Edwin Vieira on Secession, New World Order and the American Republic

July 19, 2010

(Editor’s Note: My comments on Mr. Vieira’s anti-secession article will follow this posting.)

Pastor Chuck Baldwin’s recent commentary, “Breakup of U.S. Is Inevitable”, sets out a provocative thesis in support of “secession”. Essentially, his argument is that:

(i) The United States is about to break up into small fragments.
(ii) This disintegration fits into the plan of the global elitists to construct a “New World Order” and a “world government”.
(iii) American patriots should welcome, participate in, assist, and even accelerate this breakup through “secession” of one or more States. And,
(iv) “Secession” will defeat the New World Order, at least with respect to the “seceding” States.

It may simply be that my mind is not sufficiently plastic to wrap itself around this argument—but I sense that something is missing here.

Now, I agree with Pastor Baldwin that “freedom-loving people are reaching a point of frustration—and even fury”. But I fear that he makes rather a large leap of logic to conclude that “State secession is, very properly, the last best option for freedomists to maintain fidelity to the principles of liberty”.

First, Pastor Baldwin asserts that “[t]he breakup of the US in inevitable! Short of another Great Awakening, nothing can stop it.” Well, I wonder if anything “in the course of human events” (as the Declaration of Independence put it) is truly “inevitable”, if enough people, sufficiently committed to another outcome, oppose it. And, as Pastor Baldwin himself correctly observes, “freedom-loving people are reaching a point of frustration—and even fury”. So maybe a new “Great Awakening”, in the political sense, is actually emerging.

Besides, it appears that Pastor Baldwin’s analysis may be mixing apples with oranges. For instance, he states that “[i]t is a historical fact that no empire can sustain itself. And America is more and more becoming a global empire.” “Folks, this new American empire is not sustainable. Mark it down: the American empire will follow every other notable empire of antiquity and collapse of its own weight. The signs are already ubiquitous.” To which I say: Amen! But is “the American empire” actually America; or is it the twisted, unconstitutional, unholy perversion of America that has been temporarily imposed upon WE THE PEOPLE by the globalists in our midst in aid of their own megalomaniacal schemes for world hegemony? And if “the American empire” were to collapse—as I, for one, anticipate that it will—why should the real America, founded upon the quite anti-imperialistic principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, have to collapse with it? Even more to the point, why should any patriot want the real America to collapse? Is it not possible that, with and even because of the collapse of “the American empire”, the real America could be restored and rejuvenated? And would not that be a desirable result?

In addition, if Pastor Baldwin is correct (as I believe he is) that “no empire can sustain itself”, then why should we conclusively presume that the global empire of the New World Order could “sustain itself”, or perhaps even come into being in the first place? It would seem that, the larger the empire, the weaker it must be, and that therefore prognostications of collapse will most likely be accurate when the imperialists attempt to impose their structure upon the entire world.

Second, Pastor Baldwin tells us that “[g]lobalists are already planning America’s breakup. Indeed, their plans for the future global economy DEMAND that America fracture.” Now, there can be no doubt that, on this score, Pastor Baldwin is accurate. The globalists’ New World Order cannot survive, or even come into existence, with an intact, economically and militarily strong, and legally independent (that is, sovereign) America standing against it. America frustrated the globalists’ first scheme for “world government”—the League of Nations. And although America was roped in to their next scheme—the United Nations—a large proportion of her population has always been (and now remains) at least suspicious of, and even openly antagonistic to, that institution. So, if America cannot be absorbed into some supra-national “halfway house” to global government, such as the projected North American Union, the globalists would like to see her balkanized into a number of mutually quarrelsome mini-states that they can manage politically by the age-old device of “divide and rule”.

My question to Pastor Baldwin, though, is: “Divide and rule” being the globalists’ own strategy for bringing America down and setting the New World Order up, why should patriots assist them, through “secession” or in any other way? As Sun Tzu taught, “the highest form of generalship is to baulk the enemy’s plans”, not to accede to, let alone to aid and abet, them. See Sun Tzu on the Art of War, Lionel Giles translation (Shanghai, China, 1910), Chapter III, § 3, at 17.

True enough, if “secession” were a way “to baulk the enemy’s plans”, things would be different. But that would depend upon the practicality of “secession” for that purpose. Pastor Baldwin
asserts that “all of those who want to parade around and pontificate about the ‘unconstitutionality’ and ‘impracticality’ of secession can do so to their hearts’ content. It changes nothing. The breakup is coming.” Well, “[t]he breakup [may be] coming”—but, even if it is, that does not necessarily compel the conclusion that “secession” is the best way, or even any way, to deal with the situation. Certainly, if “secession” were both constitutional and practical, it would be worthy of consideration. Under some extreme circumstances, “secession” would constitute a possible option, even were it unconstitutional, if it were nonetheless practical. But if “secession” is both unconstitutional and impractical, how can it be (as Pastor Baldwin claims) “the last best option for freedomists to maintain fidelity to the principles of liberty”? If “secession” cannot be shown to be workable, it is not a viable option at all—unless one subscribes to “the Divine Wind” approach to national defense.

Also, I suspect that, far from fearing “secession”, the globalists would actually welcome it, because they anticipate that a single “seceding” State or even a gaggle of “seceding” States could not possibly stand up to the New World Order. And every move towards “secession” would accelerate the breakup of America upon which (even Pastor Baldwin agrees) the globalists’ plans depend.

