THE
BASTARDY OF "MARTIAL LAW"
By Dr. Edwin
Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
August 9, 2014
August 9, 2014
My
latest book - By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of "Martial
Law" - is now available through Amazon. Its title
encapsulates its theme: namely, that "martial law" (as most Americans
conceive of it) is a wholly illegitimate concept which appeals to some
supposed, but false, "necessity" in order to establish a very real
tyranny.
Some
might say that, in light of the present parlous condition of the Republic, and
especially the pathetic indifference of average Americans to this sorry state
of affairs, writing such a book will prove to be a fool's errand on my part-or
perhaps a hopeless task quixotically undertaken for the benefit of fools.
Obviously, I disagree. I consider the subject-matter of this book to be vital
to this country's survival.
To
be sure, By Tyranny Out of Necessity is not the most important book which I
have written on the general subject of the place of the Militia in America's
constitutional edifice. The others-Constitutional "Homeland
Security", Volume One, The Nation in Arms; Constitutional "Homeland
Security", Volume Two, The Sword and Sovereignty; Thirteen Words; and
Three Rights-were more significant in principle, because if patriots in
sufficient numbers had paid attention to the message those works conveyed, and
had taken action upon it, the danger of "martial law" would already
be well on the way to being obviated. As of now, however, By Tyranny Out of
Necessity is the most important of my books in practice, precisely because most
Americans have not been paying attention-not so much to my works, but to the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution upon which those works are
based.
Now,
people are becoming increasingly worried about the imposition of "martial
law" in the course of some jury-rigged "national emergency".
They are being told by "the Powers That Be" that "martial
law" is legitimate, and that sufficient steps are being taken to prepare
for it-especially in the para-militarization of State and Local
"law-enforcement" and "emergency-management" agencies.
Through the media, they have witnessed an example of the implementation of
"martial law", on a small yet highly organized scale, in Watertown,
Massachusetts, hard upon the bombing of the 2013 Boston Marathon. Many of them
have had personal experiences with the bestiality of "martial law" in
the myriad episodes of unpunished "police brutality" which take place
almost every day throughout this country. Yet, overall, most Americans have no
idea whether "martial law" is even lawful or not-but apparently are
resigned to the belief that nothing can be done to stop it from being imposed
upon them.
One
would presume that, in light of the seriousness of the matter, Americans would
ask: "What is 'martial law'?" and "How is 'martial law'
legal?" Certainly, proof of the illegality of "martial law"-in
any of its particulars, let alone as a whole-would provide a firm foundation
for opposing it, and for deposing from public office those individuals who
propose it. So I anticipate (or at least hope) that By Tyranny Out of
Necessity, which demonstrates in exhaustive detail why the common misconception
of "martial law" is industrial-strength bunkum, will be a smashing
success in terms of its usefulness among patriots who intend to keep their
heads out of the sand, their feet on the ground, and their eyes on the ultimate
goal of living in what the Second Amendment calls "a free State".
Yes,
one would presume, perhaps even expect, that such would be the case. Yet hoping
does not make it so. There remains the possibility that this country has
already plunged so far off the deep end of Spengler's Der Untergang des
Abendlandes that nothing can be done to salvage the Constitution, the
Declaration of Independence, or any semblance of "a free State". What
might constitute evidence for that lugubrious conclusion?
A.
The evidence.
That I have had to write By Tyranny Out of Necessity
(or, for that matter, any of my books touching on the Militia) is prime
evidence of the decay into which this country has fallen. For, as By Tyranny
Out of Necessity explains, the Militia are, as they always have been, the
definitive preventive of and answer to "martial law", or any other
manifestation of usurpation or tyranny. No threat of "martial law"
would exist if Americans were properly organized in "the Militia of the
several States", because any constitutionally valid form of
"law" that needed enforcement by "martial" institutions
against civilians would be the civil laws of the Union and of the several
States executed by the Militia-that is, by WE THE PEOPLE themselves.
