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

Richard Hamblen and Gun Rights

April 3, 2010

Richard Hamblen is a businessman from Nashville,Tennessee. In 2004, he held the rank of Captain in the Tennessee State Guard, which is a state-created citizen militia. As an officer in a 3,500-member force, he noted that the Tennessee State Guard only had 21 M16A1 automatic rifles in the armory. So, in order to be better able to train the Guard troops, he made a lawful purchase of M16 parts for assembly, complying with all Federal laws regarding the purchases. Still, the BATF raided his business on an anonymous “tip” that he possessed machine guns (where he kept the guns in a locked safe), arrested him and confiscated the weapons. He was convicted and sentenced to 15 months in Federal prison. He served his time and is out on parole.

Mr. Hamblen has been locked in a battle with the Federal courts since his arrest in 2004. On March 30, 2010, he has filed a Writ of Certiorari before the US Supreme Court so that the merits of his case may be heard.

He seeks a decision on whether it is Constitutional under the 2nd Amendment for a citizen to own the same weapons that are presently the standard issue rifles for the US military. He states, “If such a fundamental right as the right to keep and bear arms can in effect be nullified by sophistic wordplay, then what chance does the rest of the Constitution stand?”

Listen to Mr. Hamblen explain his situation and his case below:

Then, if you would like to read his Writ in its entirety, go to:

Hamblen vs. United States

As you know, I look at everything through the secession-colored glasses of DumpDC. So, my personal opinion of Mr. Hamblen’s effort is that it is a useless waste of the talents, energy and assets of a fine man.

First, the US Constitution is a dead document. So, haggling over its technicalities is a waste of everyone’s time. The Federal government is very pleased to have a man like Mr. Hamblen incur monstrous legal fees and spend his children’s inheritance on an issue like this. The Fed’s resources are almost infinite, his are not.

Second, to expect the Supreme Court to rule on this in light of the Court’s Heller ruling is probably overly optimistic. The Supremes have no intent to ever assert that The People have anything but the rights conferred by government. In fact, Mr. Hamblen and his attorney have inadvertently fallen into this trap by asserting within the Writ that the right to keep and bear arms is a right conferred by the 2nd Amendment. If you read the Writ, you’ll see the “right conferred” phrase repeated in the verbiage. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, not a conferred right.

But I think that you should be aware of this court fight and the underlying philosophical issues. Govern yourselves accordingly.

State secession settles this issue once and for all. Tennessee could be its own nation and write its own constitution if it seceded. I hope they redeem themselves as the “Volunteer State” and voluntarily secede from the Union.

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

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.

When To Shoot The Colonels: An Oath Keepers Reality Check

April 1, 2010

by Tom Baugh

“At ease, Marines, and be seated” orders the gruff Gunnery Sergeant. “Now turn to Chapter 8 in your Military Constitutional Law text,” he continues. “Today we discuss the appropriate conditions for shooting a colonel who is issuing an order which would violate the Constitutional rights of American citizens. Our first scenario involves gun seizures…”

Absurd, isn’t it, to think that this sort of education is conducted among our armed forces? Yet, millions of citizens indulge this unspoken fantasy each time they imagine that the military exists to preserve our freedoms.

When I was at the Naval Academy in the mid-80s, and a Marine officer in the late 1980s and early 1990s, discussion of such issues was considered taboo. One fellow junior officer even scoffed that “Congress can change that Constitution any time they like.” This isn’t to say that there wasn’t an undercurrent among most of the war fighters that issues such as gun control and preservation freedom of speech might one day pose a crisis of command. Yet this undercurrent was kept carefully concealed, and tended to become a more and more uncomfortable subject as the ranks of one’s company became more elevated. Fortunately, with the Soviets and the threat of global thermonuclear war, these issues seemed far removed and safe from serious discussion.

Not so today. In the aftermath of Katrina, armed and uniformed soldiers patrolled the streets and disarmed Americans. Some uniformed soldiers were captured on film lamenting that “I can’t believe that we’re doing this to Americans.” Yet, they did it anyway, lamentations notwithstanding. But why?

To answer that, we need to understand the principles of military command and education. For veterans, this discussion is unnecessary. For the vast number of non-veterans, especially those who harbor that most dangerous and ill-advised fantasy of a Constitutionally-aware military, this discussion is essential to survival.

American military education is one of the most finely tuned and adapted mechanisms in the world for instilling knowledge into its students. No other school or university can come close to the efficiency at which military knowledge is imparted to novices. There are even courses, such as Principles of Military Instruction, for how to teach military courses. These courses even teach how to develop such courses from scratch. The famous John Saxon math courses, popular among home-schoolers, exhibit these techniques, courtesy of that former Air Force officer and academy instructor. Military courses developed along these lines tend to be highly effective at teaching motivated students. Students motivated to learn how to do things such as extinguish fires or shoot missiles. Or shoot you.

As a result, if it is worth teaching to soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines, it is worth embodying in a course. Captured as a course or in official manuals, such instruction is available to all for review and comment to make sure that the correct instruction is given, and given correctly. Conversely, if it doesn’t exist as a course, it isn’t being taught. And if it isn’t being taught, it isn’t even on the radar of the military mind. At least not the minds of those in command. Good luck finding a course such as “When to Shoot the Colonels” in a military instruction catalog.

Even basics such as reading and writing and math are available as courses. But not shooting colonels. What colonel would even authorize such a thing? Only a colonel who realizes that one day he might have to shoot a general, of course. But that would require a separate course for command grades, entitled “When to Shoot the Generals.” And who would authorize that? We can keep climbing this chain all the way up, if we like, but at some point the absurdity makes its point. No one in a position of command or power is going to surrender that power for something as irrelevant as your rights.

And what if a particular soldier scored highly on such a course? What colonel would hand out high efficiency reports on his potential executioner?

Another aspect of this problem that needs to be clearly understood is that all modern American military officers are political appointees. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. As a practical exercise ask one to read his commission document to you. Pay particular attention to the “follow lawful orders” part, along with the “serve at the pleasure of the President” phrase. Oath of office notwithstanding, nothing in that document says anything about what to do about unlawful orders. Or even lawful orders, such as “seize all guns because Congress authorized it,” which haven’t yet stood the test of the judicial branch to adjudge Constitutionality. And like that 1stLt said, enough Congressmen can get together and change that Constitution. The Constitution itself says so.

Besides, if some uppity colonel out there decided to start authorizing instruction about when to shoot the colonels, you can bet that pretty quick the President would no longer be pleased. Because he or she would know where that path must ultimately lead. Which is why uppity colonels don’t stay colonels for very long. Political appointees, my friends. That vision you have in your head of the noble military protecting your rights is just a dangerous fantasy. A fantasy you have to get rid of right now, before it gets you killed.

“But wait,” you say, “I know Sgt. So-and-so, and he would never go along with a gun seizure.” Maybe not, but then again, you might be surprised. To “not go along” would mean that he has to violate orders. This violation would at the very least be a career-killer, or possibly get him shot in an extreme situation. Shot by who? By all the other sergeants who don’t want to get shot, of course. After all, the colonel only needs a handful of sergeants who are in it for a career, and a raft of lieutenants, captains and majors who one day want to be colonels. For you to have your rights protected would require that a sufficient number of each of these decide, simultaneously, to put on the brakes. It is easier just to shoot you for resisting and go about their day. Say it again, “political appointees.”

Besides, if all of these people decide in unison to protect you, and in so doing put their own careers, freedoms and life on the line, who is going to protect them? You? And if so, how? You needed them to protect you in the first place. And if Sgt. So-and-so gets shot protecting your rights, what about his family? Retribution aside, who takes care of them with him out of the picture? Worse, after Sgt. So-and-so gets shot, some corporal will be there ready to pin on those chevrons. And you can bet that to that guy, you are a minor inconvenience in his day. You wouldn’t get lucky enough to get a chain of noble soldiers to protect you. When the day arrives, all of those political appointees will have scrubbed the ranks of those pesky Oath Keepers anyway. Those Oath Keepers who remain hidden in ranks will be in an impossible situation.

And we haven’t even discussed the false-flagging of dressing foreign troops in American uniforms to capitalize on the unwillingness of Americans to kill “our boys.” I’ll save that one for later.

So if the military doesn’t exist to protect our rights and freedoms, why does it exist? The answer is simple. It exists to back our national will with force. Most of the time, that is a good thing, particularly when our national will is to not be attacked by jackasses who threaten us. But when the national will turns to taking your guns away, you will be the jackass who threatens “us.” Then the military will execute that national will with cold, unthinking and bureaucratic efficiency. And wrap itself in the flag while doing so.

Want to have some fun? Walk up to any active duty serviceman you wish, shake his hand and thank him for his service. Then, before you release his hand, pull him toward you slightly, look into his eyes and tell him, “now when the time comes, don’t forget what your oath really means.” Do this ten times, and the reactions of that little informal poll will tell you everything you need to know. Having divested yourself of that little fantasy, maybe you will have a chance to survive that gun seizure for the real battle later. At the very least you will have looked into the eyes of some of the enemy, constituted of complacency and obedience, you may one day face.

Tom Baugh is the author of Starving the Monkeys.

When Will The Texas Offense Take the Field?

March 23, 2010

”The best defense is a good offense.” Vince Lombardi

I’m using a football analogy today, since football is a religion in Texas. So, this is a “come to Jesus” altar call in football parlance.

Two teams are playing in a winner-take-all game. It’s Texas versus Washington for all the marbles. The game is now in sudden-death overtime, and the clock is winding down, with no time outs available for either team.

Washington’s offense has been pushing Texas up and down the field throughout the whole game. But the Texans have mounted a mighty defensive stand here in the final stanza.

It’s time for the Texas offense to take the field.

There are a lot of actions that Head Coach/Governor Rick Perry and the Texas Legislature can do RIGHT NOW to “take the field” and start pushing back against the Washington team and win this game…once and for all.

Think about this scenario for just a moment. In this media-driven, 24/7 worldwide ocean of information and content, consider what would happen if Coach Perry called a news conference and read the following statement:

“Over the past few decades, The United States Federal Government in Washington DC has enacted law after law that taxes the citizens more, while regulating away more and more individual liberty. The passage of the Health Care legislation in Congress was the final act of tyranny to be forced upon the citizens of the state of Texas. I’m announcing that as of this date, we in the State of Texas will begin serious and solemn consideration of the sovereign act of secession from the United States of America. Within a few days, we Texans will come together in a Constitutional Convention to write a new constitution for a New Texas.

Enough is enough. To quote Sam Houston, Texas will again lift its head and stand among the nations.”

That’s all Perry needs to say. It would only take him 40 seconds if he was a slow reader.

Such a proclamation would galvanize the world media. Little else would be covered for days, perhaps weeks on all the major new outlets worldwide.

Then the Coach and the team would have to put up or shut up.

Here are ten “plays” for the Texas offense that could be run even before a Constitutional Convention was organized and gaveled to order.

1. Call an emergency session of the State Legislature to meet within 30 days with the following agenda:
2. Enact legislation that required each Texan who pays state taxes of any kind to pay the tax in gold or silver coin, or Egold.
3. Enact legislation to provide for the private minting of gold and silver coins as Texas legal tender.
4. Enact legislation that formally nullifies all Federal laws in Texas.
5. Enact legislation that strengthens the law enforcement powers of county Sheriffs in Texas, making the county Sheriff the top law enforcement officer in each county. As part of the Sheriff legislation, enact a statute that requires any Federal employee or sworn officer to obtain written authority from a county Sheriff to enforce any US Federal law upon a Texas citizen, with criminal penalties for any non-Texas officer violating the law.
6. Enact legislation that rejects the jurisdiction of any US Federal Court in matters of Texas sovereignty and nationhood.
7. Enact legislation that reorganizes the Texas Citizen Militia, comprised of all able-bodied men and women between the ages of 18 and 50. This bill would provide for immediate training and provisioning of the militia.
8. Authorize the Constitutional Convention and set the date within 90 days.
9. Draft a Texas Declaration of Independence and post it on the state’s website so that people around the world could read it before it’s delivered to Washington.
10. Draft a Texas Ordinance of Secession and post it on the state’s website so that people around the world could read it before it’s delivered to Washington.

How’s that for a sudden-death offensive series?

And what could the Washington team do in response? Breathe out threats? All that Texas is doing is “laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness” (from Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence 1776).

Football fans and lovers of Texas, one of these two teams is going to win. There will be no tie. Either Texas leaves The United States, or The United States turns Texas into a perpetual serfdom. There is no third option.

Who will win this game? Secession is the Hope for Mankind.

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 New Corporate Model of Governance

March 18, 2010

(Editor’s Note: This is an update of an article that ran at in October 2009.)

The US Constitution is a dead document. It has been dead nearly from its inception. It is neither contract nor treaty, either of which would give it the force of law. It does not, and cannot bind any two persons to each other, nor can it bind any person to the rogue government called “The United States of America” that is the occupying force in Washington DC.

In this article, I will prove that the Constitution is without authority and that the subject of secession related to the Constitution is entirely irrelevant, and that any states need not concern themselves with the constitutionality of secession.

When you are able to wrap your mind around this truth, it may cause you some consternation. This means that all of the things that you learned about the US Constitution in elementary school, high school government class, college and any information you’ve learned since you became an adult…IS WRONG. If you went to law school and took Constitutional Law classes, they lied to you.

Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying that all of the debates that are made about the details of the Constitution are in error. We can all spend our days arguing about the articles and clauses and their meanings. But if the US Constitution is dead, and cannot bind anyone to it, arguing about the merits of constitutionality of any government action is simply an exercise in re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

A constitution, or any document organizing a government, must have authority and validity. But the US Constitution has no inherent authority or validity and has never had either. If we can learn what the US Constitution is and what it is not, we can understand the flaws in the old constitution and then craft a new constitution for any seceding state with authority and validity.

I believe that one of the major reasons that Washington is able to operate as it does, outside the strictures of the Constitution, is because those persons in power know that the Constitution is not legally enforceable. Absent a restraining legal document coupled with principals that have the power to enforce the terms of the document, the DC criminals do exactly what they wish and what they can get away with.

The US Constitution has the following words in its Preamble, showing the intent of the Framers:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the united States of America.

The Founder’s sentiments seek to secure blessings to themselves and their posterity, meaning future generation of citizens. But a loose agreement cannot by law or reason bind any future person to its details. Contracts cannot obligate persons who will live in the future, either. They can only obligate persons who are living presently and who sign and receive the contract.

Even though the old constitution wishes to bestow blessings and liberty on their posterity, it has no power whatsoever to achieve this goal. Further, it never showed any intention toward future generations other than to offer useful recommendations to their posterity toward the blessings of liberty. If they were in some way able to bind future generations to the Constitution, they would not have bestowed liberty but slavery upon their posterity, since their children would be bound to it from birth, like it or not.

So what exactly is this Constitution?

I think it could only be called a “loose agreement” between certain people at the time that it was written and ratified. It is not a treaty ratified between sovereign states, which would have the weight of law. It cannot be considered a legal contract, since legal contracts have characteristics that the old constitution does not have.

It was ratified by votes in the several states. But ratification in any form didn’t turn it into a legal document with enforceability and authority.

The US Constitution is not a legal contract. The Constitution never bound any two or more parties in a legal way, nor did it ever purport to bind anyone. A timeless principle in contract law is that the contract is not valid until the contract is signed by all parties and delivered to the parties, or the representative of any signatory party. Any party may refuse to sign or deliver a written instrument and thus invalidate the contract. The US Constitution was not signed by anyone or anyone’s legal representative. It was not delivered to anyone or their representative. No one in the USA, either alive or dead, has ever signed the Constitution as a legal contract between parties. So how could it be a legal document with binding authority or validity?

Contracts are also voluntary. The parties come together for a purpose, but are free to dissolve the contract based upon the terms of the contract. Even if they leave contrary to the contract terms, there may be consequences, but they can still leave.

Abraham Lincoln’s position was that, once in the Union, no state can ever leave. And if the US Constitution was an enforceable contract between parties, his position would have been rejected instantly and laughed out of any court in the land. But in light of the unenforceable nature of the Constitution, Lincoln was free to do what he pleased as it related to the Confederate States of America and war. But the Confederate states were also right to secede from a Union that could not bind them. Constitutionality was irrelevant then, just as it is today.

The Constitution is not a perpetual corporation. The perpetuity of a corporation would require that new members voluntarily assent to its laws and by-laws as old members die off. New members must accept in writing because without their legal signatures, they would not be members and could not vote on corporate issues. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Framers intended the US Constitution to be a corporation’s organizational document…at least not a corporation in the strictest sense.

“The United States of America” is the name given in the US Constitution to the organization that the states created. Compare the work of the Founders to a group of thirteen property owners that need a management company to manage their properties. So, they created a management company and gave it specific tasks and responsibilities. The property owners retained to themselves all other powers not specifically delegated to the management company. They also did not transfer ownership of their properties to the manager. The owners remained the sovereign principals, controlling the manager. But there is NOT ONE WORD in the US Constitution that purports to create a new nation. Look for yourself.

So we can see that the Constitution is not a contract. It binds no one, and never did bind any persons. We see that all those who pretend to operate under its perceived authority act without any legal and legitimate authority.

But we voted and elected these Representatives and Senators. They are our duly elected officials, aren’t they?

Are our elected representatives our personal agents with legal authority to bind each of us individually and collectively? No they are not. In order for you to have a legal representative, you must sign your name to a document that gives the representative the power to act in your behalf. This document is commonly known as a “power of attorney.” You must also deliver the document to the agent.

People regularly sign a “power of attorney” for health care decisions and other legal matters. But what would you do if a stranger went to your doctor and usurped your wishes for your medical treatment, stating that he had your power of attorney? Any reasonable person would require the stranger to produce a written document bearing your signature prior to any changes of treatment. How much more should there be a written power of attorney for the DC stranger who plunders your income and steals your liberty?

Did you ever sign a power of attorney so that any elected officeholder could make binding decisions on your behalf? Did you authorize any person to obligate you to laws, regulations or the payment of taxes to any governmental body? I know that I have not done so. Neither have you.

And the secret ballot makes the concept of any elected representative acting as your agent even more ridiculous. How could secret voters hire an agent? How could secret voters enter into a power of attorney agreement?

So we see that those persons acting as our elected representatives are acting unlawfully, and that we have both the right and duty to treat them as usurpers and frauds.

Then upon what authority does the Federal Government operate? Who gave them the authority to enact laws, tax, confiscate men’s property and kill other men who resist their machinations?

You could say that voters select their representatives by secret ballot, and so bestow authority upon them. But in matter of law and reason, this is not true. It would not be upheld in a court of common law. If you and three of your friends voted in favor of a proposal in which a fourth friend would take it upon himself to deprive me of my property or my life, he would be a robber and/or a murderer. If he presented himself at my door to do his work, he would be unable to produce any legal authority to complete his task. Absent legal authority, I should treat him as a robber and murderer and resist his efforts even unto deadly force.

In a courtroom, a judge would ask to see your representative’s written authority to act in your behalf. You would be unable to produce such written authority.

So voting is neither a contract nor a power of attorney. And secret ballots should never be considered legally binding, since no signed contract between parties ever existed. Further, if voters authorize another person to act as their agent, they should do so in an open manner so to accept responsibility for the agent’s acts. That’s called “liability,” and that’s what happens out here in “the real world.” But the US Constitution, in Article I, Sec. 6, says that “for any speech or debate (or vote) in either house, they (Senators or Representatives) shall not be questioned in any other place.” So your agent cannot be held responsible for any laws they make…and neither can you. So, if no one is responsible, who is responsible?


And let’s return to the subject of legal authority. The Constitution has no legal authority to bind any two or more persons. If it did, you would possess a copy upon which you would find your own signature and at least one other person’s signature. But that document does not exist in any form and has not existed in over 235 years. So, absent that authority, voting is only theater. It is an exercise that makes the citizen feel that he is participating in a legitimate government.

The Federal Government in Washington has been illegitimate from its origin. There is no enforceable law or principal possessing superior force to restrain it from any act. It was only the morality and ethics of the earliest founders that restrained them from tyranny. Unfortunately for Americans, that morality and ethical restraint are a quaint memory.

OK. Convinced that the old Constitution is a cruel joke? Then, how can the new constitution be crafted to guarantee legitimacy and legality? If the framers of the new constitution write one like the old one, it will suffer the same illegitimacy issues as the old one.

Here are suggestions on how to write a new Constitution for a seceding State that wants to become a new sovereign nation.

The New Corporate Style of Governance

Form the new nation in the style of a corporation. Let’s call it State Inc. The Constitution can be its laws and by-laws. Each person will be given the option to subscribe to State Inc. and become a citizen. That person would have to be presented with a copy of the Constitution. Each person would have the choice to accept the Constitution in writing. Once accepted, each citizen would be, in essence, a shareholder in the corporation, since a person could not be a citizen/shareholder without signed consent. Each citizen would pay one once of .999 purity silver and would be issued one share of common stock with one vote. No citizen could buy or own more than one share of common stock. That would also mean that those rejecting the constitution could not be citizens of State Inc. Minors could not be citizens until they were of legal age to enter into a contract, usually eighteen years of age.

State Inc. might also issue preferred stock. The shareholder/citizens could actually invest their own money in preferred stock. This would provide the new nation with capital. Shareholders holding preferred stock might receive dividends if State Inc. makes a profit.

State, Inc. would also be able to issue debentures and corporate bonds to raise capital.

As the corporate structure would be a closely-held private corporation, the charter could specify that the stock could not be resold to non-citizens. Only State Inc. would be eligible to buy back the stock to be reissued to new citizen/investors.

The founders of State Inc. would have the right to present the offer of citizenship to anyone anywhere on the planet. They could cherry pick the world for the best and brightest talent! It would be a component of immigration policy.

Voting could be done by proxies (power of attorney), and the citizen could designate an elected representative as his proxy in writing. Or he could vote himself on any issue. This creates a hybrid between direct democracy and representative democracy.

Think this is unworkable? The largest corporations on the planet have been running this way for hundreds of years. GM (pre-nationization), Exxon, Standard Oil, all of the Dow Jones top 30…they all work this way just fine. Many have millions of shareholders, just like State Inc. would have. In fact, Sweden’s Stora Kopparberg was incorporated by King Magnus Eriksson in 1347 and still operates today.

State Inc. Monetary Policy

The new constitution must have an article about monetary policy. This article will authorize the private minting of gold and silver coins, and will mandate that coins only show their purity and weight, not any monetary value.

Banking, Entity Structure and Privacy

The new constitution must contain an article about banking. Specifically, Fractional Reserve Banking must be prohibited. In addition, strict protections of privacy must be enacted, shielding citizens from the tax laws of other nations.

The new constitution must contain laws that prevent tax treaties with other nations, thereby protecting State Inc. citizens from predatory taxation by other jurisdictions. Statutes must also protect the privacy of business entities such as corporations.


The sole method of taxation that is at once most restrictive to government yet least confiscatory to individuals is the sales tax. State Inc. should establish the sales tax as the sole source of government revenue.

The Militia

State Inc. must organize, train and equip a citizen militia, comprised of every able-bodied man and woman between the ages of 18 and 55. As the well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the natural right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Following the Swiss model of militia organization would be a good idea.

If the new constitution of State Inc. only had those articles about monetary policy, banking, taxation and militia, that would be sufficient to form a core government and bring State Inc. to life. Because the power of the purse and the power of the sword make all else possible. There are many details that must be worked out that are not listed in this article. But this article was not written to form a new government. It was written to get you thinking about constitutions and how they directly affect YOU.

Thomas Jefferson’s shining jewel, the Declaration of Independence, states that when a government shows a long train of abuses meant to reduce the people under absolute despotism, it is the people’s right and duty to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security. State Incorporated could be that new guard that secures the future of a new nation.

State Incorporated. A new model for governance on the American continent. An idea whose time is come.

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

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

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

For a wider analysis of this constitutional issue, read “No Treason,” by Lysander Spooner.

True vs. False Militia and Why The Difference Matters Part 3 of 3

March 14, 2010

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

(Editor’s note: This three-art series was written in 2007, and refers to Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy. But Rep. Paul is more viable and vital now in 2010 than he was before the last election, so the points Vieira makes are timely.)

3. True—that is, constitutional—Militia suffer from none of these defects. Specifically:

•First and foremost, proponents of revitalizing “the Militia of the several States” refuse to assume that “all is lost” already, but instead concern themselves with how We the People, through their Militia, can preserve “the security of a free State” in this country today and throughout the foreseeable future, as the Constitution tells them they can.

•Rather than antagonists of “the government” in general, the Militia are permanent parts of each State’s government in particular, and temporary parts of the General Government when called into the actual service of the United States.

•Far from being organizations of questionable legality, let alone criminal conspiracies, the Militia are declared by the Constitution itself to be “necessary to the security of a free State,” and empowered and required by the Constitution itself to “execute the Laws of the Union.” Moreover, the Militia constitute the best way to put down usurpers and tyrants—because, when such miscreants employ armed force or the threat thereof to violate the law under color of the law, they are in insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution; and the Constitution itself assigns to the Militia the power and the duty to “suppress Insurrections.”

•Revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” can and will succeed, because We the People have the overwhelming numbers to make it work through their State legislatures, one State at a time. After all, proper constitutional Militia will consist not just of a few individuals drawn from a narrow segment of society (such as “the gun culture”), but of the vast majority of individuals enrolled from throughout the community. Militia training and duties will focus not only on firearms, but on all aspects of “homeland security,” much of which will have nothing to do with firearms. Thus, “the Militia of the several States” will need, and be able, to enlist members of the Society of Friends, as well as members of the National Rifle Association. In that way, the Militia will be unifying forces in every State, in the spirit of the “more perfect Union” that the Preamble sets as the Constitution’s very first goal—and in contradiction of the primary tactic of the Forces of Darkness, “divide and conquer.” And through unity will come strength, because We the People will become aware of their authority and power, when they finally concert their own efforts for “the common defense” and “the general Welfare.”

4. All this being so, what is to be done? Just as the Chinese character for “crisis” contains the characters for “opportunity” as well as “danger,” so too does America’s present situation exhibit both a bright and a dark aspect.

a. The bright side is the enthusiastic reception average Americans of all persuasions are giving to the Presidential candidacy of Representative Ron Paul. Now, Representative Paul should be encouraged to make revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” a fundamental, non-negotiable issue in the forefront of his campaign, for several reasons:

•The Militia are constitutionally required. For a constitutionalist President, whom the Constitution explicitly designates as “Commander in Chief * * * of the Militia of the several States,” that alone should suffice.

•Revitalization of the Militia is the best—and I believe the only—way to demolish the National police state now being erected by the NeoConzis and their stooges and fellow travelers in the General Government. And demolishing it must be every common American’s goal, before addressing any other issue—for once a police state clamps down on this country, all hope of peaceful reform will go by the boards. Once united, Ron Paul’s candidacy and a movement to revitalize the Militia could prove unstoppable, because, on both the political “right” and “left,” no one but a handful of supranational fascists, Neoconzis, and other subversives—and their utterly discredited political Pinocchios—wants a National police state.

•Revitalization of the Militia is the best—and I believe the only—way to restore real self-government to America, by having people participate, on a regular basis and in detail, in government in their own States and Localities throughout the periods between elections.

•Perhaps the President’s most important constitutional duty is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” the Constitution itself foremost among them. The Militia are the only establishments to which the Constitution explicitly assigns this function: “to execute the Laws of the Union.” Therefore, as Commander in Chief of the Militia, the President enjoys the constitutional authority to employ the Militia to fulfill his duty to “take Care.” And, in light of the numerous problems facing this country, from the current invasion of illegal immigrants to the imminence of a collapse of the monetary and banking systems, President Paul will need the assistance of the Militia at every turn.

Although he will be President, Ron Paul will not by himself be enough to turn this country around. For he will be a truly constitutional President, with powers the strict limitation of which he recognizes and respects. So he will need the full support of a self-governing people to ensure that “the Laws be faithfully executed” in the face of all the opposition that the Forces of Darkness will incite against him. And the Militia will provide this support. Who else can?

For example, President Paul will surely refuse, on constitutional grounds, to enforce the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and other abusive legislation of that ilk. For the time being, that may suffice. But the long run is a different matter. As a constitutionalist, President Paul cannot formally strike those statutes from the books. Neither can he unilaterally provide by “executive order,” “presidential proclamation,” or some other ukase the necessary new, constitutional “homeland-security” legislation America may require. For such legislation, he must look to a legislature, such as Congress—and perhaps a hostile Congress, at that. Even more important, he must create and leave in place a proper system of “homeland security” based on self-government by We the People. If he does not, some future Administration and subservient Congress may—probably will—put back into place something like the Patriot Act and related legislation, because the Forces of Darkness absolutely require a police state in this country to carry out their nefarious purposes. The only solution to this problem is to revitalize “the Militia of the several States.” As the Militias’ Commander in Chief, President Paul can promote whatever State legislation may be necessary to enable him to fulfill his constitutional duties in that particular. Each of the States can enact the requisite statutes independently of a recalcitrant Congress. And, once again in place, “the Militia of the several States” will provide a permanent bulwark against encroachments on Americans’ liberties by the Forces of Darkness. True federalism at work—the only way it can work under present circumstances.

For another example, the Federal Reserve System cannot be abolished by the President on his own initiative and immediately. And not just for constitutional reasons, either. Reform requires replacement of the banking cartel and its paper currency with constitutional systems of money and banking in such a systematic, carefully measured way as to avoid setting off an economic catastrophe. This will necessitate a gradual “bottom up,” not a sudden “top down,” approach—initially, on a State-by-State basis, so as to create an ever-expanding fait accompli that will force a reluctant Congress to follow suit (for an example, see my “electronic gold currency bill” for New Hampshire, at Obviously, inasmuch as monetary and banking stability is a key aspect of “homeland security,” the Militia can and should play a dominant role in pushing these reforms through at the State and Local levels, and then making them work in practice through the free market.

•A fundamentally important political principle is involved here, too. Even with Ron Paul as President, common Americans will have to stop thinking in terms of the Leader Principle—that is, who is to be President, or who is to control Congress or the Supreme Court—as if these vanishingly few individuals were the political “be all and end all” in this huge country. Instead, Americans must start thinking about—and actually taking charge of—self-government in their own States and Localities. The genius of America is not the Leader Principle, but the Popular Principle. And the Militia are the heart of the Popular Principle. For they put the Power of the Sword into the People’s hands. And with that come all other legitimate powers, “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”

(By the way, I have not discussed this matter with Representative Paul, or in any way been induced to make these suggestions by anyone in his campaign-organization.)

b. On the dark side is the possibility that Representative Paul will not be elected President in 2008. Given that possibility, you had better start working to revitalize “the Militia of the several States” right now—because, if one of the grotesque Republicractic puppet-candidates the Establishment is touting ends up in the White House, Americans will desperately need the Militia. If you do not want to live with serial false-flag “terrorist” strikes across this country; an ever-expanding, never-ending conflict in the Middle East; a draft in order to muster the cannon fodder to fight a billion Muslims to the last American; a domestic police state to suppress dissent in general and “disappear” true patriots in particular; chronic monetary and banking crises; the financial gutting of America’s middle class; national bankruptcy; and the end of America herself through imposition of a North American Union—then you need to participate in a nationwide, grass-roots movement to revitalize the Militia. Immediately, if not sooner.

Now is the time for the people who are America to start saving America. Where you happen to be is as good a place as any to begin. You have the means to do it, in your own hands. You have sufficient allies, in your family members, friends, neighbors, and co-workers. But if you sit back and do nothing, you will have only yourself to blame when you end up with nothing but grief.

© 2007 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved

True vs. False Militia and Why The Difference Matters Part 2 of 3

March 13, 2010

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

(Editor’ note: Mr Vieira, although a Harvard-educated lawyer, is entirely wrong in his first three paragraphs. The truth is that the US Constitution has been dead at least 150 years. Truth is not “sultifying or defeatist,” and does not empower our oppressors. Our oppressors are in Washington, not foreign lands. Truth actually empowers the citizen. When they discover that the Constitution does not bind them to the DC criminals, the citizens are free to make positive changes, like secession. The DC criminals have already accrued to themselves plenty of power by ignoring the Constitution. Seems to me that they are the only ones in this debate that truly understand that the Constitution is dead, and that they are constrained by nothing but equal or greater force. Americans cannot take action until they embrace truth. Then, they can throw off this DC government and secede.)

Besides being wrong, the argument that the Constitution is “dead” is stultifying and defeatist. Stultifying, because it diverts the energies of the most active patriots into a wholly unproductive exercise—the only effective resistance to unconstitutional “government” being, not private action, but the unflagging defense of constitutional government by the people themselves. Defeatist, because, by eschewing constitutional means to oppose unconstitutional “government,” it concedes that some form of unconstitutional “government” will prevail, no matter who “wins” in the end.

In addition, the argument that the Constitution is “dead” encourages and further empowers America’s oppressors. On what legal basis can these villains be opposed, except that their conduct is unconstitutional? How will they be deterred from even worse wrongdoing in the future, if the Constitution provides no punishment today for the wicked deeds they have already committed? And without deterrence, what new horrors will they perpetrate tomorrow under color of some “emergency powers” they invent to rationalize their crimes?

Finally, by encouraging and empowering the Forces of Darkness in their misrule, the argument that the Constitution is “dead” accelerates the approach of a major economic and political crisis. This may be what some of the advocates of private “militias” imagine will be useful, on the theory that, when a massive crisis does strike, common Americans will finally wake up to what has happened and why. Maybe that will be the general reaction. But what good will it do for Americans to wake up, if at the same time they find themselves utterly unprepared to take effective action? All they will know is that they have lost, and that they can do nothing about it!

2. Proposals for private “militia” of this first type are less than helpful, not only because they are inherently ineffective, but also because, when their ineffectiveness becomes apparent, it may goad frustrated people into joining other types of private “militias” which are positively dangerous. This second form of misdirection also suffers from the inescapable defect that private “militias” of any variety can assert no color of legal authority for their specifically “militia”-related activities. However, unlike proposals which at least have the merit that the private “militias” they advocate are not inherently unlawful organizations, the second approach argues for private “militias” the very purpose of which is to prepare their members to engage in patently illegal activities.

These private “militias” are not to be strictly defensive organizations. Quite the contrary, they are intended to be offensive and aggressive. The scheme posits “militia” units the members of which agree—perhaps even bind themselves by oaths—to oppose by any effective means those people whom they condemn as “traitors.” Peacefully, if possible; but violently, if they deem it necessary. They will organize, arm, and train themselves as guerrilleros, more or less openly, in apparent compliance with local laws in the States that allow such private paramilitary activities for peaceful purposes. But, when a particular day for action arrives, some members of these “militia” units, on their own initiatives, will take violent action against perceived “traitors.” The rest of the units will do nothing, although they will be aware of the plan for some of them to act. Thus, on one day some of these “militiamen” may conduct an operation against one target, on another day others of them may strike another target, and so on.

These operations will be random, adventitious, decentralized, and uncoordinated—except that they will all radiate from the various “militia” units. The individuals carrying them out will be subject to no single, hierarchical chain of command or structure of leadership. Rather, they will answer only to themselves—except that they will imagine that their authority somehow derives from the “militia” units of which they are members; and in fact they will be at least tacitly supported by the others in those units. And inasmuch as this proposal presumes that “the government” cannot be actually overthrown by such minuscule “hit-and-run” operations (because the plan makes no provision for coalescing the “militia” units into suitably large and properly directed forces), these activities will continue to harass and punish “the government” and its supporters endlessly, in a “perpetual revolution.”

Obviously, under a scheme of this type, the private “militias” will function—and, more importantly, will be understood and intended by all their members to function—as locations and mechanisms to recruit, organize, indoctrinate, train, and deploy clandestine “cells” or (perhaps more descriptively) “wolf-packs” of self-authorized, self-activated, self-directed outlaws, who will form up, strike, then disperse and dissolve into their component individuals, perhaps never having the same composition in any two instances.

Even if such operations could ever prove legitimate in a guerrilla conflict in some gloomy future scenario drawn from Orwell’s 1984, they are completely out of place for reasserting constitutional self-government in this country here and now. Indeed, such proposals constitute a perfect formula for discrediting all “militias” as criminal conspiracies by designing some of them actually to operate as criminal conspiracies.

If an individual joins a group, for the purpose of training all the members of the group, and is aware that some members of the group, using their training, will engage in acts of illegal violence, and that to encourage, prepare for, and perpetrate such acts is the ultimate purpose of the group—then that individual as well as every other member of the group will be equally culpable for each and every one of the illegal acts committed by any member of the group. In such a group, therefore, every member will be held hostage: (i) to the acts of the most irresponsible, demented, or otherwise dangerous individual in the group; and (ii) to enticement, entrapment, and other schemes of agents provocateurs from rogue governmental agencies and malicious private organizations that ensnare any member of the group. For example, if but one member of such a private “militia” (on his own or through entrapment) converted a semi-automatic firearm into an unregistered machine gun or submachine gun; obtained grenades or similar munitions; or manufactured bombs, Molotov cocktails, or other explosives or incendiaries as the preliminary step to some act of violence directed (say) against a public official—then the whole group could be charged as a criminal conspiracy (such as some variety of criminal syndicalism), or even as a “terrorist” organization.

That being so, forming private “militias” of this sort would obviously be a most efficacious way to identify, inculpate, and eventually incarcerate patriots whose enthusiasm for freedom exceeded their prudence and respect for law. This is so obvious that no responsible American should ever consider participating in such an organization. For, not only would any individual who joined such a group transform himself into an outlaw, but also his participation would help to blacken the militia movement and discredit the militia idea, to alienate the rest of the citizenry, and to rationalize police-state suppression of every kind of private concerted activity involving firearms.

A scheme such as that explained above can be the product only of people who are either breathtakingly irresponsible and ignorant individuals—or transparent agents provocateurs. The latter possibility is not unlikely, because the whole business exhibits the familiar characteristics of rogue intelligence-agency “black operations”: namely,

*urging Americans to engage in active resistance against “traitors” in “the government”;
*organizing the most highly motivated patriots into discreet groups subject to infiltration, surveillance, and incitement;
*inveigling them into violent illegal activity; then
*imposing overwhelming force to strike them down as “outlaws”; and thereafter
*using their example to demonize and destroy every other manifestation of even lawful opposition to usurpation and tyranny.

Even if the people who advocate schemes for such werewolfish private “militias” are not agents provocateurs—even if somehow they are acting in good faith, albeit with atrocious judgment—any responsible American must categorically oppose what they propose. As far as I am concerned, no one who advances such an idea (or sympathizes with it, for that matter) is qualified, or should be allowed, under any circumstances, to join one of the Citizens’ Homeland Security Associations that I have advocated in my book Constitutional “Homeland Security,” Volume One, The Nation in Arms.

© 2007 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective.

He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes.

His latest book is: “How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary” … and Constitutional “Homeland Security,” Volume One, The Nation in Arms…

He can be reached at:
13877 Napa Drive
Manassas, Virginia 20112.