I believe that an united America, operating according to her Constitution and uncompromisingly asserting her national sovereignty under the Declaration of Independence, could successfully fend off the New World Order—although, perhaps, it might be a long-drawn-out and close-run thing. I believe that the globalists think so, too, and are doubtlessly sore disturbed by that distinct possibility. But what lone State or little group of States could put up such resistance? That one or a few States (in Pastor Baldwin’s words) “with the foresight to recognize the rise of tyranny and globalism as it approaches, [might] muster the courage and fortitude to do what principled patriots and lovers of liberty have always done: draw their line in the sand for freedom” would not, unfortunately, be enough. Something sufficiently strong must stand behind any such “line in the sand” to keep the New World Order from crossing it at will. As Mao Tse-tung rightly opined, “‘[p]olitical power grows out of the barrel of a gun’”, not out of abstract “line[s drawn] in the sand”. Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-tung (Peking, China, 1966), at 61. The Second Amendment agrees (although on a much more principled basis): “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” And Article 13 of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights is even more precise: “[A] well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state”. “[L]ine[s] in the sand”, without lead and steel—and, I should add, silver and gold—in the hands of “the people” to back them up, are as evanescent as gnats and of as little consequence.

At the present moment, any State which attempts to “secede” will simply be jumping from the frying pan into the fire, because no State is prepared—in terms of territorial expanse, size of population, natural resources, economic development, and especially military preparedness—for both “secession” and subsequent protracted conflict with the globalists and their New World Order. For instance, at the present moment no State (as I have pointed out repeatedly) has taken the first step either towards actually adopting an alternative economically sound currency (to free her from the Federal Reserve System) or towards actually revitalizing her Militia (to provide her with true “homeland security”), let alone both—and without which two reforms, at a minimum, all calls for “secession” hold about as much water as a sieve. If there is a single State which is now ready, politically and practically, for “secession”, I should appreciate having someone identify that State.

And if, as I suspect, no such State exists, then I should appreciate having someone explain precisely how any State can be made ready for “secession” in the near future. How “secession” might actually be accomplished, according to a plan the efficacy of which is verifiable or falsifiable, is, to my pedestrian mind, more important than whether “secession” might theoretically be a good idea—because if “secession” cannot be made to work very soon, it hardly seems worth discussing so late in the day.

In short, I should think that, in the absence of a practical blueprint for “secession” that shows not only how “secession” will come about but also precisely how it will “baulk the enemy’s plans” as to the New World Order, the only prudent course for patriots is to do whatever can be done to retake America—as a whole—State by State, to restore her to true constitutional government, and to reassert her sovereignty under the Declaration of Independence.

© 2010 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved

Your faithful Editor responds:

Mr. Vieira has a long record of opposing secession. He has written extensively about the constitutionality of secession, and has concluded that it is not possible. Of course I disagree with many of Vieira’s opinions.

Mr. Vieira also has his educational pedigree from Harvard, one of the very universities that helps fill the District of Columbia with eager and willing big-government sycophants. It would be indelicate of me to write him off as a Yankee lawyer predisposed to protecting the interests of Harvard and the DC gang. Indelicate…not necessarily incorrect. But one can be right on some issues and wrong on others.

I am far less concerned about the machinations of the New World Order crowd than Vieira and Baldwin.

Vieira’s assertion that America could resist the New World Order with adherence to its Declaration of Independence and Constitution is naivete at its highest exhibition. What he omits is that the Declaration of Independence is a document that asserts the sovereignty of thirteen “free and independent States.” Jefferson’s label of the “United States of America” was a decription of states united under a common purpose, not a new nation. There was no new nation at that moment. Even under the Articles of Confederation that were ratified after the war, the states were independent and sovereign nations.

So, a Declaration of Independence is only fit for a state asserting its sovereignty against the tyranny of an empire. It is absurd for a fifty-state conglomeration of un-sovereign serf states to make noises about independence when they cannot muster the courage to become individually sovereign once more.

As to the efficacy of the Constitution, I refer you once again to the Lysander Spooner epic work “No Treason.” Spooner proves unerringly and irrefutably that the US Constitution has not now, nor ever at any time, held status as a legally enforceable document. So, I find that Vieira’s reliance on a constitutional argument is fatally flawed from its foundational premise.

Keeping a nation of fifty states and over 300 million people together as a single national unit has proven unworkable. When “We The People” was written by Thomas Jefferson, the population of the thirteen colonies was less than 3 million. So, each state was only a few hundred thousand souls. Smaller units of government more closely available to the people always function more efficiently. So, from the most elemental argument, smaller states are inherently more desirable than big nations.

Vieira is entirely correct that no state can secede without the power of the purse and the power of the sword. He is also correct to assert that no state possesses either of these powers and that no state is even preparing to secede.

The practical blueprint for secession that Vieira desires is quite simple, but not found in Baldwin’s article. But here it is:

1. Establish a money system based only upon gold and silver. That is the power of the purse.
2. Re-establish the “well-regulated militia.” That is the power of the sword.
3. Call a constitution convention in the state to rewrite the existing state constitution into a document of governance fit for a nation.
4. Draft a Declaration of Independence and an Ordinance of Secession.
5. Present the Declaration and Ordinance to the proper Federal authorities.

Done! Secession completed. Now the REAL work begins.

The practical blueprint for secession omits the practical realities of politics. To wit, no state government will consider secession until Washington’s system collapses. No state will voluntarily secede until the economic system is so hopelessly, irrecoverably destroyed that Washington can offer nothing more than hyperinflation and martial law. And even in the face of that desperate situation, only a handful of states will secede. The rest will meekly await their orders from their DC masters.

In conclusion, Vieira has deemed secession both unconstitutional and impractical. I assert that while secession is presently impractical, the constitutionality of secession is irrelevant.

Secession is the Hope for Mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.