Putting the Session Into Perspective

posted by Mark Moore on Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:40

"Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Yes friends, it is possible for one tragic event to cancel out all the hard work of the script writers, actors, producers and stage hands.   It is reasonable to suppose that on the night Lincoln was assassinated that none of them expressed displeasure than no one was talking about the "positives" of their performance.  It is extremely likely they understood that the one Big Bad Thing that happened that night eclipsed whatever good they did in the theater.  It wasn't just, because they had no responsibility for the one Big Bad Thing that happened that night, but still, they understood.

More.......

Chuck Baldwin: Communist Chinese Government Opposes Secession Too

Communist Chinese government opposes the concept and of course the right of secession, just as the federal government does in the United States today, just as Great Britain did in 1776. In a recently released government report, known as, White Paper, the Chinese government expressed its policy on censuring internet use against those Chinese citizens who spread “contents subverting state power, undermining national unity, infringing upon national honor and interests, inciting ethnic hatred and secession.”[1] Is there any wonder why such a communist government opposes the idea of secession, independence and self-government and categorizes such a proposal as an “incitement against national unity”?

Totalitarian and autocratic governments always oppose, by force of the sword and by the rule of their law, any effort which diminishes their power, control, resources and tax base. Such a government needs all of the people, property, assets and money it can use to sustain its pyramidal operation of bureaucracy, police and military. It must have a way to pay for its nation-building endeavor in creating the nirvana of being untouchable and unreachable by the people. It is a vicious trap and cycle of enslavement of the people, which can hardly be broken except through the natural law remedy of secession. For this reason, totalitarian and autocratic governments always oppose secession. So, why does the U.S. federal government oppose secession? After all, it supports the secession of states from unions in foreign countries (e.g. Yugoslavia), as well as the secession of parts of society who desire to secede from even a consolidated foreign nation (e.g. Sudan, Pakistan).

We are told that the United States must absolutely remain in what has grown from a union of thirteen[2] states of 3.5 million people, in a relatively small geographical area on the eastern sea-board of America, composed almost entirely of agrarian, Christian, self-governing, pre-Industrial-age communities to what is now a union of fifty states of some 400 million people across and even beyond an entire continent, composed of an assortment of sparse agrarian, urban and highly-concentrated and –populated cities, with religious, moral and philosophical kaleidoscope diversity, with illegal-alien-filled, non-self-governing, government-dependent, post-Industrial-age communities. We are told that the U.S. Constitution demands this union; that this union is what the founding fathers envisioned; that this is freedom and this is what protects freedom. I say, they are crazy, manipulative, ignorant or worse. Their position is the means by which an encroaching government gains a stronghold in society and politics and becomes virtually impenetrable through normal means.

The Chinese government claims secession is wrong because it opposes “national unity.” Hitler’s Germany declared the same thing. The U.S. federal government and others who blindly support forced union say the same thing. So, what is “national unity”? At what price is it purchased? How is this unity accomplished? How is it maintained? Is it natural to conceive that this unity would last forever? And is national unity a matter of force or a matter of choice?[3]

Despite those who advocate for the ancient-like, hereditary-right-to-rule notions of forced union, national unity can only be achieved on a large scale where self-government permeates local and state communities and where the people at large share such similarities morally, socially and politically as to allow cohesiveness of purpose through conscience choice, not brute force. Author and historian, Ramsay Muir, acknowledges this natural and necessary component to maintain a free society and government, stating:

“When a community is divided by deep and irreconcilable antipathies…discussion becomes futile and agreement impossible, and the attempt at self-government leads only to anarchy…In the great modern state unity of sentiment is indeed a hard thing to create. It has, in fact, been created only be one force—by what we call the national spirit….[T]he national spirit is indeed the only factor which has yet been discovered that can make self-government as real a thing in the large state as it was in the little city-state.”[4]

