Patrick Henry and Frederick Douglass Speak

September 22, 2010

Patrick Henry was the Governor of Virginia from 1776 to 1779 and again from 1784 to 1786. He was one of the most radical patriots of his day. During the war he was a Colonel in the Continental Army. He was a delegate to the 1788 Constitutional Convention and argued as an anti-federalist, as he saw that the New Constitution which replaced the Articles of Confederation endangered the individual freedoms and violated state’s rights as sovereign nations. When the Constitution was finally completed, Henry refused to sign it, saying “I smelt a rat in Philadelphia.”

In 1775, Patriot Patrick Henry gave this speech at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia. We offer it today to remind our readers that the issues that compelled him to give this speech have come full circle to 2010. Remember as you read his stirring words that the colonials were British citizens who were being treated as slaves by the Crown. Every right they enjoyed as British citizens was being trampled, and the King’s army was enforcing King George’s edicts all over the colonies. And most of the early skirmishes of the war happened as a result of the Redcoats attempting to confiscate the private ammunition and firearms owned by colonials.

“Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is coming on. We have petitioned…we have remonstrated…we have supplicated. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with comtempt… In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free…if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have so long contended…if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object to our contest shall be obtained…we must fight!! I repeat it Sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and the God of Hosts is all that is left to us!

They tell us Sir that we are weak…unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be next week or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we require the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power…Besides Sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends…The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave…There is no retreat, but in submission and slavery. Our chains are forged; their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable…let it come! Gentlemen may cry peace, peace…but there is no peace. The war is actually begun…Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.”

Frederick Douglass was a self-freed black slave who became one of the most important abolitionists of his day. Here are his words from a speech in 1857.

“Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without demand.

Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.

The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

DumpDC brings you these two voices from history today to attempt to awaken the slumbering, and to warn the naive. The Texas Nationalist Movement goes out of its way to state that they are not a militia…and rightly so. They state that they are promoting the peaceful, legislative process for Texas independence. That’s fine, too. But at some point, any secessionist group must admit to itself and its state citizens that Federal resistance to secession COULD be armed resistance. And any state that has not regained the Power of the Purse (its own money) and the Power of the Sword (its own militia) has not a snowball’s chance in hell of successfully seceding from the Union.

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.

The Georgia Governor’s Race: Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss

August 12, 2010

Tuesday August 10th was the Republican primary runoff. The two finalists were former Congressman Nathan Deal and former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel. Deal squeaked out a victory by only about 2,400 votes.

The primary vote tells me that the citizens of Georgia like politicians who are part of the System, rather than political outsiders. And that means that the citizens of the State of Georgia have no stomach for secession on any level.

At the beginning of the year, Georgia Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine was the odds-on favorite. Polls showed him ahead of all other Republican candidates by at least 20 points. One of his campaign “planks” was to eliminate the Georgia state income tax, which should have been wildly popular. The nomination was his to lose.

And he lost it. Or perhaps it is better said that it was stolen from him.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution must have not wanted Oxendine to be Governor. They trotted out stories of old ethics investigations, some over 14 years old, that besmirched Oxendine’s reputation. The headlines were huge, but the findings that there was no breach of ethics were hard to find. Naturally, the lazy TV stations’ news staffs used the newspaper’s stories as their sources and ran the stories over and over. Oxendine was unable to overcome this attack, and in the first primary, he came in fourth.

Karen Handel ran a great campaign, and she has an impeccable record of service in Georgia. She was current Governor Sonny Perdue’s choice to succeed him. But that was not enough to take the primary from Nathan Deal.

Consider Nathan Deal. Deal went to Congress in 1992 as a Democrat. He switched to the Republican Party in 1995 after the Gingrich windstorm swept a bunch of Republicans into Georgia congressional seats in the Fall 1994 elections. On March 29, 2010, the Office of Congressional Ethics released a report concluding that Mr. Deal improperly used his office staff to pressure Georgia officials to continue the state vehicle inspection program that generated hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for his family’s auto salvage business. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) lists Deal as one of the 15 most corrupt members of Congress, for trying to influence officials for personal gain.¹

Curiously, that story never got traction in Georgia. Here is a guy that has been proven to have violated his ethical responsibilities, and he’s Teflon. Karen Handel beat this drum in nearly every one of her TV campaign ads. But Oxendine gets investigated and found not guilty of ethics violations, and he’s given the bum’s rush. And Handel ends up in second place.