Even
the half-witted rogues in the Disgrace of Columbia would think long and hard
about the inadvisability of attempting to invoke "martial law" if WE
THE PEOPLE awakened to their own constitutional authority in the Militia;
refused to recognize the legitimacy of any form of "law" that needed
"martial" enforcement against civilians, but was not executed by or
under the control of the Militia; organized themselves for the purpose of
revitalizing the Militia by means of State legislation under the States'
reserved constitutional authority in that respect; and through that effort
prepared themselves to oppose "martial law" even if that legislation
could not be enacted in time in every State.
Emphasis
on the last point is vital: Even if patriots could not succeed in having proper
Militia statutes enacted throughout this country before a major economic,
political, and social breakdown occurred, they could at least motivate,
educate, organize, equip, and train tens of thousands of Americans who would be
capable of acting collectively in their and their country's interests. This
critical mass does not exist at present; and it will never come into being
unless and until adequate steps are taken to revitalize the Militia. Perhaps
only a small part of it can be amalgamated before a calamity strikes. But
something for some is better than nothing for all-a self-evident truth to which
every passenger who found a seat in one of the few lifeboats on the Titanic
would have attested.
B.
Some of the responsible parties.
The plain fact is, however, that neither "the Militia of the several
States" nor any significant movements in favor of revitalizing the Militia
exist in any State. Who is to blame for this? Of course, "the Powers That
Be" and their partisans, clients, stooges, and hangers-on are the primary
culprits-because the very last thing they want is for WE THE PEOPLE to organize
themselves in the institutions which the Constitution describes as
"necessary to the security of a free State". "The Powers That
Be", after all, recoil from "a free State" as vampires recoil
from garlic. Yet they are not the only responsible parties. Many other
Americans are at fault, too. For example-
*
The catastrophards.
These doomsayers contend that it is useless to promote the revitalization of
the Militia (or any other constitutional reform, for that matter), because all
is already irretrievably lost. A national catastrophe, in one horrendous
manifestation or another, is inevitable, imminent, unavoidable, and
unmitigable. Perhaps surprisingly, in the front ranks of these people march
certain lay preachers who declaim in the style of prophets out of the Old
Testament how this country is "under judgment" and will soon be
destroyed by the hand of God. Well, if that is so, then good riddance to it.
But is that prophecy true? Apparently their voices have not reminded them that
God still helps those who help themselves.
Neither
have their voices recommended to them the alternative explanation of
contemporary events, that Americans have not yet failed Heaven's test, but are
being tested right now-that all of the cultural bolshevism, pessimism,
decadence, perversion, depravity, criminality, corruption, usurpation, and even
tyranny from which America suffers is being allowed to afflict her so that WE
THE PEOPLE can finally screw their courage to the sticking place and reassert
the principles of "a free State" under "the Laws of Nature and
of Nature's God"-and that "judgment" will befall them only if
they fail, neglect, or refuse to pass this test.
*
The appeasers.
Amazing (at least to me) is how many self-styled "patriots" are
actually rather abject appeasers of and collaborators with "the Powers
That Be". This manifests itself most strikingly and sickeningly in the
childish fear of "the M word" endemic in these people. How many times
have I heard it said, and all too accurately so, that "even most of those
Americans who support the Second Amendment do not want to be associated with
anything concerning 'militia'"? How, though, is this possible? Precisely
how can someone claim to support the Second Amendment while at the same time
repudiating the constitutional institutions which the Amendment itself declares
to be "necessary to the security of a free State"? What good is
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" if it does not
conduce to "the security of a free State"? And how can it do so if
"the people" do not employ it in the Militia which the Amendment
itself declares to be "necessary to" that purpose?
One
can understand why various subversive organizations and individuals, in public
office as well as private station, stridently demonize the word
"militia". They are intent, after all, not simply on tarring a word,
but on psychologically terrorizing all Americans so that they can prevent the
reinstatement of the very establishments which the Constitution itself declares
to be "necessary to the security of a free State"-and thereby insure
the destruction of "a free State" everywhere within this country.
Beyond understanding, though, is what those self-styled "patriots"
who appease these subversives by distancing themselves from, if not demonizing,
the word "militia" expect to gain from such craven and stupid
behavior. Collaboration of that ilk can only hasten the day when no "free
State" exists anywhere in America.
