Good friend and your fellow freedom fighter Clint Richardson will be guest hosting for Dr. True Ott on MicroEffect this week. Click here for more information.
I have written much about the need for state militias. I have written hopefully about how military personnel may disobey direct orders to enforce martial law in the event of martial law being declared by Washington after some disaster or economic meltdown. But today, I’m writing about the police.
Have you noticed the many ways your local police forces have changed over the last 25 years?
Let’s start with the physical appearance of most Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs). Most of the uniformed police officers I see today are young men with military haircuts. That means that they either have shaved their heads or have a Marine Corps “high and tight” haircut. This choice of hairstyle seems to be a deliberate emulation of the active duty military personnel. It would seem that today’s LEO would rather be thought of as a soldier than a civilian.
But it’s more than just which side you want to look like. I see LEOs who dress like soldiers every day, driving cruisers and making routine traffic stops. This is a deliberate attempt by LEOs to separate themselves from the civilian world and appear threatening to the populace. The effort at civilian intimidation is not lost on this writer. I see this more in the big cities, and not so much in the rural areas. In the rural areas, the officers are still very much a part of the community they live in. But in the larger cities they are anonymous, and that’s dangerous.
Next point is LEO training. The IQ of the police recruit is not so much in question here, but the children of the government schools of the last 30 years have not been given a classical education which teaches them to think. They have been spoon-fed political correctness and a love for the government. Consequently, many of today’s LEOs know nothing of the US Constitution, do not consider the spirit of a law, but simply the letter of the law. That leaves no room for using common sense in the gray areas of human interaction as related to law enforcement.
Next point is the methods of training and tactics that modern police use. You can simply watch the evening news, and soon you’ll see a Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) team of police make an attack on a building or residence. The footage you see will be identical to the methods and tactics used by military forces in combat.
Next point is the equipment and armaments that modern police are buying and using. We have local police agencies that have armored personnel carriers, helicopters and fully automatic battle rifles. Many police department SWAT teams have designated sniper teams, trained in identical sniper methods as active duty military personnel.
And have you made note of how police show up to a demonstration, or to do crowd control? They look just like military personnel, arrayed in helmets, combat boots, dark uniforms, face shields, and carrying combat assault rifles.
There is also the matter of the ethical behavior of LEOs. There are many LEOs on police forces around the country that have committed crimes. In my own area, the Atlanta PD is considered one of the most corrupt in Georgia. Add to that corruption the Federal EEOC requirements in which certain numbers of minorities must be hired and promoted. So a toxic stew of criminals with entitlement attitudes and a badge can make for very bad police organizations from top to bottom.
Lastly is the phenomenon of the funerals for LEOs who die on the job. I consider their reactions to be out of proportion and indicative of the “us versus them” attitude of most law enforcement personnel. I recently saw the video footage of the funeral in Lakewood, Washington for four police officers killed by a gunman. Reports stated that over 20,000 LEOs attended the funeral from all over North America that featured over 2,000 police and fire vehicles.
So, when we consider the implications of secession as they relate to LEOs, we must ask:
(a) Who will the police obey, the citizens or LEOs from some other Federal alphabet agency… like FBI, ATF, DEA, DHS, CIA, DIA or US Marshalls?
(b) Obedience is different than loyalty. In the military, unit cohesion is everything. You don’t fight for your country, you fight for the other five guys in your squad. So, will the loyalty of the LEOs move toward other Law Enforcement Officers from Federal agencies, or toward their oath of service?
(c) Would LEOs be true to their Oath of Office, if that oath included swearing to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic?
(d) Would LEOs arrest a Federal LEO who was attempting to enforce US Federal law in a secession state, or against secessionist leaders?
One of the other crucial matters in 2010 America is criminal prosecution. That process usually starts with civilian interaction with a LEO. The criminal justice system is so broken now that it is difficult for a normal citizen to go through a normal day without breaking some laws. And just having a conversation with a police officer can result in your arrest and incarceration…even if you are innocent.