No one has to tell me that politics is a blood sport. I get that. I’m just telling you gentle readers that this article is much more about the mindset of Georgia voters than about the qualifications of the candidates.

Georgia Republican voters have sent a message. They have said…with their votes…that a guy who has 18 years’ experience as a Congressional insider is more desirable to them as the Republican candidate for Governor. They want a Governor who knows how to get things done in Washington…even if his hands are dirty. And how can you blame them? When DC is the heart that pumps Federal blood to Georgia, why would you want someone unfamiliar with the congressional circulatory system?

Now here comes the other shoe dropping…the Democratic candidate.

Roy Barnes is the former Georgia Governor and the Dem’s candidate. He clubbed all the other candidates in the Democratic primary. Roy was Governor from 1999 to 2003. He was a country lawyer and spent many years in the Georgia Legislature before becoming Governor. His term was marked by mild controversy over the old “stars-and-bars” Georgia flag, and educational changes he made that angered union school teachers. He was replaced by Republican Sonny Purdue in November 2002 in a Republican mid-term sweep. In Roy’s campaign ads, he said that other states are “making fun” of Georgia over discussions about secession in the Georgia Senate.

So, the choice for Georgia in November is a corrupt Republican former Congressman and a do-nothing Democrat former Governor.

No one is talking about how broken Washington is. No one is talking about the collapse of the dollar. No one is talking about the Georgia militia, or even thinking about establishing their own money. Georgia is safely tucked into the vest pocket of the DC criminal class.

The Georgia citizens continue to validate the hopelessly broken and irreparable Federal system by their willing participation in meaningless elections. Voters are willing to hold their noses and vote. They are happy to choose party apparachiks over principled candidates. They would rather be Americans than Georgians.

Is it any wonder that I wrote the article Stop Voting?

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.


Psychopathy Legitimized

July 23, 2010

Feminist Marine Gets His Kicks Killing Male Chauvinists

by Fred Reed

(Editors Note: This is our first posting for the great Fred Reed. Fred has the keenest insight on everything, and a writing style that will make you laugh out loud while he makes you think. But his column gives me much encouragement for the success of the various state militias if they ever have to defend their new nation against American troops. Simply stated…if the Taliban can kick the American military’s ass for years on end, militias can win if they have to.

Fred’s column doesn’t take into account that today’s soldiers and sailors learn hate for the country they are invading, while American troops sent to a place like Texas would be resistant to making war on their own people. I know…I know…Northern troops happily killed Confederate troops. But that was then, this is now. You think the suicide rate in the military is high now? Think how it would rise if Johnny Marine from Amarillo was ordered to fire on Texans from his own home town.)

On, I find a loutish American general, James Mattis, martial feminist, talking about the fun he has killing Afghans. Yes, fun, wheeee-oooo! and ooo-rah! too. He says, “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” adding “guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyways. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.” What must he do with prisoners?

Gen. Mattis-Lowlife

A joyous killer, possibly orgasmic. Note mandatory flagly background, pickle suit, and stupid colorful gewgaws so he looks like a goddamn stamp collection. Stern gaze is necessary to become a general. From defending the Constitution to the pleasure of watching Afghans die: The military has come a long way.

I’ll guess he fell just shy of graduating from third grade. He sure ain’t much of a general, no ways, I reckon. Just the fellow I want representing me in the world.

Does General Dworkin-Mattis speak of manhood? Odd, since his military is being badly outfought by the unmanly Afghans that are fun to kill. By the Pentagon’s figures the US military outnumbers the resistance several to one. The US has complete control of the air, enjoying F16s, helicopter gun-ships, transport choppers, and Predator drones, as well as armor, body armor, night-vision gear, heavy weaponry, medevac, hospitals, good food, and PXs. The Afghans have only AKs, RPGs, C4, and balls. Yet they are winning, or at least holding their own. How glorious.