If
these appeasers are ashamed of and unwilling to support their own Constitution
with respect to what it declares in no uncertain terms to be
"necessary", they should emigrate to North Korea, where even
lip-service is not paid to the principles and practices of "a free
State". They would do truly patriotic Americans a favor, because the
departure of each defeatist collaborator from this country would give those
patriots who remained that much of a better chance to prevail-at least to the
extent of not having constantly to worry about being stabbed in the back.
*
The intellectual élite.
A not insignificant part of the self-styled "patriotic" leadership in
this country contends that next to nothing can be done to dam the political,
economic, social, and cultural sewage pouring out of the Disgrace of Columbia
because, although the intellectually acute leaders themselves fully understand
what needs doing, average Americans are little more than bovine morons whom the
leaders simply cannot educate or motivate to do the right thing. So it is
supposedly hopeless to expect "the sheeple" ever to understand the
need to revitalize the Militia. This, however, is pathetic special pleading on
two counts.
First,
those in glass houses should not cast stones. If the sheeple are stupid, are
the shepherds any smarter? How many among the self-obsessed intellectual élite
of the "patriotic" leadership really understand the Declaration of
Independence, the Constitution, and especially the relationship between the
two? How many realize what the Second Amendment calls "a free State"
actually is? How many are willing to do what is required to guarantee the
survival of "a free State"? And, most to the point, how many pay any
attention to the only institutions the Constitution itself declares to be
"necessary to the security of a free State"? Apparently not very
many. For how many among the leadership support, or even mention,
revitalization of the Militia?
Second,
only a poor workman blames his tools. By hypothesis, average people need
"leaders" because they are incapable of "leading"
themselves. True "leaders" qualify as such because they are extraordinary
individuals who demonstrate the capacity to show average people the right way
to go. Therefore, the primary responsibility of "leaders" among the
intellectual élite is always to devise a means to educate the people, not to
complain about how uneducable they are. Just as a cabinetmaker must hone his
chisels to fine edges in order to perform satisfactory work, if the people's
wits are dull the first task of the leadership must be to sharpen them. So, if
America's "patriotic" leadership does comprehend what is
"necessary to the security of a free State", its failure to pass on
to average citizens the gist of this knowledge is more likely its own fault,
rather than the fault of its pupils. The leadership cannot justly blame the
people for its own sloth and incompetence.
*
The "patriotic" gurus of the ether. The gurus who haunt the "patriotic"
alternative media of websites, blogs, videos, talk radio, and so on make their
livings by expatiating endlessly on the terrifying dangers that are impinging
upon this country. In style, they are strikingly akin to the gnats of summer.
They flit wildly from one topic to another (or provide a plethora of links that
encourages their audiences to do so). They buzz with the artificial excitement
of the moment. Sometimes they bite with trenchant comments. But, when all is
said and done, their effect remains ephemeral.
No
one remembers tomorrow what they said yesterday. This is because, although they
are often good at identifying obvious problems in the short term, they always
seem unable to propose really workable long-term solutions. They sometimes can
tell Americans what is going wrong, but almost never delve into how to set it
right. Perhaps this is because they are unable to grasp that, although the
day-to-day problems may change, the underlying causes of-and the ultimate
solutions to-them never do. Or perhaps it is because they do grasp that the
ever-intensifying difficulties assaulting Americans are (as the Chinese say)
their very own rice bowls, without which they would have to find other sources
of employment and income. Whatever the reason, they tend to be more public
nuisances than public benefactors, because their viewers, readers, and
listeners imagine that they have done something useful by tuning in, or that they
need not do anything else, or that nothing more can be done.
In
contrast, the Constitution sets out certain fixed principles of permanent value
for WE THE PEOPLE'S control of the institutions called "government"
at every level of the federal system. The most important of these is that
"[a] well regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a
free State", because the overarching purpose of the Constitution is to
secure "a free State" for all Americans. One would hope that THE
PEOPLE would not need any "patriotic" gurus (or anyone else) to
remind them of that. Yet, inasmuch as THE PEOPLE seem to have temporarily
forgotten this principle-as evidenced by the absence of "well regulated
Militia" in all of the fifty States-to be worth their salt the gurus
should be emphasizing it at every opportunity. That they are not is revealing.