So, what is “national spirit”? Naturally, it consists of such required similarities as to morally unite a people in purpose and direction, the reasons for which societies join together. In America, it has to be defined at first by the principles announced in the Declaration of Independence, which in turn, created the principles of voluntary union. That document explains that there is in fact a Creator God; that man is created by God; that God created natural laws which comprise the Supreme law of the Universe; that God is the sole determiner for the rectitude of our intentions; that man has the right to govern himself; that certain societies gather together for a certain purpose; that man inherently possesses God-given, immutable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; that it is the individual responsibility of man to use his rights for his own happiness and provision; that governments are instituted by society for the limited purpose of securing rights; that no government has a right beyond what a body-politic consents to; that a body-politic can alter or abolish its government upon its will and determination. From the very starting point of the analysis, there is no such thing as one national spirit in the United States.

There are in fact numerous, opposing spirits throughout these vast territories, and it is impossible to force a unified national spirit down those people’s throats. What compounds the problem of national spirit and unity in the U.S. even more is that the unity of America is supposed to circle around the camp of the U.S. Constitution and its foundational principles. The U.S. Constitution’s purpose is not to create the unity of the people. It presupposes a pre-existing unity of the people. That the American people would unite together under the fundamental truths derived from human nature, which formed the U.S. Constitution, when there is no unity of sentiment regarding those fundamentals, is impossible, not even considering social, moral, commercial, and philosophical considerations. Not too surprisingly then, when “national unity” is observed from this perspective, the United States is actually opposed and divided in spirit.

How can there be a national spirit when most people are not even educated enough in the principles of 1776 to 1787? “Where these qualities [of complete education] are lacking, the institution of the forms of self-government must lead either to anarchy, or to the enthronement of unscrupulous intriguers who play upon the ignorance of the voters and their lack of political intelligence.”[5]

The U.S. Constitution was formed and ratified on the presumption that certain fundamental elements of society and government were commonly shared by all of the States.[6] So what does that do to our union which purportedly exists on the basis diversity? You think that that force is doing the people well? To the utter contrary, you are festering wounds that are not able to heal; you are deepening the tensions in people’s hearts; you are causing the spirits of people to become more acrimoniously divided. In effect, you are ruining this country.

As society expands its political scope and states are added to a union, the national unity and spirit naturally and inevitably becomes divided. Even during the 1780s, when the people of the thirteen states looked like identical multiple-birth siblings compared to the makeup of the States today, there existed a common trepidation of forming a single union under the U.S. Constitution given the diversity that existed at that time. Patrick Henry, the father of the Spirit of 1776, believed that the U.S. Constitution would become an “instanc[e] of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few.”[7] Many believed that the union of those thirteen states would be far too big for freedom to be maintained and that as such, three or four confederacy unions should be formed instead.[8] The only reason one union was formed in spite of those concerns was because of the presumed similarities of the people, which are now gone. G.W. Bush admitted this in 2001: “Sometimes [America’s] differences run so deep, it seems we share a continent, but not a country.”[9] Indeed.

In truth, the more complex and diverse society becomes, the more decentralized the government should be. To maintain freedom, this is a natural law. Eric Johnston, former president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, pointed out:

“Those who argue that the complexity of modern life makes such concentration [of power in the federal government] necessary are on the wrong track. The contrary is true. The more complicated and varied our life, the less logic there is in setting up over-all authorities who cannot possibly cope with the endless variants of national problems.”[10]

As we have seen in America over the past century, this logic has been rejected and “the national spirit does not exist [anymore]…[Consequently,] self-government in any real sense cannot exist; and if its institutions are established, their effect will either be nullified by the CLASH OF CONFLICTING AND IRRECONCILABLE FACTIONS…or they will afford to the better organized master-race the means of imposing its ruthless dominion upon its recalcitrant subjects.”[11] This “clash of conflicting and irreconcilable factions” was foretold by those who contested ratification of the U.S. Constitution (the realities of such prophecies we observe and experience today):

“In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, THERE WILL BE A CONSTANT CLASHING OF OPINIONS; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving, against those of the other. This will…prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good.”[12]