Man for man, weapon for weapon, the Taliban are clearly superior. They take far heavier casualties, but keep on fighting. Their politics are not mine, but they are formidable on the ground. If I were General Dworkin, I’d change my name and go into hiding. Maybe he could wear a veil.

Perhaps the US should recognize that it has a second-rate military at phenomenal cost—an enormous, largely useless national codpiece. It is embarrassing. The Pentagon’s preferred enemies are lightly armed, poorly equipped peasants, which makes for a long war and thus hundreds of billions of dollars in juicy contracts for military industries. Yet the greatest military in history (ask it) gets run out of Southeast Asia, blown up and run out of Lebanon, shot down and run out of Somalia, with Afghanistan a disaster in progress and Iraq claimed as an American victory rather than Shiite.Do the aircraft carriers intimidate North Korea? No. Iran? No. China? No. For this, a trillion dollars a year?

The reasons for the mediocrity are clear enough. First, the Pentagon has become a contracting agency for buying gorgeous and elaborate arms of little relevance to the wars the US fights. (If the Martians attack, we’ll be ready.)

Second, the US is no longer a nation of hardy country boys who grow up shooting and loading hay bales into pick-ups for spare change. (For the uninitiated, hay bales are heavy.) I often see headlines such as “More than two-thirds of Texas schoolchildren flunked the state’s physical fitness test this year…” If Texas has gone all soft and rubbery, you can forget about Massachusetts. The American pool of hardy, manipulable kids without too much schoolin’ isn’t what it was. The lack of troops of course pushes the Pentagon toward more pricey gadgetry and greater imbalance.

Now, it is regarded as treasonous to question that Our Boys are the best trained, best armed, toughest troops in the world, and I’ll probably get punched out in bars for pointing out the awful truth. Let’s imagine an experiment. We take Killing-is-Fun General Mattis-Abzug, and a thousand GIs, and a thousand Taliban, and let them fight it out in any patch of wretched barren mountains of your choosing. On equal terms. What you think? Same weapons..

Good idea, General? You eat what they eat, wear what they wear, They have no medical care, and neither do you. If they get lung-shot and die the hard way, you do too. It will come down to guts and motivation.

Motivation: It counts, general. I believe it was Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest who said of some of his troops, “Them cane-brake boys jest plain likes to fight.” I guess there must be just a whole lot of cane in Afghanistan. The Taliban will go to any length to cut your freaking throat because you have been killing their wives and children ,fathers and brothers, and you will fight for…for…well. Uh. Big oil, AIPAC, Ann Coulter. Or a promotion for General Mathis-Abzug. Anybody want to put odds on the outcome?

Or what if they had the air power, the gun ships…?

And General, killing them might be a tad less fun when you couldn’t do it from the safety of a gunship. Just a thought, General.

A digression here. Bear with me. It’s just that General Mattis-Steinem makes killing sound like so much fun. And I guess it is, for some. You’ve seen the YouTube video of GIs machine-gunning people walking around a city street from a helicopter gunship. A hoot. But—can I offer a second opinion?

I went off to Viet Nam because I was young and dumb and adventurous and they told me that I was fighting for Apple Pie, and Mom, and White Christian Motherhood (which I spent my high-school days dreading, but never mind). Actually I was just another sucker from the small-town South. The Pentagon depends, utterly, on small-town suckers. They are brave, trainable, not real thoughtful.

Funny how things look if you think about them. Patriots talk about the tragic deaths of young Americans in Afghanistan. Well, ok. Other things being equal, young guys getting shot to death in a pointless war is not a swell idea. I’m against it. In fact, the more you see of it, and I’ve seen a lot, the worse an idea it seems. Of course, a logician might point out that if you didn’t send them to Afghanistan, they wouldn’t die there—would they?

The dead are not the only casualties. Go to a Veterans Hospital, and watch the left-overs come in. You might be surprised how much fun they didn’t think it was. Or what they think of General Mattis-Firmstare. You might be very surprised.

