The Poverty of Political Discourse Part 2 of 3

May 4, 2010

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

4. In relationship to myself, the SPLC’s “profile” is particularly childish.

(a) The SPLC labels me the “Architect of Militias”. Well, architecture is a learned and honorable profession; and if by “Militias” the SPLC has in mind “the Militia of the several States” which the Constitution explicitly incorporates into its federal system, then being an “Architect of Militias” would be a commendable avocation for any American. Inasmuch as I have written and spoken extensively in support of the revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”, I am an advocate of that (and only that) course of action in relation to “Militias”. But the distinction of being an “Architect of Militias” in that sense rightly belongs, not to me, but to the Founding Fathers—actually, to all Americans of the pre-constitutional period who established (or “settled”, as the terminology of that day had it) Militias in each of the Colonies and then independent States, according to certain structural and operational principles that carried over into the Articles of Confederation and then into the Constitution, where those principles continue to apply, unchanged, even today.

(b) The SPLC’s “profile” calls me a “radical-right thinker”. Well, momentarily putting modesty aside for purposes of argument, I shall agree that I am a “thinker”—which is better, I submit, than being a “non-thinker”. I shall agree that I am “radical” (in the sense of the Latin noun from which “radical” derives: that is, radix, meaning “root”), because I always try to dig down to the root of any problem into which I inquire—which is better, I submit, than treating important questions superficially. And I shall agree that I always try to be “right”, in the sense of correct, and radically so—which is better, I submit, than being wrong. So, perhaps the SPLC is actually complimenting me. If not, though, it has left the basis of any criticism unknown, because it has not defined “radical-right thinker”. This may be, however, because to the SPLC a “radical-right thinker” is simply someone with whom the SPLC disagrees.

(c) The SPLC then asserts that I supposedly consider the name “Department of Homeland Security” as “a misnomer” for that agency of the General Government. In fact, I am rather indifferent to the mere name of the agency, but am concerned—as every American should be concerned—with its purpose and the behavior of its personnel. Now, if (as the SPLC apparently wants readers of “Meet the ‘Patriots’” to believe) the Department of Homeland Security were “meant to keep Americans safe” in the full constitutional sense, the agency’s leaders and exponents would be advocating and working for exactly the same goal as am I: namely, revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” throughout the country, immediately if not sooner. For, as the Second Amendment declares—as a conclusion of constitutional fact and law which we ignore at our peril—“[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”. Not optional, but necessary.

Neither in the Second Amendment nor anywhere else in the Constitution or its other Amendments is any other establishment declared to be “necessary to the security of a free State” (or “necessary” for any purpose, for that matter). Not even the “Army and Navy of the United States”, which at least the Constitution explicitly mentions, let alone a Department of Homeland Security about which the Constitution is entirely silent. And only to “the Militia of the several States” does the Constitution explicitly extend the authority and responsibility “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”—which litany of powers summarizes the essential purposes of “homeland security”. So, precisely how the Department of Homeland Security could “keep Americans safe” in the absence of the very establishments that the Constitution itself tells us are “necessary to the security of a free State” is a mystery.

Not a mystery, however, is that (to my knowledge) no one in any prominent position of authority within the Department of Homeland Security is promoting the revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”. Rather, many of the agency’s personnel, and at high levels, are apparently giving credence to hysterical propaganda emanating from such unreliable sources as the SPLC that treats all advocacy of revitalizing the Militia as somehow improper. Why this is happening is open to different interpretations. Perhaps these people are simply not sufficiently conversant with the Constitution to think the matter through to the correct conclusion—although, inasmuch as they all have taken an “Oath or Affirmation, to support th[e] Constitution”, they ought to know better.

Perhaps it is merely a matter of the typical bias of bureaucrats in any central government who tend to favor organizing “from the top down”, with power concentrated in their own hands—and therefore reflexively oppose establishments such as “the Militia of the several States” which are organized “from the bottom up” with power concentrated in the hands of the people, where the Constitution requires that power to lodge. Whatever the subjective explanation for these individuals’ behavior, though, objectively the agency is not only (as the SPLC writes) “bent on encroaching on the sovereignty of American citizens and individual states”, but in fact and law is actually “encroaching”. The Constitution tells us so. To be sure, this problem could easily be corrected, if such as the SPLC would simply get out of the way and let clear heads, thinking along constitutional lines, prevail.

(d) The SPLC’s “profile” of me next asserts that I “believe[ ] an economic crisis is looming”. Looming?! The crisis is here, right now, and in the view of most objective and knowledgeable observers is becoming progressively worse day by day. Moreover, one does not need to be a fortune-teller to predict that a major breakdown of the monetary and banking systems will engender “massive social and political unrest bordering on chaos” (as the SPLC quotes me, I assume correctly), and that, if the American people do not put appropriate preventive and curative measures into effect in the near future, such chaos will drive this country in the direction of a para-military police state. Such a sequence of events has happened in other countries in recent times, and surely can happen here. See my commentary on NewsWithViews, “Going to the Root of the Problem”. In fact, in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, under conditions far less widespread and critical than would arise as a result of a total nationwide banking and monetary collapse, brutal police-state measures were imposed. See, e.g., William Norman Grigg, “The Greyhound Station Gulag”. So it has happened here, not so long ago. And if it could happen once, somewhere in America, it can happen again anywhere and even everywhere in America—if Americans do not forefend it. And soon.

Because time is running out. As a search of the Internet under “police brutality” and similar entries will demonstrate with shocking videos, crude police-state tactics are becoming increasingly common in communities across this country where rogue “law-enforcement officers” abuse and even savagely attack average Americans, and in most cases walk away insufficiently punished for their misdeeds. Needless to emphasize, this problem would not exist were the Militia properly revitalized—because, in that event, all State and Local police forces, sheriffs’ departments, and other law-enforcement agencies would be sub-units of the Militia, and their members would therefore be subject directly to discipline therein. But the Militia have not been revitalized. The SPLC opposes revitalization of the Militia. More than that, the SPLC stands in the forefront of those generating increasingly shrill hysteria to the effect that anyone who uncompromisingly supports the Second Amendment (as every American has a constitutional duty to do) may be merely one heartbeat away from shooting some policeman—the inevitable effect of which black propaganda must be to poison the minds of the police and rationalize their application of heavy-handed tactics against the citizenry. From which an observer might conclude that, objectively, the SPLC is (to use its own term) an “enabler” of a burgeoning police state.

One must wonder on what basis the SPLC implicitly denies that a national economic crisis is “looming”. One must also wonder why, without marshaling any evidence in its behalf, the SPLC imagines itself competent to criticize me (or anyone else) on that score, when—although the SPLC is located in Montgomery, Alabama—it apparently is too busy “profiling” “patriots” to pay any attention to the massive crisis of financial robbery and political fraud that has taken place in its own backyard in the city of Birmingham and the county of Jefferson, Alabama. See Matt Taibbi, “Looting Main Street”, Rolling Stone Magazine (31 March 2010), posted at (15 April 2010). Can the SPLC possibly believe that, when the full consequences from this rape of the citizenry finally become manifest in those communities, extensive social and political unrest will not result? Or could it possibly deny that such unrest would be fully justified?

(e) The SPLC’s “profile” then describes me as “[a] longtime associate of tax protester Robert ‘Bob’ Schulz”. In fact, although I have been acquainted with Mr. Schulz for many years, I am not an “associate” of his. My copy of Webster’s Dictionary defines “associate”as “one who shares with another an enterprise, business, or action: a fellow worker: PARTNER”. As everyone who follows my work knows, I have little to no interest in “tax” questions, because I believe that this country is in far more danger of an economic catastrophe from its inherently unstable monetary and banking systems than from any form or level of taxation. Actually, insofar as the word “associate” can be loosely used in this regard at all, I feel that I am far more of an “associate” of the SPLC than of Mr. Schulz, because the SPLC has chosen to feature what I imagine will be a permanent “profile” of me on its web site, which is far more advertising than Mr. Schulz has ever offered to donate to me.

The SPLC claims that “[a] year ago, [I] and Schulz co-organized a meeting of 30 ‘freedom keepers’ at Jekyll Island in Georgia”. In fact, I had no part in sponsoring or organizing that meeting, although I did send Mr. Schulz a letter containing some sound advice. The text of this letter appears in APPENDIX A to this commentary, and speaks for itself. I believe that Mr. Schulz published this letter on one of his web sites. Later, Mr. Schulz described me as being “in absentia” at his Jekyll Island conference. I brought the inaccuracy of that description to his attention in an e-mail, the text of which appears in APPENDIX B to this commentary. I do not recall whether Mr. Schulz ever published the clarification expressed in my e-mail. In any event, as documented in this correspondence, the actual situation concerning the Jekyll Island conference is rather different from the fantasy woven by the SPLC.

(f) As its sole support for the title “Architect of Militias” which it bestows on me, the SPLC’s “profile” states that I have “plans to establish militias in all 50 States”. Now, as the SPLC knows—or should know, if its researchers had read my book Constitutional “Homeland Security”, Volume One, The Nation in Arms (2007) and my many commentaries posted at and republished on other sites—I advocate the revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” in each State pursuant to State legislation, as the Constitution requires. As I am not a resident of “all 50 States”, and am not a member of any State’s legislature, however, I have no ability whatsoever personally “to establish militias in all 50 States”. If that goal is achieved—and I certainly hope it will be—it will come about as the result of actions taken by the citizens and the legislatures in those States to fulfill the requirement of the Constitution that such Militias exist. In addition, nowhere have I ever even advocated, let alone tried to establish, some “private militia”. In fact, I generally discourage anyone who asks me about the subject from becoming involved with any “private militia”.

Copyright 2010, Edwin Vieira.