Like communist China, the federal government rejects the freedom of true self-government and self-determination. They declare that the matter of secession has been “settled by the Civil War,”[13] yet they continually aid foreign states in their efforts of secession. Hypocritically so, what they “grant” to foreign citizens, they deny to American citizens. The federal government insists that the game of freedom be played in their stadium, with their referees, under their rules, with their playbooks, with all participants mandatorily required to pay their perpetual fees to enter the game, with threats of corporeal punishment if you fail to comply or determine to play in another stadium altogether. They encourage as much clashing of conflicts between the parties involved, because they know that they largely control the channels of thought among the masses of people and ultimately determine the outcome of the winner anyway.

Stupidly so, some people who claim to love freedom in America criticize those who advocate for secession and who propose that it be discussed in a serious and deliberate manner. They say, “Now is not the time to be talking about such drastic measures, so shut up!” What utter nonsense! That is exactly what the not-so-virtuous communist Chinese government says as well to its not-so-free citizens in the name of the patriotic-sounding cliché, “national unity.” That the federal government does not want us talking about secession should give us a good indication of just how successful and effective it would be.

As long as the people are hush, hush about real methods of obtaining real freedom for now and for our posterity, slavery’s cement only dries harder and faster, requiring those who would be free from its smothering grip to break loose with much more draconian means. Such an approach to preserving freedom and self-government pushes men in a corner; requires men to resort to pure brute force to determine which side takes the victory and spoil; and reduces societies to animalistic approaches.

“Only by [self-government’s] victory can the [United States] be freed from the poisonous influence of the Doctrine of Power.”[14] But as long as the people comply with the view of the United States federal government and Communist Chinese government concerning secession, Brute Power will grow stronger and live on, as will the apple of his eye: Utter Slavery.

[1] Scott McDonald, China says it will keep blocking online content, AP report posted on wtop.com (June 8, 2010), found at http://www.wtop.com/?nid=108&sid=1975183 (emphasis added).

[2] In reality, it could have been only nine states, as only nine states were needed to ratify the U.S. Constitution.

[3] “[We are called upon to decide whether] societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 1 (emphasis added).

[4] Ramsay Muir, National Self-Government, (New York, NY, Henry, Holt and Co., 1918), 8-9 (emphasis added).

[5] National Self-Government, 7-8.

[6] “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.” John Jay, Federalist Paper 2 (emphasis added).

[7] William Wirt, The Life and Character of Patrick Henry, (New York, NY, Derby & Jackson, 1857; reprint by Home School Legal Defense Assoc., Purceville, VA, 1998), 291.

[8] “[W]e must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper (FP) 1. “[It is] suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one.” John Jay, FP 2. “[The States should be] divided into several confederacies… The ideas of men who speculate upon the dismemberment of the empire seem generally turned toward three confederacies.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 13. “[There are] advocates for three or four confederacies.” John Jay, FP 5.

[9] George W. Bush, “Text of Bush’s Inaugural Speech,” Associated Press, January 20, 2001.

[10] Eric Johnston, America Unlimited, (Garden City, NY, Doubleday, Doran and Company, Inc., 1944), 84.

[11] National Self-Government, 9 (emphasis added).

[12] Brutus and Ralph Ketcham, ed., The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates, (New York: Signet Classic, 2003), 277 (emphasis added).

[13] “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.” Justice Scalia in a letter written to a screenwriter. Scalia: “There Is No Right to Secede” found here.

[14] National Self-Government, 282.

Click the image to listen to Mark Moore, with Patriots on Watch Net Radio, discuss this year's political crisis in America and Arkansas, our role in it all, and the importance of thinking outside the box in times like these:

People all over America are discussing freedom’s future. In short, they are worried. In fact, many are actually talking about State secession. In coffee shops and cafes, and around dining room tables, millions of people are speaking favorably of states breaking away from the union. Not since the turn of the twentieth century have this many people thought (and spoken) this favorably about the prospect of a State (or group of states) exiting the union. In my mind, this is a good thing.