*
The members of "private militias". It is worse than simplistic to
dismiss the members of various "private militias" scattered across
this country as mere rustic buffoons who stupidly imagine themselves capable of
employing Eighteenth-Century tactics to save America from Twenty-first-Century
tyranny. For they at least understand that it is more intelligent to put some
extra lifeboats on the Titanic before she sails, than to attempt to cobble a
few together from deck chairs as she is sinking. They at least comprehend that
it is more prudent to organize their families, friends, and neighbors into what
they mistakenly call "militia" before a nationwide crisis breaks out
and "the Powers That Be" invoke "martial law", rather than
afterwards. For obviously it is better to bring together as many people as
possible in cooperative endeavors on the basis of common plans before any such
crisis supervenes-rather than when society is in utter disarray; when in the
midst of chaos patriots are compelled to act as individuals or in small groups
who or which do not even know of each other's existences; and when, realizing
their own isolation and lack of support from anyone else, patriots cannot depend
upon or even minimally trust their own neighbors.
Nonetheless, the members of these
"private militias" have grasped only the less important half of the
right idea. In the final analysis, the organization of such groups is useless
for restoring constitutional government, for the undeniable reason that, even
if they are perfectly legal in all other respects, "private militia"
by definition possess no governmental character. True constitutional
"Militia" are governmental establishments of the several States,
"well regulated" by statutes according to certain definite constitutional
principles. In contrast, being the products of purely private action, no
"private militias" can claim any governmental, let alone specifically
constitutional, authority. And without such authority no "private
militias" can assert the constitutional right, power, and duty to execute
the laws of the Union and of the several States in a "martial"
fashion against usurpers and tyrants who attempt to inflict "martial
law" upon Americans anywhere within this country.
Indeed,
if the misplaced enthusiasm for "private militias" did not derive
originally from the machinations of agents provocateurs and agents of influence
despatched by the CIA, the FBI, or the BATF, it ought to have. For nothing
could be more useful to "the Powers That Be" than: (i) to goad
patriots into expending their energies on purely private and uncoordinated
activities, rather than on efforts to revitalize the constitutional
establishments which embody and empower popular sovereignty;
(ii)
to deceive patriots into becoming suspicious of and antagonistic to "government"
in general, so that they will disdain seeking the specifically governmental
authority which the Constitution offers them (indeed, requires them to
exercise) through the Militia; and (iii) to mislead patriots into disarming
themselves of such a status, so that, in a crisis, when they are asked
"What is your constitutional authority?" the honest answer must be
"We have none."
*
Proponents of the so-called "individual right to keep and bear arms". Those in the rather large
crowd touting "the individual right to keep and bear arms" are worse
off than the members of any "private militia", because they
comprehend far less than half of the problem. They fixate on the private
possession of firearms alone, disregarding entirely that the organization of
"well regulated Militia" imbued with governmental authority-not
simply the adventitious possession of firearms by average Americans as their
private right-is "necessary to the security of a free State".
If
the misplaced enthusiasm for "the individual right to keep and bear
arms" did not derive originally from "black"
political-psychological operations set in motion by the CIA, the FBI, or the
BATF, it too ought to have. For Americans who myopically focus on an
"individual right" to the exclusion of the Militia imagine that they
are promoting the ultimate purpose of Second Amendment simply by "clinging
to their guns"-which, as one of their favorite expressions has it, will
have to be pried "from their cold, dead hands".
But
this bravado, even if backed up by action, can defend only a part of the Second
Amendment-a part which, although necessary, is not sufficient.