Please go get a cold or hot beverage, promise not to answer the phone for the next hour, and watch the following two video presentations. I promise that they will be some of the most important time you spend in this very early 2010. Then, have the rest of your family members watch the videos, especially if you have teenagers. Finally, send a copy of this article to everyone you know, so they can protect themselves from negative experiences with Law Enforcement Officers.
Professor James Duane, law professor at Regent University School of Law, with a presentation “Don’t Talk To Cops, Part One.”
Officer George Bruch of the Virginia Beach Police Department, “Don’t Talk To Cops, Part Two.”
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, 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, and to provide new guards for their future security.” Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776
Jefferson wrote that the People had a duty to “throw off” a despotic government.
“Throw off.”
That sounds to me like a somewhat unfriendly separation. It doesn’t sound particularly cordial. It also makes me think that the throwee ain’t exactly thrilled about getting thrown off and might take exception to the decision of the throwers.
The quote above is only once sentence from the Declaration of Independence. But it is one of the most seminal thoughts and principles of the document. Let’s take it apart and consider its words, their meanings, and the consequences.
“…A long train of abuses and usurpations…” In 1776 that was the caprice of King George III as he and his Parliament created laws that affected the colonies in ways that did not affect any other Englishmen. Those laws included the Stamp Act, various taxes and tariffs, prohibitions on imports and exports, more and more taxes, Redcoats patrolling American streets, the suspension of habeas corpus, and requiring those charged with crimes to travel back to England for trial.
Today, Washington has ignored the strictures of the Constitution of the United States, and has done so for over a hundred years.
It violates the First Amendment. There are plenty of laws that abridge free speech, not the least of which is the Patriot Act.
It violates the Second Amendment by enacting laws and regulations infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, simultaneously destroying the militia and making citizens less safe and states less secure.
It violates the Fourth Amendment through internet surveillance, airport searches and warrantless searches.
It violates the Fifth Amendment by rendition of American citizens without due process and IRS double jeopardy prosecutions. You also are compelled to be a witness against yourself every time you sign your tax return.
It violates the Sixth Amendment as no one gets a speedy trial.
It violates the Seventh Amendment when it does not protect the right to jury trial, but allows judges or administrative bodies to adjudicate cases.
It violates the Eighth Amendment as excessive bails and fines are imposed regularly.
It violates the Ninth Amendment as it ignores certain rights retained by the People.
It violates the Tenth Amendment by accruing to itself powers not delegated to it, and others reserved to the States and the People.
Need I go on? There are seventeen more Amendments.
“…pursuing invariably the same object…” What was that object? The object was to milk the maximum revenue from the colonies as possible. England had won the Seven Years War from 1756 to 1763 and were heavily saddled with war debt. So the more taxes and tariffs that King George laid on the colonies, the more the colonists rebelled. Then, the King made still more laws to bring the rebels to heel.
Washington’s object today is much the same. It has a crushing war debt as well as a crushing domestic debt load. Then add the mind-boggling financial liabilities, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae and the total comprises nearly 1000% more than the entire Gross Domestic Product of the USA. Then consider the ramifications of laws like The Patriot Act.
“…evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism…”To evince is to show clearly. Colonists could see clearly that King George’s taxes and laws, designed only for the colonies, were a design to reduce their rights as free Englishmen and confiscate their wealth without due process.
Today’s long train of abuses and usurpations coming from Washington evince a design to accomplish the same objects by turning the Constitution on its head. The Federal Government of the USA started with very limited roles and clear restrictions. Washington’s design has been to acknowledge no restrictions on its power and to accomplish anything it desires.
“…it is their right, it is their duty…” American citizens may have rights that they do not exercise. But that is different than duty. Many Americans consider that military service is a duty, and there is nothing in the Constitution that states anything of the sort. But find me a person who argues with the content of the Declaration of Independence. If you run into a person who is against secession, show them the Declaration and see what they do with fulfilling their duty.