Even many of those who oppose the prospect of secession understand the increasing tyrannical nature of the current central government in Washington, D.C., and that something must be done about it.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines tyranny as “1: oppressive power . . . 2: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler . . . 3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force . . . 4: a tyrannical act.”

Even a casual observer would have to conclude that most of the actions proceeding forth from DC today match at least Webster’s 1st and 3rd definitions of tyranny. Besides, who would argue the advantage of the tyranny of an oligarchy over the tyranny of a monarchy? A tyranny of many cannot be distinguished from a tyranny of one in most cases–especially not by those poor souls who are at the point of the spear of Government’s cruelties.

The fact is, there is collusion between Big Government and Big Business (as each feeds and profits off the other) to strip the American people of their God-given liberties. Without a shadow of a doubt, had America’s Founding Fathers not sagaciously cemented the Second Amendment into the US Constitution, the Jackboots would have marched over us years ago.

That freedom-loving people are reaching a point of frustration–and even fury–is quite understandable. And State secession is, very properly, the last best option for freedomists to maintain fidelity to the principles of liberty. All of America’s founders understood this–all of them! And millions of modern-day American patriots are just now beginning to become reacquainted with this great, historic doctrine.

However, whether one subscribes to the doctrine of secession or not is quite immaterial. The breakup of the US is inevitable! Short of another Great Awakening, nothing can stop it. And given the spiritual deadness of most American churches these days, the prospect of a modern-day national revival seems remote at best.

It is a historical fact that no empire can sustain itself. And America is more and more becoming a global empire. For the sake of simplicity, I ask readers to ponder this question: How can one sustain a global economy without global government to manage and control it? Answer: One can’t.

This is why elitists in politics, economics, and the military have been calling for global government for decades. People such as George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Walter Cronkite, Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Gideon Rachman, Warren Christopher, Walt Rostow, Richard Gardner, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Pastor, et al. Furthermore, organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral Commission are constantly promoting regional or global unification. Moreover, institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and, of course, the United Nations (UN) all contribute to the escalation of globalism.

I have written two previous columns outlining much relevant information on this very real promotion of globalism. See them at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=84

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=86

Therefore, it is safe to say that, for the most part, America’s foreign policy is (and has been) controlled and manipulated by globalists. Accordingly, America’s armed forces are used more and more as international policemen to patrol the streets of the world on behalf of this international cabal of merchants and politicians. The cover for this is the mantra of fighting an international “war on terrorism.” But the real agenda is, keeping our troops fighting in perpetual war so that they might be available to the globalists at the UN and US State Department (not to mention countless “off the books” operations being run by the CIA and a host of other agencies) for the purpose of maintaining the “global economy” (and only God knows how many illegal enterprises).

Perpetual war also allows the Machiavellians who desire to turn America into a police state to increasingly encroach upon constitutionally protected liberties by keeping the populace in a perpetual state of fear. After all, as long as our troops are “over there” fighting (and making) enemies, we will always need Big Brother to keep us safe “over here.” And the only way he can do that is by putting us all in cages; but hey, it’s for our own good, right?

And, of course, this new “global force for good” must itself be reshaped into an image compatible with the political correctness of the New World Order. Hence, more and more women are being placed in combat units. In fact, females are now the fastest growing group of enlistees within the US armed forces. And for the first time in US history, women are now approved to serve aboard submarines. (I am sure submariners’ wives are thrilled about this!)

“How does flooding the US military with women fit into the scheme of the globalists?” you ask. Simple. By reducing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of our military forces, it requires them to be part of a “coalition” force. Come on, folks, figure it out: our troops are always part of some sort of global “coalition” army. They always serve in concert with NATO, or the UN, or at the behest of some other global entity.