While
each American who might have helped to revitalize the Militia dotes exclusively
on his "individual right", the Militia remain unorganized, and
"the security of a free State" remains undefended by the institutions
which the Second Amendment declares to be "necessary" for that
purpose. None of these folks seems to recognize that: (i) Americans'
collective right (and duty) to possess firearms suitable for service in the
Militia also secures each American's "individual right"-for the
self-evident reason that every member of the Militia, armed for that purpose,
is also an individual who must maintain personal possession of one or more
firearms at all times, thereby exercising an "individual right" to
those firearms within the Militia far more secure than any "individual
right" to any firearm which he might enjoy outside of the Militia (until
the Judiciary declares that some so-called "compelling state
interest" allows for that "individual right" to be abridged).
And
(ii) the purely "individual right to keep and bear arms" does
nothing to secure each American's collective as well as individual right (and
duty) to participate in "[a] well regulated Militia", and therefore
next to nothing to promote "the security of a free State" for which
such a Militia is "necessary".
Consider
the danger from tyranny. Can any individual, exercising solely his
"individual right to keep and bear arms" in the confines of his own
cellar, be expected to deter, let alone to stand up against, a tyranny which
disposes of a large, well organized, and fully equipped police-state apparatus?
Can
even thousands and tens of thousands of individuals, individually exercising their
"individual rights" in their individual cellars in mutual isolation,
be expected to stop such a tyranny in its tracks? No-the "individual right
to keep and bear arms", individually exercised, simply assures the defeat
of all individuals in detail. Only by organizing the great mass of her
patriotic citizens for collective action can America defend herself from any
tyranny worthy of that name. (And from an host of other highly undesirable
situations less serious, but probably more likely, than full-blown tyranny.)
Consider
also the contemporary problem of the constant political agitation in favor of
"gun control". Even having been approved by bare majorities of the
Justices of the Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald decisions, "the
individual right to keep and bear arms" remains woefully insufficient to
stifle this subversive ferment.
Notwithstanding
Heller and McDonald, which way is the line moving on the graph of tyranny
versus liberty? On the one hand, "gun control" is still advancing by
giant strides in such "people's democratic republics" as New York,
Connecticut, California, Maryland, and New Jersey.
On
the other hand, in the course of lobbying and litigation over "gun
control" sometimes patriots do win, and sometimes they lose-but the struggle
goes on interminably, because they have not finally secured the practical
application of the constitutionally most significant principle that every
eligible American has a right (and a duty) to serve in "[a] well regulated
Militia", and therefore to be appropriately armed at all times for that
purpose (unless, as to the actual possession and use of firearms, he happens to
be a conscientious objector).
Is
not this never-ending fight over "gun control", arising out of
incessant political aggression against the American people by rogue public
officials and the subversive private special-interest groups allied with them,
wholly incompatible with the Second Amendment's command that "the right of
the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"? What other
constitutional right is the subject of such relentless attacks that its
character as a true "right" is constantly open to challenge and even
denial in America's legislatures and courts?
Thus,
"the individual right to keep and bear arms" proves to be a snare and
a delusion-even arguably the greatest disservice to the defense of the Republic
in modern times:
First,
it cannot defeat, and probably cannot even deter, the kind of tyranny against
which average Americans would need to exercise large-scale armed resistance.
Second,
it diverts Americans from the real issue-which is the supreme constitutional
authority of WE THE PEOPLE organized in "the Militia of the several
States".
Third,
it administers a political soporific-that the big "gun-rights"
organizations have everything well in hand, as long as common Americans
continue to send them and their attorneys more and more money to pour down the
rat-holes of endless lobbying and litigation.
Fourth,
even when lobbying and litigation fail to secure "the individual
right" to anything like its full extent, it nonetheless provides a
political narcotic which attenuates the psychic pain of defeat with the
consolation that at least some Americans can retain possession of some of their
firearms under some circumstances for some limited purposes for some little
while longer. Of course, who can foresee how long that will last?
And
as the narcotic effect wears off with the steady advance of "gun
control", who can predict how painful the withdrawal symptoms induced by a
final exposure to hard reality will be? Finally, and of the most dire
consequence,
Fifth,
while the struggle over "gun control" continues on the "gun
controllers'" own terms, Americans are doing nothing to revitalize the
Militia on the Constitution's terms.