But tell me: why is a GI’s life, mine or anyone else’s, worth more than the life of an Afghan child of three? Especially if you pretend to be a Christian, tell me. (I love this part. Military Christians are wonderfully funny frauds.)

A pretty good rule of thumb is that the attacking army is in the wrong, which would have made a Vietnamese kid’s life worth more than mine. I’ll buy that, though I’m happy it didn’t work out that way. But the attacking countries always believe that Their Boys are sacred.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl, they figured a Japanese pilot’s life was worth more than that of an American sailor. The Germans thought the same, mutatis mutandis, when the Wehrmacht went into Poland, as of course do Americans when they invade country after country. But why is the aggressor’s life sacred, prithee? If I leap out of a dark alley and attack your daughter with a butcher knife, is my life worth more than hers?

But it is just so much fun to kill Afghans. Excuse me, I need to puke.

Read Fred’s stuff at:

Copyright 2010 Fred Reed.

No Militia In Your State? The Appleseed Project Turns Patriots Into Riflemen

June 11, 2010

excerpted from

I’ve written about the need for a state militia…Secession and the Power of the Sword. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution states plainly that “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.” That means the security of a free state from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That also means that a state needs a militia to fend off tyrants, including your own hired hand (DC) who gets uppity and decides to take over.

But the only real state militia I know of is the Texas State Guard. So most of the states don’t have a well-regulated militia.

What are you to do in the meantime?

Learn to be a rifleman.

The Revolutionary War Veterans Association is a 501 (c)(3) organization that sponsors “Appleseed Shoots.” Appleseed Shoots are weekend-long events held all over this nation which teach the American tradition of rifle marksmanship. The Appleseed Project is designed to take you from simply being a rifle owner to being a true Rifleman.

All throughout American history, the Rifleman has been defined as a marksman capable of hitting targets from 500 yards away. This 500-yard range is traditionally known as “the rifleman’s quarter mile.” In theory, any rifleman can pick any rifle, fire one sight-in shot, and then hit such a target out at 500 yards. Unbelievable, but true.

On Saturday you’ll learn:

• Six steps to firing the shot
• Correct firing positions
• Proper use of a rifle sling
• Talking Targets
• Everything you need to know in order to shoot well with a rifle.

Sunday is the day to polish what you learned on Saturday. Their goal is to take the “100-yard shooters” of Saturday morning and turn them into “300-yard shooters” by Sunday afternoon. They can’t do it with everyone – some take longer than others – but all will make it, if they go back home and persist in putting into practice what they are taught. And some will, by Sunday afternoon, be “400-yard shooters”.

On Sundays, if the range facilities allow it, selected shooters will shoot at “actual distance” – whatever the range offers – out to 500 yards! They do this so shooters can see for themselves that “what works at 25, works at 200 – or 300 – or 500 yards”.

What you’ll find an Appleseed is:

*A gathering of your fellow Americans interested in learning how to shoot a rifle. Most will show up with that, and only that, on their minds. Before the Appleseed is over, they will, most of them, discover to their surprise that Appleseed is about far more than that. And many, maybe most, will go home shaken up a bit, inspired even, to learn the shining facts surrounding the first day of their country’s drive toward liberty.

*The first step of a journey toward not only becoming a rifleman, but an awakening to your history and heritage and the slow understanding that Appleseed is about far more than marksmanship.

*Finding out, to your surprise, that there are a lot of fellow Americans just like you. Uncertain about the future, slightly depressed in believing there’s not much they can do about it, and feeling pretty lonely and helpless. And, suddenly, you don’t feel so lonely any more. Nor quite so powerless to deal with the future. In fact, you’ll find HOPE.

Admission for the two-day event is usually $70 if you prepay.