And please, I don’t need readers to write me with great indignation, calling me “sexist.” Get real! If women can serve in combat equally with men, why not have an all-female combat infantry division? How about an all-female tank division? Let’s have an all-female Navy warship! What about an all-female Navy SEAL team or Army Special Forces team? If, then, women are inefficient in combat as a unit, they are equally inefficient in combat individually. Wise up, people! It is critical to the globalists controlling Washington politics that our military be integrated with foreign entities. Allowing the weaker vessels to dilute the warrior-strength of our combat units helps to accomplish this in spades!

Folks, this new American empire is not sustainable. Mark it down: the American empire will follow every other notable empire of antiquity and collapse under its own weight. The signs are already ubiquitous.

In its attempt to entice illegal aliens (a necessary component to the globalization of America) by providing them with almost complete and universal welfare benefits, the Empire has saddled the states with a monstrous debt and has planted the seeds for its own fragmentation.

The American Southwest is a boiling caldron. Revolutionaries, violent criminal gangs, agitators, drug runners, human traffickers, and agent provocateurs–all loyal to Mexico–have been allowed to freely unleash their anti-American vitriol to the point that, in desperation, the State of Arizona is now trying to fight back. It is probably too little too late, however. Both the central government in Washington, D.C., and the national news media are sympathetic to the cause of La Raza. Look at how those brave legislators and governor in Arizona have been lampooned by the national press corps.

The call for the “reconquista” of America’s great Southwest will continue to escalate. It is all part of the globalists’ plan to regionalize the United States. The template is already in place. CFR’s Robert Pastor has already done the legwork. The North American Community (or Union) is past the drawing table stage; it is now being implemented. The NAFTA superhighway is being built and La Raza has been unleashed on the frontier. It’s only a matter of time.

Furthermore, take a look at the staggering debt that this government in Washington, D.C., has burdened the American people with. To talk numbers is meaningless: they total more than we can possibly begin to fathom. These numbers shock sensibilities and strain comprehension. In this regard, toss away all notions of partisan politics. Both major parties in DC have forever plunged our children and grandchildren’s future into a chasm of indebtedness so deep that it can never be recovered. Never!

Yet again, perpetual war has accomplished its purpose: unmitigated debt has allowed international bankers to print and loan vast sums of paper money that can be used to further their dreams of a global economy, complete with a mutually palatable system of burgeoning global governance.

I say again, the American empire is not sustainable; the breakup of the United States is inevitable. It is only a matter of time. The real question is not IF the US will breakup, but WHEN and HOW?

Globalists are already planning America’s breakup. Indeed, their plans for the future global economy DEMAND that America fracture. So, all of those who want to parade around and pontificate about the “unconstitutionality” and “impracticality” of secession can do so to their hearts’ content. It changes nothing. The breakup is coming.

What is yet to be seen, of course, is if there will be enough states (the last vanguards of liberty) with the foresight to recognize the rise of tyranny and globalism as it approaches, and muster the courage and fortitude to do what principled patriots and lovers of liberty have always done: draw their line in the sand for freedom. Call it what you will; debate the definitions and language all you like; it all comes down to the same thing: either men fight for freedom and independence or they allow themselves and their children to be sold into slavery. At some point in the future (how far in the future, no one knows), we Americans will, once again, have to face that decision.

In the meantime, keep talking about freedom around your coffee tables; keep writing about freedom in your books and columns; keep praying about freedom in your churches and closets; keep dreaming about freedom in your hearts and minds. Real freedom–where a man can be left alone; where a man can keep what he earns; where a man can make his own choices; where a man’s property is his own; where harassing agents of an oppressive central government are nowhere to be found; where a man doesn’t have to sell his soul in order to sell his wares; where a man’s worship of God is not subject to political correctness (or the IRS); and where a man can actually exchange commerce and correspondence without the prying eyes of Big Brother–is worth any price. ANY PRICE!

As Barry Goldwater said, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” Amen! And if the pursuit of freedom requires the extremism of secession, I say, LET IT COME!

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19