*
Purveyors of fairy-tale panaceas for America's problems. If the proponents of
"private militias" and of "the individual right of the people to
keep and bear Arms" at least grasp small-albeit woefully
insufficient-parts of what needs to be done, what can be said about the Pied
Pipers of Humbug who promote such airy schemes as "Impeachment" of
Barack Obama?
Leave
aside the obvious objection that, if Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible
for "the Office of President" because he is not "a natural born
Citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution, then
he cannot be "removed from Office on Impeachment" under Article II,
Section 4, because as a matter of constitutional law he never entered into that
"Office" in the first place. Indicted he might be-for impersonation
of a public official (as well as for numerous other offenses stemming from and
facilitated by that imposture)-if he is actually constitutionally ineligible
for "the Office of President"; but "removed from Office on
Impeachment" he cannot be.
To
be eligible for "Impeachment" from some office, one must first be
eligible to the office to which "Impeachment" relates.
The
illogicality of the drive for "Impeachment" is not the worst of its
demerits, though. The most glaring are the impracticality of
"Impeachment" in the short term and its utter irrelevance in the long
run.
First,
in light of the present composition of Congress, can anyone not regularly
ingesting LSD or some other hallucinogenic drug possibly imagine that
"Impeachment" of Mr. Obama might possibly follow a strictly
constitutional path to a strictly constitutional end? For example, with respect
to the notorious issue of Mr. Obama's alleged ineligibility to "the Office
of President", and all of the consequences thereof, is not every Member of
Congress knowingly, willfully, and intentionally complicitous in whatever
wrongdoing has taken and continues to take place, or at least proceeding with
willful blindness towards or in reckless disregard of the facts?
No
present Member of Congress who was in office in 2008 or 2012 challenged a
single electoral vote supposedly cast for Mr. Obama in the presidential
elections of those years-although every Member of Congress had a statutory
right and even duty to do so. And apparently not a single Member of Congress at
the present time openly refuses to acknowledge, accept, or acquiesce in Mr.
Obama's posturing as "the President". Why this is the case
doubtlessly requires different explanations for different Members of
Congress-none of these excuses, one presumes, exculpatory.
But
that such is the case no one can deny. How, then, can anyone expect such
hopelessly compromised individuals to carry through the process of
"Impeachment" in the "no stone left unturned" manner in
which it ought to be prosecuted? That, in such an environment of thoroughgoing
institutional cowardice and corruption, "Impeachment" would provide
nothing but farcical political entertainment can be predicted with moral certainty
simply by studying the history of the last two episodes of real
"Impeachment" or near-"Impeachment" of the real Presidents
Clinton and Nixon, as documented in such "kiss and tell" books as
David P. Schippers, Sell Out: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment
and Jerry Zeifman, Without Honor: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the
Crimes of Camelot.
Second,
what of real substance could be expected to change for the better if, for
recondite political reasons, the necessary majorities of Members of Congress
would agree in the cloak rooms that Mr. Obama should be "removed from
Office on Impeachment"?
Mr.
Obama, after all, is merely a symptom, not the underlying cause, of America's
malaise. Removing a single, even very prominent, puppet from the stage will not
change the identities of the puppet masters, let alone their ability to bring
forth as many new puppets as may be necessary to serve their interests. As long
as "Manchuria" exists, it will continue to supply a plenitude of
suitable "candidates". Certainly the departure of Mr. Obama from the
scene will not, by itself, return control of their own political destiny to WE
THE PEOPLE.
The
"two" major political parties, and (of more consequence) the factions
and other special-interest groups that pull their strings, will remain in
commanding positions in the electoral process, in the big "mainstream
media", in the world of banking and high finance, and so on.
Moreover,
by itself "Impeachment" of Mr. Obama will not solve any of the problems
that now confront this country with the threat of "martial law"-in
particular, the impending dethronement of the Federal Reserve Note as the
"world reserve currency", with the consequent collapse of America's
domestic economy in hyperinflation, depression or (most likely) the one
followed by the other.
Whoever
"the Powers That Be" contrive to foist upon this country as President
in Mr. Obama's stead-whether that be "Joe Biden" or some other
equally appalling figurehead-must follow the path heretofore laid out for Mr.
