As much as we liberty-loving, Constitution-loving, America-loving patriots hate to admit it, the government in Washington, D.C., is NOT fixable. The elitist power structure in D.C. is too ensconced and too powerful. They will never cede power to folks, such as Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, etc., who truly believe in limited government. Nor will they permit the states to reclaim ANY of their constitutionally recognized powers. And neither party in D.C. has enough Ron Paul-types to thwart the evil machinations of the power-drunk leviathan that is Washington, D.C.
Furthermore, the same forces of darkness that control the political establishment in Washington, D.C., also control the media and financial establishments in New York City. The voters of America have too often rejected the presidential and congressional candidates who had the potential to help lead our ship of state to safer waters (if we even have untainted elections). The warnings of the prophets and porters have fallen on deaf ears. For the most part, Americans refuse to dislodge themselves from their addiction to government handouts. In addition, America’s pastors have largely abandoned their calling to be watchmen on the wall, which has left our ship of state without a moral compass or a spiritual rudder.
It is only a matter of time before freedomists will be forced to do what freedomists have always been forced to do when facing a tyrannical juggernaut: declare independence.
Therefore, I propose that the People of the several states begin calling for The Third Continental Congress to the intent that this Congress proposes, debates, and eventually votes on the decision to declare independence from the government in Washington, D.C.
The closest thing America has had in modern times to Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson is former Congressman Ron Paul. In late January, Dr. Paul brought a speech before the Mises Institute. The theme of the event was “Breaking Away: The Case For Secession.”
In his address, Ron said, “There is going to be a de facto secession movement.” I believe Dr. Paul is right. Secession (“de facto” or otherwise) is inevitable. How it will come and when it will come is debatable. That it will come is not. The only question is do we wait for a national or international crisis of apocalyptical proportions or do we begin the debate now in the relative tranquility of peace and order? I say we should begin the debate NOW.
I am fully aware that this is a bitter thought to contemplate. It is for me, too. But, ladies and gentlemen, there is NO OTHER WAY TO PRESERVE LIBERTY. Again, the government in Washington, D.C., is not fixable. And any and all proposals short of a declaration of independence are merely unrealistic attempts to try and avoid the inevitable.
I believe if such a Congress were convened, several of our sovereign states would vote in the affirmative. I think states such as Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma, Missouri, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, Virginia, Alaska, and even Hawaii, would seriously entertain such a resolution. The actual number of states who might be inclined to vote in the affirmative could potentially number at least half (or more) of the total states in the Union.
The idea that we will be able to maintain the Union under the growing tentacles of Washington, D.C., while maintaining liberty at the same time is now an utterly irreconcilable notion. The People of the United States either continue to be increasingly subjugated to the tyrannical demands of the beastly system in Washington, D.C., (no matter whom they elect to public office, no matter how many petitions they make, and no matter how many conferences they convene) or they take their principles of liberty to The Third Continental Congress and vote on a Twenty-First Century declaration of independence. THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION.
And, no, a modern declaration of independence does not have to be bloody. Had Scotland voted for independence a few months ago, would London have sent troops to stop them? Absolutely not. World opinion would not tolerate it. Plus, the need for peaceful trade, commerce, and mutual self-defense would demand cooperation between neighboring governments. This would equally apply in North America.
What separation would likely accomplish is to take the teeth out of a ravenous beast. It would accomplish what our separation from Great Britain accomplished two hundred years ago. The beast would not be able to subjugate the free people of a newly-formed republic. No longer would it be able to play the world’s policeman. No longer would it be able to freely foment hatred and war between nations. Plus, it would give this new republic the opportunity to export the ideas of liberty, free enterprise, peaceful trade and diplomacy, etc., around the world. You know, the ideas and principles that the United States USED to export. Separation might actually save, not just the liberties of the American people, but the lives of people around the world from a global catastrophe.
Regardless, separation is inevitable. I repeat: separation is inevitable.
The worst scenario is that the American people wait until the powers of darkness controlling Washington, D.C., bring about a global apocalypse before they realize what they must inevitably do. That is the scenario that Dr. Paul alluded to in his remarks referenced above. The better scenario is that the American people have the sagacity and foresight to see the storm clouds on the horizon and put in motion NOW the remedy for their–and their children’s–survival.
More coming in my column this week. Let the debate begin.