To learn more about The Appleseed Project, find a location near you and register for your own Appleseed Shoot, go to:

The Poverty of Political Discourse Part 3 of 3

May 5, 2010

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

To be sure, if Mr. Obama, in his assumed capacity as “Commander in Chief * * * of the Militia of the several States”, were to appoint me as his special Militia aide de camp with authority to travel from State to State, encouraging, advising, and assisting the legislatures and governors to enact suitable legislation to revitalize the Militia, I should certainly be willing to take on that assignment. Then, I suppose, I could accurately be described as the “Architect of Militias”. Then, too, I should be furthering the plan that has been attributed to Mr. Obama to create a new civilian national-security force at least as large as the regular Armed Forces. Actually, I should be making his plan constitutional, which would certainly be an elegant as well as practical way to establish “common ground” between Mr. Obama’s supporters and the many average Americans who are unsure of his commitment to such parts of the Constitution as the Second Amendment. I wonder if, now having offered my services in this regard, I can count on the support of the SPLC.

(g) Finally, the SPLC’s “profile” reports that “[i]n his book, How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, Vieira advocates the impeachment of ‘advocacy judges’ who have authorized abortion and gay marriage”. Although I cannot ever recall using the clumsy term “advocacy judges” (which seems to have been coined by someone for whom English is a second or third language), I do advocate the impeachment of rogue judges (and all other rogue public officials) who violate their “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support th[e] Constitution”, because any such violations surely constitute “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. However, Imperial Judiciary does not focus on “abortion and gay marriage”. (Indeed, it would have been impossible for the book to have dealt directly with “gay marriage”, because the Supreme Court of the United States had never decided a case on that subject before the book was written.) Rather, as the book’s table of contents points out, Imperial Judiciary concerns itself with the improper reliance by some Justices of the Supreme Court on foreign law in their (mis)construction of the Constitution: namely,

Part I. The Illegitimate Insinuation of Foreign Law and Amorality into America’s Constitutional Jurisprudence.

Part II. Remedies for Certain Justices’ Promiscuous Use of Foreign Law in Constitutional Interpretation.

I realize that expecting the SPLC’s researchers actually to read the entirety of a 328-page book before they comment critically on its author may be hopelessly optimistic on my part. Yet, would it be too much to ask them to read one page from the table of contents?

In sum, if the SPLC’s general approach and its specific “profile” of me evidence the merits of its “Meet the ‘Patriots’” report, it has served up a dish of crude and inaccurate propaganda that would make even Goebbels gag.

So, what is “the bottom line” here? One need not be too cynical to suspect that the old adage in politics applies: “Follow the money!” The SPLC is improperly appropriating my name and reputation (and the names and reputations of other individuals), and intentionally slurring both in the process, in order to cadge donations.

For example, if the Ex-Lax company obtained a photo of me purchasing its product at my local drug store and then published that photo as part of an advertising campaign—“noted constitutional scholar and patriot relies on Ex-Lax”—as a way of increasing its sales and revenues, without my approval and without compensating me, I might sue the Ex-Lax company for unauthorized appropriation of my name for a commercial purpose. Of course, the Ex-Lax company would never do such a thing. But is that not exactly what the SPLC is doing, albeit in a negative manner? That is, hoping to rake in big bucks from credulous visitors to its web site through the unauthorized “profiling” of people whom the SPLC demonizes for the purpose of scaring the you-know-what out of potential contributors? Now, “Law” is part of the SPLC’s own name—so perhaps its researchers should know better. But, then, in its name “Poverty” comes before “Law”. And apparently its own “poverty” the SPLC seems most determined to overcome.

Having cleared up in this commentary the worst of the SPLC’s misrepresentations as to myself, I am not greatly perturbed by its silly “profile” of me. Perhaps the bad advertising SPLC is giving me, free of charge, will entice people of sound mind and good will to inquire into what I actually advocate. So the SPLC can be used, after all, for the good purpose of overcoming the evil that the SPLC supports—proving once again the wisdom in the folk saying, “It takes a crooked stick to beat a mad dog.”