Obama, because Obama's successor can do nothing else without impairing the
position of "the Powers That Be".
So,
even if "Impeachment" were successful to the extent of removing Mr.
Obama himself from the office which perhaps he never held in the first place,
Americans would still need to revitalize the Militia-which, of course, can (and
should) be done without wasting any time and effort on "Impeachment".
C.
At the end of the rope.
What can these and other Americans who have neglected revitalization of the
Militia, or worse yet actively opposed it by joining the dissident chorus of
those who demonize the very word "militia", belatedly offer in their
own defense? That now, as the threat of "martial law" looms large over
this country, they are sorry for having misled themselves and countless others
too?
What
good will such a tardy admission be? As of this writing, patriots of all sorts
have squandered more than forty-five years since the Gun Control Act of 1968
plastered the agenda of the "gun-control" fanatics across the pages
of the United States Statutes at Large for everyone to see, and almost twelve
years since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security began the
erection and deployment in earnest of a national para-military police-state
apparatus.
America,
moreover, does not have the luxury of another forty-five years, or another
twelve years-more than likely not even another four or five years-during which
her citizens in sufficient numbers can finally catch on to what is going on,
and to what lies at the end of the road down which they are being led.
If
Americans want to live in "a free State", they must bend their every
effort-immediately, if not sooner-to restore, protect, and preserve the
Constitution. No alternative to an unremitting defense of the Constitution
exists, because the Constitution, rightly understood and enforced according to
that understanding, provides the only basis for acceptable
"government" now available.
Nothing
else is ready, or even in contemplation, to replace it. Moreover, the great
advantage of the Constitution is that true patriots know perfectly well what it
really means and how to put that meaning into practice.
According
to the Constitution, the Militia are the sole institutions "necessary"
for achievement of the Constitution's ultimate aim, "the security of a
free State". Therefore it is childishly ridiculous to imagine that anyone
can defend the Constitution-even as it might be amended by those supposedly
well-meaning but naive individuals recklessly calling for a
"constitutional convention" of some sort-without demanding
revitalization of the Militia. Certainly no proposed amendment which I have
ever seen substitutes, or even suggests, something other than "[a] well regulated
Militia" as a new institution "necessary to the security of a free
State".
The
reason is obvious: Who but WE THE PEOPLE themselves, exercising sovereignty
through the ultimate Power of the Sword in their own hands, could possibly
perform the task of guaranteeing such "security"?
Yes,
time is rapidly running out. But perhaps that is not so bad, after all.
Although America's neck is in a noose, perhaps the threat of "martial
law" will finally stimulate enough of her remaining "good
People" (as the Declaration of Independence styled true patriots) to think
about-and then to take action aimed at-revitalization of the Militia before the
trap door on History's scaffold springs open and the threat of "martial
law" becomes a fatal actuality. After all, as Samuel Johnson once
reputedly quipped, nothing focuses a man's mind more than his impending
hanging.
**
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.
His recent books include: How To Dethrone The Imperial Judiciary... and Constitutional Homeland Security, Volume One, The Nation in
Arms... and Constitutional Homeland Security_The Sword and
Sovereignty. Get "Sword and Sovereignty" <here>
Dr. Vieira's book (available only in CD_ROM format, from Amazon
dot com), and Constitutional Homeland Security Volume One The Nation In Arms,
were the basis for James Jaeger's excellent 2nd Amendment documentary film
entitled MOLON LABE, which featured Dr. Vieira along with Ron Paul, Pat
Buchanan, G. Edward Griffin, Stewart Rhodes, Chuck Baldwin and others. Get your
copy here:
Dr. Vieira can be reached at:
52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.
52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.
"Whenever a people... entrust the defence
of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries,
the power of
that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy
citizens." -
A Framer -
Anonymous 'framer' of the US Constitution - Source: Independent Gazetteer, January 29, 1791
... and when a long train of abuses and usurpation,
pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design
to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right,
it is their duty, to throw off such Government...'
Declaration of Independence.
No comments:
Post a Comment