence or continued union with Britain, the disintegration of the Old Continent appears almost inevitable.

Already the British government has conceded that, even if the Scots vote for union, Edinburgh will receive greater powers to rule itself.

Cheering for the breakup of the U.K. are Catalans and Basques, Bretons and Corsicans, Tyroleans, Venetians, Flemish, all dreaming of nations of their own carved out of Spain, France, Italy and Belgium.

Europe’s secessionists have waxed ever stronger since the last decade of the 20th century when the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia splintered into 22 nations and Czechoslovakia broke in two.

 
Continue Reading