Letter to Robert Schulz concerning his Jekyll Island conference (20 May 2009)


20 May 2009

Dear Bob:

Contrary to rumors circulating in some quarters, I do not oppose in principle the idea of a new “Continental Congress” (or like effort), at which patriotic Americans could review the fundamental principles of our Constitution, catalogue violations of the Constitution by rogue public officials, and propose sound strategies for enforcing the Constitution in the future. To be credible and effective, however, any “Continental Congress” must operate according to carefully and clearly defined standards. To wit,

(1) The delegates who are selected must, first and foremost, be thoroughly knowledgeable about, and personally committed to the enforcement of, the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as of their own States.

(2) The delegates must be selected by a thoroughly democratic process, involving the broadest practical segment of the population in each of their States and Localities.

(3) The delegates must be men and women well known and respected within their communities, with unblemished reputations for honesty, integrity, prudence, foresight, and the courage of their convictions.

(4) The delegates must be open to a full, fair, and frank discussion of all credible points of view, with the goal of creating a documentary and testimonial record of indisputable facts from which to draw legal conclusions and upon the basis of which to propose responsible courses of political action. The delegates should be bound by no rigid prior agenda that they must follow, no preconceived conclusions to which they must agree, and no unalterable plans for future actions that they must adopt. All decisions of the “Continental Congress” as a whole must be made by open and recorded roll-call votes.

(5) The delegates should assemble a staff of recognized experts in American history, constitutional law, political science, economics, and other relevant disciplines to assist them in their deliberations, as well as secretarial personnel to make and provide for the retention of complete and accurate records of the proceedings.

(6) The delegates should set as their goal the identification of solely those parts of the Constitution (including its Amendments) the immediate enforcement of which is critical to the preservation of America as a sovereign, independent, free, and prosperous republic, and then focus on precisely how such enforcement is to be accomplished in the most expeditious manner, and according to the prudential principle “first, do no harm”. When possible, a proposal that can be put into operation in one State at a time, and gradually refined and perfected on the basis of that experience, should be preferred to a proposal that requires a single, massive, and likely unsustainable nationwide effort.

(7) The delegates should entertain no proposal whatsoever for enforcement of the Constitution and laws that even arguably violates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the laws of the United States or of the several States made in pursuance of the Constitution. Indeed, any proposal that advocates the violation of law—and particularly any proposal that advocates or otherwise involves the incitement or employment of actual violence—should constitute sufficient grounds for expulsion from the “Continental Congress” sine die of any delegate, expert, or other party in attendance who sets it forth. To implement this requirement, at the commencement of proceedings the delegates should select from amongst themselves one or more “law officers”, with recognized expertise in that field, to provide guidance on the legality of any proposal placed before the “Continental Congress”.

No doubt other useful standards could be added to this list—and because this is your project, you must make the final determination as to what may be necessary and proper. But at least it is a reasonable beginning.

Finally, as I do for all men and women of good will who labor on America’s behalf, I wish you well in your work.

Edwin Vieira, Jr.


E-mail to Robert Schulz concerning his Jekyll Island conference (26 May 2009)


Just for the record–I was not “in absentia” at the recent Jekyll Island conference, as reported by you in your e-mail on the subject. That term implies that one is an attendee who simply could not show up, for one reason or another. I was not an attendee, but merely sent you a statement of my approval of “the Continental Congress idea”, provided that it was conducted according to certain standards, which I set out in some detail.

That, and only that, is the extent of my approval. Obviously, I do not necessarily support whatever was discussed or decided at the Jekyll Island conference, as I had no part in the discussions, deliberations, or decision-making. If people want to know my position on any of the issues ventilated at the conference, they must consult me directly, and not assume that any conclusions stated by the conference attendees reflect my position.

Thanks for keeping this clarification in mind in the future.

Copyright 2010, Edwin Vieira.

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.

The Poverty of Political Discourse Part 1 of 3

May 3, 2010

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

(Editor’s note: I was somewhat dismayed to be left off the list, since the SPLC and are both based in the Atlanta metro area. But I’ve made peace with it.

Dr. Vieira continues to hang on to the mistaken notion that the US Constitution has any authority whatsoever. Still, I’m running this three-part series because if his comments about the revitalization of the state militias.)