“…to throw off such government…” The process of state nullification does not throw off government. It merely attempts to control the actions of the government, and to nullify its unconstitutional laws while staying a part of the whole. Throwing off such government can only mean secession, which is the act of withdrawing formally from the United States of America.
“…and to provide new guards for their future security.” To explain this, we return to the Declaration for another quote: “whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, 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.”
For the People to provide new guards for their future security can only mean to institute new government. That precludes and omits any continuing relationship with the old government.
That means secession.
State secession is the only reasonable, logical and pragmatic solution to overcome the absolute despotism and criminal tyranny pouring out of Washington, DC.
In this article, I will define secession and make a case why secession is the only reasonable, logical and pragmatic solution to further the cause of human liberty and functional governance.
What is secession?
“Secession” is broadly defined as “the act of withdrawing formally from membership in an organization, association, or alliance.” We are defining it specifically as the action of a state to cease its participation in the United States of America and for that state to create itself as a new independent, sovereign nation.
The American Revolution of 1776 was, by definition, an act of secession. An association of English colonies banded together and issued a Declaration of Independence that was presented to King George III. The King did not accept the secession and a civil war ensued.
Remember that the Declaration of Independence in 1776 was not the legal, formal secession document originating within any state Governor’s offices or the state legislatures. The 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence were lawyers, merchants, farmers and others who took it upon themselves to place the King on notice of the intentions of a small minority of Royal subjects who did not wish to be subjects any longer, and who were leading a revolution against the King. (Read Secession and Attorneys
Another secession event happened in the United States in the 1860s. This time, it was the actual state governments that issued formal secession documents.
The misinformation widely prevalent in America about secession was written by the winning side of the American War Between The States of 1861-1865. They called it the Civil War. But it was not a civil war by definition.
James Fearon, a civil wars scholar at Stanford University, defines a civil war as “a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies.” Usually, one side of the conflict is the state.
Based on that definition, the actions of the 11 Confederate states in 1861 did not constitute starting a civil war. They weren’t looking to take power, overthrow the US government or change government policies. They just lawfully and peaceably seceded from the Union. The United States actually invaded a sovereign nation, the Confederate States of America, with the intent of overthrowing their government and bringing the states of the CSA back into the USA.
The most recent example of state secession happened in 1989 when the fifteen republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) seceded from the USSR. The USSR ceased to exist as all of the republics rejected the Kremlin government and became sovereign nations. (go to: Mikhail Gorbachev and Secession)
Despite the fact that the USSR was the second most powerful nation on the planet, it was completely powerless to stop secession. Once the republics reasserted their sovereignty as free nations, the USSR dissolved into the dustbin of history.
What is the difference in secession and nullification?
Nullification is the a legal principle holding that a US State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. It has its legal foundation in the 9th and 10 Amendments of the US Constitution. Nullification has been used by the states throughout US history to prevent unjust laws from being enforced.
The most noteworthy use of nullification by any state was the so-called Nullification Crisis of 1832. Congress had enacted a high tariff that South Carolina rejected in its Ordinance of Nullification, which stated that the tariff was unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable in South Carolina. The state made military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement. Congress responded by passing a Force Bill, authorizing President Andrew Jackson to use military force against South Carolina to enforce the tariff. But Congress simultaneously passed a new lower tariff that was satisfactory to South Carolina. So, Congress wisely chose to back down and compromise against the South Carolina nullification action.
Thirty nine states of the United States have passed Tenth Amendment resolutions in recent months, stating that they are prepared to re-assert their authority to determine which Federal laws will be enforced within their borders. A few have enacted firearms legislation which states that firearms and ammunition manufactured and sold within the borders of a particular state are not subject to Federal law and regulation. It remains to be seen if Washington will recognize the nullification of Federal gun laws.
So, we see that nullification is a method whereby a US state may effectively control the legislative process of the US Federal Government as it pertains to how Federal law is enacted and enforced within any state. Compare that process to secession, in which a state formally withdraws from the United States to become a sovereign nation. Secession asserts that the relationship between parties has ceased, and that all previous commitments are null and void.
Why should a state consider secession?
First, secession should never be considered for light or transient reasons. Disagreements come and go between parties, and can usually be negotiated to the satisfaction of all parties. But when a long list of abuses exists, when repeated usurpations of state authority are enacted, when the sovereignty of states is trampled and ignored, and when citizens suffer a diminution of both their natural rights and economic freedom, it is the duty of states to solemnly consider either altering or abolishing the government that abuses that state and its citizens.
Who benefits from secession and what are the benefits?
In today’s America, any seceding state will benefit from the repudiation of the United States’ debt load, which will result in the savings of hundreds of billions of dollars that the citizens of the seceding state will never have to pay. Otherwise, if a state secedes and forms a government just like the one from which they seceded, there is limited benefit to the state or the citizen. But if the state protects individual liberty, life and property rights, the citizens will be infinitely more free.
The citizens of a state that secedes benefit to the degree that the seceding state “institute(s) new government, 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 US Declaration of Independence)
Also, any persons who immigrate to the seceding state can experience benefits if they renounce their former citizenship and become a citizen of the seceding state. But, an émigré who did not change citizenship would receive benefit from simply living in the seceding state.
The business community in the seceding state will benefit instantly as the crushing weight of US Federal regulations would vanish. No longer would businesses be required to be the tax collector for the IRS. The economy of a seceding state would be expected to explode with new commerce directly attributable to the competitive advantages of the new state.
The new state government of the seceding state would benefit as they would be free of US government rules, regulations, usurpations and unfunded mandates. No longer would the seceding state be required to enforce US Federal law.
The seceding state would benefit from a general shared attitude of most people of hope, optimism and excitement about the future.
Immigration to the seceding state would explode as liberty-loving individuals worldwide would bring their talents, experience and gifts to the new nation seeking liberty and a bright future for themselves and their progeny.
Who doesn’t benefit from secession?
In this specific example of secession from the United States, the parties who do not benefit are the United States Federal Government and the states that remain in the Union. To them will fall the unconstitutional debt load in greater percentage than before secession. The US Federal Government will also receive no further revenue from the seceding state. Also, the citizens of the seceding state will no longer be available to the United States for military service. And, individual secessions will occur as Americans leave the USA to immigrate to the new nation…people voting with their feet.
The other individuals that will not benefit from secession are those presently receiving any Federal monetary benefits. It would be a reasonable expectation that Washington would stop any further payments or benefits from flowing to an individual who was no longer an American citizen. However, it would be possible that upon secession, some American citizens would continue to live in the seceded state as resident aliens. They could potentially still receive Federal benefits, but they should expect those terms to change.
Will state secession cause a military conflict between parties?
There is no reason in law or in fact that the parties may not mutually and amicably agree to separate from each other. It would be mutually beneficial to both parties to negotiate the secession issues, which would include issues of Federal lands inside state borders. But it should be stated that, in the 1783 Treaty negotiated between King George III of England and the United States of America, the King “relinquished all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”
The seceding state would also be aware that, if the United States Federal Government dissolved or collapsed in like manner to the Soviet Union, any previously negotiated issues or treaties would be null and void.
Can secession be done without armed resistance?
As stated in the previous paragraph, secession should proceed without military conflict. But, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution states that because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So, while no reason for armed conflict exists, that does not prevent it from occurring. A seceding state should revitalize its militia and prepare them for armed resistance and the defense of the borders of the seceding state from invasion by the United States military, its hired mercenaries, or United Nations troops.
Can Liberty be restored in America without secession?
The Washington political machine is spinning wildly out of control. Both political parties are two sides of the same coin. Neither party stands for Constitutionality, small government and fiscal responsibility. Even if you elect new representatives, senators and Presidents, the Washington culture will quickly corrupt them by requiring the officials to court contributions while lobbyists shower them with money and perks. In addition, Congress has created vast bureaucracies that grow and infest the nation unabated. Finally, and most importantly, the elected officeholders in Washington do not recognize any control or restraint on their power to enact unconstitutional laws and spend money in excess of tax revenues. Washington has borrowed trillions of dollars from the world that will never be repaid. If there is a solution to bring Washington back into compliance with the Constitution, I have not seen it to this date.
When should secession be done?
Secession should be solemnly deliberated by the elected representatives and the state citizens. Secession should be initiated at the moment that any state reaches the point at which it will no longer accept the despotic tyranny and unconstitutional laws coming from the US Federal Government in Washington, DC. Each individual must come to his or her own conclusion that secession is the only way to regain liberty, and each state must make its secession decision independently.
How would secession be done?
There is no written, formal method for initiating and completing an act of secession. If history can be our guide, we see that the conventions of the seceding states of 1860 wrote and ratified a Declaration of Secession. Each Declaration enumerated that particular state’s reasons for secession, in like manner to the 1776 Declaration of Independence.
Then they passed an Ordinance of Secession. Here below is the simple, succinct wording of the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession of 1860.
AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled “The Constitution of the United States of America.”
We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the “United States of America,” is hereby dissolved.
Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.
That is the sum of all the words necessary to complete the secession.
In conclusion, try to envision yourself and your family in a new nation created by secession. All the people you meet are excited and breathless in their anticipation of the future. The general opinion of the populace is pure unbridled optimism. The new nation’s economy is booming, the money is backed by gold and silver, and there is no inflation. “Now Hiring” signs are in all the shop windows. The newspaper’s “Help Wanted” ads are packed full. Prices for goods and services are low, and the stores are loaded with goods. Manufacturers are streaming into the new nation to take advantage of the rare pro-business atmosphere. Wages are climbing steadily in manufacturing jobs as companies compete for the best and brightest for their employees. New businesses are being created at a fever pace. Residential and commercial construction is at a high level to meet the demand of the new residents.
All because one state recognized this historic opportunity and chased the dream of liberty through the process of state secession.
Secession is the hope for humanity. Who will be first?
This is the definitive book on (1) how every American State has forsaken its DUTY to maintain a Militia, that force that is “necessary to the security of a Free State,” (2) how states can revitalize their Militias, and (3) how Citizen’s Homeland Security Associations (CHSA) may be organized.
This book should be read by every State governor and every State legislator in the USA. But it should be read by every citizen that desires liberty…true liberty in their lifetime.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ~ Benjamin Franklin
Vieira devotes five of the twelve chapters in the book to the formation and operation of the CHSAs. He contends that a program of public education be instituted to inform the public of the necessity of state militias.
Citizen’s Homeland Security Associations are completely different than the “Committees of Safety” of old. The CHSA is a grass-roots organization that will build awareness in the populace in anticipation of the formation of the Committees of Safety and legislative action on re-forming state Militias.
The original Committees of Safety were composed of actual members of the States’ legislatures, recognized activists and other leaders within the States…who were appointed to theCommittees by the legislatures, to serve as the legislatures’ agents and advisors, and to carry on the legislatures’ work during recesses. The Committees were never independent of the legislatures, and never carried out any plans that were not approved by the legislatures.
The chief concern of the Committees was the safety of the public: “to put the territory under their supervision in a state of defense and maintain it there effectively.”¹
The author wrote this book in 2007, and mentions that we don’t have much time to reinstitute militias in the states before societal events begin to occur that will throw America into chaos. It’s now almost three years since publication, and many of the events have taken place, while more events loom just over the horizon.
We can thank the government schools of the entire United States for the dearth of knowledge in the populace about the Constitution and the necessity of the State Militias. But what could we really expect? The very Federal government that benefits from the LACK of militias could hardly be expected to promote a concept that would diminish their power. Still, remember that the Federal Department of Education did not exist before 1980.
“Those who have been once intoxicated with power and have derived any kind of emolument from it can never willingly abandon it.” ~ Edmund Burke
So, what of the states? Education has always been a state issue. Can you think of any reasons that states would shrink from their obligation under their own state Constitutions to maintain a state militia?
How about these?
(1) State legislators and governors view themselves as servants of Washington.
(2) Maintaining a state militia is expensive. The money could be used for other purposes that would make more voters happier.
(3) Nearly 150 years have passed since the War of Northern Aggression, in which Lincoln called up the state militias to invade the Confederate States of America. So generations of state legislators have not seen a need for militias.
(4) Besides, states have a National Guard, don’t they? What’s the difference?
I’m sure there are others, but those reasons should do for now.
“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.” ~ John Adams
Here are some of my own thoughts on secession and state militias.
1. Any individual who has reached the age of majority in the United States who does not own a firearm has accepted the position that they have no duty to be a part of the well-regulated Militia that is NECESSARY for the security of a Free State.
2. Any state of the fifty states that comprise the United States of America that either has enacted or will enact any legislation that infringes on the individual right to keep and bear arms has accepted the position that a well-regulated Militia is NOT NECESSARY for the security of a Free State. That state government is an enemy to liberty and a lackey of Washington.
Patrick Henry did not say “Give me safety and security or give me death.”
3. There is seemingly very little interest in the general populace or the state governments to revitalize state militias. But there is interest coming from a restless citizenry about state secession. We must tie the two together into an inseparable bundle, as one relies upon the other.
4. Here is a forecast of how secession and militias will likely play out.
a. Economic meltdown, bank holidays, hyperinflation
b. Societal chaos, riots, rampant crime
c. Washington declares martial law and tries to clamp down
d. The grave crisis jolts states out of their slumber, and secessions begin
e. States NOW begin reformulating their militias
f. The citizenry, in full panic mode, get very focused on liberty issues
g. The United States goes the way of the Soviet Union and dissolves
This is an extremely exciting time in which to live in America. The people of the nation have been lulled to sleep over generations. The tyranny laid upon them is destructive, and any type of destructive force is based in low energy. Happily, freedom and liberty are creative forces of a very high energy level. Just like light dispels darkness, so too will liberty eventually win over tyranny. People will be drawn to the energy of liberty.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. … God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1787
¹Agnes Hunt, The Provincial Committees of Safety of the American Revolution (Cleveland, Ohio: Western Reserve University, 1904), at 161.
In my last article, “Secession, The Second Amendment and Sun Tzu,” I ended by saying that American states that revitalized their militias “may secede knowing that they are capable of defending their decision from all who would attempt to use force to prevent their exit.”
But there may be more players in this drama who would wish to prevent the secession of an American state and ultimately the dissolution of the United States of America. Or, those very players might welcome the sight of the USA going the way of the USSR.
I have also written about the informal group “Oath Keepers,” (www.oathkeepers.org). Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reservists, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath they swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with them, to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.” Their Oath is to the Constitution.
To the degree that the Oath Keepers are successful spreading their message throughout the military and law enforcement communities, there will be less and less soldiers, cops and veterans willing to enforce Federal dictates. That will be a godsend for Liberty, but very bad juju for Washington. American military and law enforcement personnel may not be willing to fire upon American citizens who band together to secede, just wanting to be free of Washington’s tyrannical rule.
So, what could Washington do if it wanted to prevent or reverse a secession, and force a state to stay in the Union? How might they respond to a lack of obedience from their military or from law enforcement?
Holler for help from the United Nations.
Do you think that UN troops would have any such moral conflict? Would they be anything but mercenary troops on our soil? I contend that the blue berets would not hesitate to enforce some future UN resolution enacted in New York City against the secession of an American state.
Conversely, the one-world-government types might welcome the dissolution of the USA. They might think that getting Washington out of the way could grease the skids for a one-world government and a new world economic system.
I don’t think there are any blue hats patrolling in Switzerland. But I could be wrong. Think about it. Armed neutrality is the new old way.
The person who spends some time thinking about every possible scenario will make better plans and will have less chance of being surprised by any event.
I have written much about the need for state militias. I have written hopefully about how military personnel may disobey direct orders to enforce martial law in the event of martial law being declared by Washington after some disaster or economic meltdown. But today, I’m writing about the police.
Get the RSS