The more I scan the Internet these days, the more disappointed I become, because of the ever-increasing superficiality, triviality, and truly aggressive contempt for the intelligence of the audience that characterizes so much of what passes for political discourse in this country. The average cookie sheet has more depth, and certainly produces a more palatable product, than the typical politically oriented Internet column or blog.

A glaring example is the recent creation by the Southern Poverty Law Center (“SPLC”) of a section on its web site entitled “Meet the ‘Patriots’”. Now, I must admit that I probably should not trouble myself (or the readers of my commentaries) with this matter had the SPLC not chosen to “profile” me among its list of “Patriots”. But, the SPLC having done so, I believe I am entitled to “return the compliment” as it were. Besides, the SPLC has provided me with “a teaching moment” which should not be wasted.

1. The most obvious demerit of the SPLC’s performance is its lack of basic logic. Throughout, “Meet the ‘Patriots’” is a patent example of the fallacy petitio principii (“begging the question”). The SPLC’s web site purports to present “profiles of 36 individuals at the heart of the resurgent” “antigovernment ‘Patriot’ movement”. Unfortunately—or, perhaps more likely, intentionally—the SPLC provides no definition of the key term “antigovernment ‘Patriot’ movement”. In what sense these “profiled” individuals are “antigovernment”, or in what sense they are merely faux “Patriots” rather than real patriots, or in what sense a real “patriot” can be “antigovernment” as a consequence of being a “patriot” the SPLC never explains. This renders the entire exercise nonscientific—because, without these definitions, the SPLC’s categorizations of the “36 individuals” as “antigovernment” and therefore somehow false or bad “Patriots” are neither verifiable nor falsifiable. They are simply crude propaganda below even the kindergarten level of reasoning.

As I understand matters, an “antigovernment patriot” is a contradiction in terms. A “patriot” loves what is good about his country and defends its just interests. Thus, a patriot respects his country’s government. Indeed, in America “patriots” are the very source of and authority for government. As the Declaration of Independence explains, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”; and “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, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”. And the Constitution itself attests that “WE THE PEOPLE * * * do ordain and establish th[e] Constitution”. So no “patriot” can be “antigovernment”.

Of course, not every action taken under color of law by every individual in public office is lawful, and therefore “governmental” in character. For example, Title 18, United States Code, Section 242 provides that

[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Self-evidently, the persons within the contemplation of this statute who act “under color of any law…” are rogue public officials of various kinds. Such miscreants pretend to act in the capacity of “government”, but actually are acting in an “antigovernment” capacity, because their acts are in violation of this particular law and no doubt of many others.

So, are “patriots” who oppose rogue public officials “antigovernment”? Quite the contrary. It is every citizens’ duty—and the duty of every loyal public official—to oppose, resist, and utterly defeat the machinations of each and every rogue public official. A “patriot” is one who opposes rogues in public office—and the political parties, private special-interest groups, factions, and organizations that work hand in glove with them.

Such is my definition of a “patriot”, supported by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the laws of this country. The SPLC has chosen to “profile” me as an “antigovernment ‘Patriot’”—of whom, one must presume from the tenor of “Meet the ‘Patriots’”, the SPLC disapproves. Yet, if the SPLC disapproves of me as a “patriot”, then what is its definition of “patriotism”? Plainly, its definition and mine cannot be the same.

2. By carefully avoiding key definitions, the SPLC is able to lump a number of disparate individuals together in its “profiles”—leaving the careless reader to draw the unsubstantiated inferences that: (i) all of these individuals share some common, and presumably nefarious, beliefs; (ii) based upon these beliefs, in some vague manner they are all engaged in a common, and also presumably nefarious, undertaking; and (iii) if some of them have allegedly engaged in supposedly illegal activities, then the rest of them probably approve of such behavior by the alleged perpetrators and encourage it in others. This sort of reasoning does not rise to the level of “guilt by association”, because (as far as I can tell) many if not most of these “36 individuals at the heart of the resurgent movement” are not actually associated with one another in some particular organization or activity, except insofar as the SPLC has chosen arbitrarily to link them in its own list of “profiles” on its own web site for its own purposes. Rather, this is “virtual guilt by virtual association”.

Obviously, the SPLC’s approach suffers from the logical fallacy of “the undistributed middle”: namely, the false conclusion that, just because “A”, “B”, “C”, and so on share one characteristic of persons in group “X”, therefore they are all members of that group, even though that characteristic is not necessarily peculiar to that group. The vicious twist in this case is that the SPLC, without defining its terms, has created both the group “X” (“the antigovernment ‘Patriot’ movement”) and the supposed characteristics of that group through which it purports to interconnect “A”, “B”, “C”, and so.

Now, self-evidently, just because “A” calls himself a “patriot”, and “B” calls himself a “patriot”, and the SPLC calls both “A” and “B” “patriots” does not mean that the three definitions of “patriot” are the same. Neither does it mean, if the definitions happen to be the same, that therefore all of the beliefs or actions of “A” can necessarily be attributed to “B”, or that all of the beliefs or actions of “B” can necessarily be attributed to “A”, or that “A” necessarily approves of all the beliefs or actions of “B”, or that “B” necessarily approves of all the beliefs or actions of “A”—or, especially, that the SPLC has accurately included and described those beliefs and actions in its “profiles” of “A” and “B”. And, of course, if the definitions of “patriot” are different from one another, that the SPLC labels “A” and “B” as “patriots” according to its own definition does not necessarily mean that either “A” or “B” accepts that label, so defined unilaterally by the SPLC, as applicable to himself.

In short, the SPLC’s whole exercise of “profiling” various individuals, categorizing them as “at the heart of the resurgent movement”, and lumping them together in a single list proves nothing more than that, for whatever reason, the SPLC (and whatever individuals and entities lurk behind it in the shadows) do not approve of the people being “profiled”. Leaving any objective observer to ask, “So what?” The approval of the SPLC is not the standard of political reasonableness, let alone rectitude, in this country, particularly when the SPLC refuses to define (and thereby be required to defend) the standards of “good” and “bad” which implicitly inform its actions.

One need not be a cynic to conjecture that the SPLC would not have bothered to publish “Meet the ‘Patriots’” unless it intended by that means to attempt to “chill” and otherwise suppress the free speech of the “36 individuals at the heart of the resurgent movement”—and, if it can get away with that, the speech of everyone else in this country with whom it decides to take issue. But, under our Constitution, “the fact that protected speech may be offensive to some does not justify its suppression”. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 701 (1977). Accord, e.g., FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 745 (1978). The SPLC rather grandiloquently uses “Law” as part of its name. In this particular, it would do better to substitute humility for hubris and hypocrisy and actually show some respect for and follow “the supreme Law of the Land” in its operations.

3. Not satisfied with arbitrarily lumping together the “36 individuals at the heart of the resurgent movement” as if they were somehow conscious collaborators in a centrally concerted combination, the SPLC then includes in “Meet the ‘Patriots’” a “timeline” of events from which the careless reader may illogically—or, perhaps more likely, is expected and implicitly encouraged to—infer that some continuity of cause and effect, some relationship of moral or other responsibility, or at least some relevant connection exists between all of the events in the “timeline” and all of the “36 individuals”. Self-evidently, though, this juxtaposition of events and individuals relies upon the commonplace fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this therefore on account of this”).

Besides being illogical, the “time line” is also extraordinarily irresponsible, because it suggests that perhaps all of the “36 individuals” somehow approve of all sorts of illegal behavior previously perpetrated by others, or encourage others yet to behave in like manner in the future.

In addition, the “timeline” is highly selective. And perhaps revealingly so. At no point does it acknowledge the possible involvement in any of listed events, or in other events of that kind, of rogue governmental agencies or agents, agents provocateurs, dubious informants, private special-interest groups, or other individuals or groups who or which could be identified as what the SPLC calls “enablers”. Nowhere, for example, appears even an allusion to the goings-on connected to so-called “Elohim City” in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing. As to that particular instance especially, some observers might consider such a lacuna to be the equivalent of telling the story of Frankenstein’s monster without mentioning the laboratory in which Victor Frankenstein assembled the creature.

© 2010 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved