Freedom From Fear is Your Responsibility
By
Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

 

Franklin D. Roosevelt promised this country “freedom from fear.” In keeping with most of his grandiose pronouncements, he spoke with a forked tongue. (As General Douglas MacArthur reputedly quipped, Roosevelt never told the truth if a lie would suffice.) In any event, today Americans live in a nation beset by ever-expanding fear and ever-contracting freedom. This is because all too many of them have forgotten that freedom from fear requires the wit to identify, and especially the courage to eliminate, the causes of fear—through their own exercise of their constitutional freedoms.
To be sure, there are possible reasons for fear: false-flag “terrorist” strikes, which could lead to attempts to impose “martial law” and to invoke new “emergency powers,” which could result in the suspension of elections and the setting up of a dictatorship, which could bring about the submersion of the United States in a North American Union, to name a few. Nonetheless, these possibilities, although real, are quite often exaggerated:

• Any false-flag, or even an actual, “terrorist” strike will necessarily be on a small scale, compared to the massive fire-bombings of real warfare, such as incinerated Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, and other great cities. A country as large, wealthy, and well-organized as the United States will not be—or at least ought not to be—driven into socio-political chaos by anything less horrific than death and destruction on or beyond that level.

• Outside of theaters of actual military combat, or perhaps areas suffering from the massive devastation of natural disasters or swept by virulent epidemics, so-called “martial law” cannot legally come into play unless all of the courts, both of the States and of the General Government, are closed and cannot conduct their normal business—which is at least implausible, if not impossible to imagine.

• Absent some utterly catastrophic event that prostrates the entire country, elections can be held everywhere outside of the affected areas, and maybe even there. And where elections cannot be held, or are not scheduled to be held in the near term, the States can fill any voids in Congress that result from a “terrorist” strike; and then a reconstructed Congress can fill any voids in the Executive Branch; and then those two Branches can fill any voids in the courts of the United States—all in the regular course of law. See U.S. Const., Article I, § 2, cl. 4 (House of Representatives); Amendment XVII, 2 (Senate); Article II, § 1, cl. 5, Amendment XX, §§ 3 and 4, and Amendment XXV (President and Vice President); and Article I, § 8, cl. 9, Article II, § 2, cl. 2, and Article III, § 1 (courts).

• The Constitution itself absolutely removes Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney from office on 20 January 2009, no matter what happens theretofore. See Article II, § 1, cl. 1, and Amendment XX, § 1. No legal way exists for them to continue in office, let alone to assume the positions of “dictators,” “deciders,” or even squatters in the White House, simply because some supposed “emergency” has occurred. After high noon on 20 January 2009, they will enjoy no more power in the General Government than any two bag-women plucked randomly off the streets of New York City.

• The North American Union is patently unconstitutional. See my commentary, “ Will the North American Union Be American Patriots’ Last Stand?” It is also probably unworkable, for cultural and social, as well as political and economic, reasons. In fictive literature, the genius of Dr. Victor Frankenstein could cobble together a working monster from parts of various cadavers. But, in the real world, the muddle-headed kakistocracies that now temporarily misrule the United States, Canada, and Mexico will require extensive remedial studies in political anatomy before they can hope to emulate his experiment. (Which, one should recall, failed horribly.)

Yet the Internet is replete with dire prognostications that these and other disasters are about to descend upon the United States—and Americans can do next to nothing to forefend them. As these oracles proclaim the future, we are all doomed, doomed, doomed!

Beyond doubt, a dark purpose lurks behind not a few of these prophecies. Experts in disinformation and agents provocateurs spread mindless fear in order to impede Americans’ critical reasoning and thereby to foster political panic and self-destructive behavior. They attempt to condition people to accept the ruination, even disappearance, of their country as inevitable, if not imminent, and so to remain passive and apathetic, acquiescing in their victimization, because supposedly “nothing can be done.” They even try to convince Americans that, notwithstanding Representative Ron Paul’s candidacy, they have no choice but to saddle some swaybacked politician from the Republican or Democratic stables as President in 2008.

But even many of the honest, patriotic commentators who voice justifiable, articulate concerns about these possibilities are spinning their wheels unproductively. To too great a degree, they are merely preaching to the choir:

• Their audiences already realize that the official story of 9/11 is, to some extent, a legend—whether there was official omission, or even commission, something is not as it is being represented to be.

• Their audiences already recognize that continued, let alone expanded, conflict in the Middle East will be, not merely impolitic, but also illegal, immoral, and just plain stupid—that it will gut and demoralize the Armed Forces, push this country closer and closer to bankruptcy, turn every decent individual in the whole world against the United States, and still leave the region more chaotic and dangerous than it is now.

• Their audiences already oppose the “globalist” economic policies that are destroying America’s manufacturing base and slashing the living-standards of her middle class.

• Their audiences already insist that the General Government (and the States, too) do everything possible to repel the invasion of illegal immigrants sweeping into this country.

• Their audiences already want to dismantle the National police state being set up in the Disgrace of Columbia, and to prevent anything like it from ever being constructed again. And,

• Their audiences already know that the late Governor George Wallace wildly overvalued the situation when he observed that there is not “a dime’s worth of difference”—even in base-metallic coinage—between the Republican and Democratic Parties.

So, these commentators are doing a commendable job in reporting the facts; and their presentations are being understood.

Nevertheless, although exposure of evil and excoriation of evildoers are necessary, they are not sufficient. Remedial and protective actions are also wanted. Past acts of evil must be punished. Present acts of evil must be thwarted. And future acts of evil must be deterred. As to these requirements, though, all too many patriotic commentators are not providing effective leadership. They are accurately describing the disease, but not adequately (if at all) prescribing the remedy—telling Americans what is wrong with their country, but not directing them to what can be done, and should be done, and would be effective if done.

What can not or will not be done should be obvious.

First, forget the removal of President Bush and Vice President Cheney by “Impeachment for, and Conviction of, * * * high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, as the Constitution provides in Article II, § 4. To be sure, if implemented this procedure would prevent any future wrongdoing by these particular individuals under color of those particular offices. But that would neither solve, nor even allay, the underlying problem—because, whatever their personal demerits, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are merely symptoms, not sources, of America’s present difficulties. They are not the Strombolis of this country’s political marionette show, but only the Pinocchios. Even were they removed by impeachment and conviction, greedy and anti-constitutional special-interest groups, both domestic and foreign, would continue to pull the top-level politicians’ strings.

America is in the grip of a kakistocracy—misrule by the very worst people: the avaricious, the ambitious, the amoral. And America is in the grip of tyranny—because such public officials concern themselves primarily with the advancement of special interests, rather than with promotion of the general welfare. This sorry state of affairs, however, did not come to pass by accident. It is not a matter of a few egregiously bad individuals who somehow, against all odds, wormed their ways into public office. No—what prevails now is not the exception, but the rule. It is the manifestation of a veritable structure, even a system, of political (and many other kinds of) evil that has been superimposed on this country. So, what benefit would be achieved by removing Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney from office? That, in the short term prior to January of 2009, they would be replaced by Nancy Pelosi as President and whomever she arranged to assume the position of Vice President?! Or that, in the long term after January of 2009, they would be replaced by Hilarity Clinton and her no less ridiculous running-mate?!

Besides, the Democratic Party does not want to impeach Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney. For people as fanatically partisan as the Democrats, such reluctance appears remarkable—because, with Bush and Cheney gone, Pelosi would become President by operation of law; and the Democratic Party would control both Congress and the Executive Branch going into the 2008 national elections. Why would the Democrats not do everything they could to achieve that result?

One story the Democrats have put out for public consumption is that “they don’t have the votes” in the House, the Senate, or both. But why not? What more, or worse, misbehavior on the Administration’s part could possibly be required? Another story is that the Democrats want to let the Republicans stew in the Administration’s wrongdoing and incompetence, in order to encourage more chaos and create more public antipathy, and thereby increase the magnitude of the Democrats’ landslide in 2008. But why would they not anticipate an even greater landslide if they had already removed Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney in disgrace, and in the process had discredited the Republican Party as a racketeering enterprise, in nationally televised trials in the Senate?

Well, modern politics are not the province of accidents, mysteries, or even really difficult questions. The foundation of the Democrats’ reluctance is that, in order to impeach Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, the Democrats would have to declare the Administration’s actions—such as the incursion into Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and so on—to be “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. And “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”, not simply because those acts are impolitic or imprudent, but because they are unconstitutional. And if those acts are unconstitutional—and intentionally so, rather than merely the products of thoughtless negligence—then they are also criminal. See Title 18, United States Code, §§ 241 and 241. Thus, the slippery slope leads rather quickly to a black hole.

This is a possibility the Constitution itself foresees in Article I, § 3, cl. 7, but which the Congressional Democrats do not want to face, let alone to thrust upon the public’s attention, for at least three reasons:
(i) They cannot condemn the Administration in these particulars without also condemning themselves, many of them having voted for that legislation (and even now continuing to vote for yet more legislation of that ilk) under color of “the war on terrorism.”
(ii) Their public protestations notwithstanding, they want these statutes—unconstitutional as they may be—to remain on the books, so that the anticipated Democratic Administration can employ them after January of 2009. And,
(iii) The ulterior moving parties in the enactment of many of those statutes, and the people who expect to benefit most from their use in the future, are certain special-interest groups that the Democrats do not dare to expose, cross, or refuse to favor.

Second, forget the 2008 national elections. Even if the Democratic Party prevails in a landslide, in 2009 and thereafter nothing but the names will change (and not to protect the innocent, either). Will a new Democratic “Decider” (or “Decidetrix”) be any more of a constitutionalist, or any less of a global fascist, than his (or her) Republican predecessor? Will the relative undesirability of the new, versus the old, Administration matter? For will not the same money-grubbing, vicious, violence-prone, and irremediably anti-American special-interest groups, both domestic and foreign, still control the flows of campaign contributions—still salt their operatives throughout Congress, the Executive Branch, and the most important agencies of the General Government—still populate the leading private think tanks that generate “policy”—still dominate the big mass media—in sum, still have a strangulating grip on the throat of America’s political process? For part two click below.

Third, forget the Judiciary, of either the States or the General Government. Even if no judges could be condemned as political hacks, puppets of special interests, and poltroons, the courts would nonetheless remain slow, uncertain, and (worst of all) adventitious in their decisions. For the issues they address depend entirely on the cases that happen to come before them. And most of the matters critical to America’s future—such as the unconstitutionality of military misadventures in the Middle East—even honest and competent judges will likely consider too controversial to tackle, but instead will shunt off into the legalistic never-never land of “political questions.”

And reliance on the legal profession? Heaven forfend! America is today treading water in History’s septic tank largely because her lawyers have been trained to drive on both sides of the legal street, depending on who is paying the fare. Of course, some lawyers are ideologically opposed in principle to limited government, and enter public service in order to expand its powers. But what about all the others who are not committed subversives? If large numbers of lawyers in public service—each of whom had sworn to uphold the Constitution as a prerequisite to becoming a member of the Bar in his home State—had simply said “NO!” to politicians’ demands to draft, enact, and enforce such police-state measures as the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts, and done so volubly in public, with resignations from office, remonstrances from their Bar Associations, and all the other publicity that modern communications can make so effective, would America be suffering from these problems now?

So what does all this leave as America’s best, perhaps last, resource? The only solution is the constitutional check and balance provided by—and that can be provided only by—We the People themselves, through “the Militia of the several States.”

But, today, We the People have neither “the Militia of the several States” nor a fully constitutional Militia in even a single State. Instead, We the People must have recourse to nothing but protests against their public servants’ excesses. True, these are not always bootless—as the popular uprising against the recent bill for providing illegal aliens with amnesty under another name has proven. (Although the proponents of the bill promise to keep on trying, until they wear the country out.) Nevertheless, there being no single lobbying group or federation of such groups that can call out an overwhelming national constituency through the full range of critical constitutional questions, such protests must suffer from the inefficiency of having to mobilize, organize, and energize people anew on each separate issue.

And even when properly organized, ad hoc protests—or the efforts of actual lobbying groups—enjoy no specific legal authority, other than the general right in the First Amendment to “the freedom of speech” and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Which prove less than useful when public officials pay no attention to—or penalize—the protestors.

Distinguishably, “the Militia of the several States” wield not just legal, but constitutional, authority. They are the only establishments the Constitution describes as “necessary to the security of a free State.” They are the only establishments the Constitution explicitly authorizes “to execute the Laws of the Union.” They are not dependent upon public officials, politicians, political parties, special-interest groups, or the big media—because the Constitution recognizes them as permanent establishments within its federal system. And they are politically and socially unifying forces, because they draw from the entire community—thereby negating the tactic of “divide and conquer” on which the Forces of Darkness primarily rely.

We the People are this country’s earthly sovereigns, the source of the Constitution. We the People are this country’s electors, deciding who shall administer the Constitution in the People’s interests in the State governments, Congress, the Presidency, and (indirectly) the Supreme Court. But, to make sovereignty and voting truly effective at all times, We the People must also be this country’s ultimate check and balance on public officials who, between elections, refuse to follow the Constitution.

If “the Militia of the several States” existed in their proper constitutional form, exercising their proper constitutional powers, most if not all of the fears catalogued at the beginning of this commentary would not be plaguing Americans today. For, in their regular meetings, Militia companies across the country would have investigated what has been going on, what is at stake, who is at fault, and what they should do with respect to all of these matters—each of which is an aspect of “homeland security,” and therefore within the purview of the Militia.

No one should assume that the Militia would resort to violence. Even when fully justifiable, violence is always expensive, typically unpredictable, and usually undesirable—because when violence begins, reason ends; and then anything can happen, and often does. Even in self-defense, personal or political, violence is always the very last resort, to be relied upon only when all else fails. Therefore, for anyone to advocate, condone, or even suggest violence by the Militia would be counterproductive and even puerile.

With respect to remedying the problems cited heretofore, it would also be contraindicated. Sufficient for such situations would be simply a nationwide Militia remonstrance to rogue public officials in the General Government, informing them that: (i) the course they were pursuing was wrong and dangerous; (ii) in those circumstances they ought to take certain actions and refrain from taking certain others; and (iii) if they refused or failed to heed this advice, immediate consequences (not just consequences at the next election) would follow. Then, if the politicians remained obtuse, obstinate, and obdurate, the Militia would call a day, a week, or more of “Down tools!” No one in the Militia, or in Militiamen’s families, would go to work or perform any other than absolutely necessary humanitarian services (such as medical care, fire-fighting, feeding the homeless, and so on). Inasmuch as tens and tens of millions of adult Americans would be involved, the country would grind to a screeching halt. And not only in private enterprise, either, but also in the public service—for most individuals in public employment, even though exempted from regular Militia duties, would nevertheless remain members of the Militia, or find themselves within some Militiaman’s family, and if not subject to Militia discipline then confronted with the sanction of ostracism by their family members, friends, and neighbors.

If this would not bring rogue public officials and bureaucrats to their senses, and if not to their senses then to their knees, in record time—and nonviolently, too—what would? How could the miscreants stop it? How could they get around it?

Moreover, just the possibility of such actions would deter rogue public officials from setting out on legally questionable courses in the first instance. For they would not want their possibly unconstitutional adventures immediately and effectively challenged before the Nation as a whole.
Perhaps most importantly, such Militia remonstrances would not be acts of civil disobedience, but of constitutional obedience. They would be examples of the Militia’s taking responsibility to “execute the Laws of the Union” against rogue public officials. Without violence or the threat of violence, yet with irresistible effect.

Unfortunately, however, this country does not enjoy the benefits “the Militia of the several States” could provide. Which raises the question: What more does it take than for the Constitution itself to tell Americans that “[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”? Not optional, but “necessary!”

An old saw has it that there are three types of minds: Best are those that understand some matter all by themselves. Adequate are those that understand the matter when it is explained to them. And useless are those that never understand the matter, even after it has been spelled out for them over and over again.
Obviously, few Americans fall into category one, at least as to “the Militia of the United States”—or else these commentaries of mine, let alone my book Constitutional “Homeland Security,” would not be necessary. The question now is, how many fall into category two? I expect that there are millions and millions of them—certainly enough to do the job. But to prove my point—and, more to the point, to help save this country—I need assistance in two areas: (i) funding my work on the Militia, and (ii) spreading the word.

1. Unfortunately, I do not set the schedule for the Forces of Darkness. Apparently, they have projected 2009 as the year in which the first foundations of the North American Union will be poured. One can also anticipate that the Presidential Administration to be inaugurated in January of that year will quickly prove to be the worst in American history (up till then). So I need to finish two more projected books on the Militia, and to draft comprehensive model legislation for at least one State, before that fateful month.
Work of this criticality and complexity cannot be done as a sideline or hobby. Which means putting in more effort than I can possibly afford without outside support. For that reason, I need to find a group of (say) ten or more well-to-do patriotic patrons, each of whom can contribute what will be personally a small sum for him, but which collectively will provide a substantial amount to subsidize my work and help to see it through to completion.


Other than winning some lottery, I have no viable alternative. No patriotic endeavor of this kind is ever likely to break even, let alone become a paying proposition. This is because patriotic work is what economists call a “collective good”: when one person produces it, others can reap the benefits without paying the cost of production. Because of these “free riders”, “collective goods” tend to be underproduced, even though they may be very valuable. For example, whoever writes the first model statute to revitalize the Militia in some State will obtain no monetary benefit from his effort, even though it will surely prove a very difficult job to do correctly, because State legislatures do not buy model statutes. And once a model statute for one State has been published, anyone else can adapt it or its ideas for any and every other State. So who but an independently wealthy public benefactor will take on the task?

The Forces of Darkness count on this difficulty to advance their agenda. Their political, economic, and social imperialism is designed to earn huge monopoly profits for specific individuals and groups—so they will expend whatever moneys may be necessary to succeed, up to the amounts of the anticipated profits. Whereas most patriotic endeavors can be expected to earn little to no profits—and if they are successful at all may help to produce only the general benefits that come to everyone of good will, in different degrees, from living in a free society. Therefore, without subsidies, patriotic work will likely not be done to any significant degree, to a sufficient degree, or in a timely fashion.

My fear, and what should be your fear too, is that, if revitalizing “the Militia of the several States” is not accomplished—to the full extent mandated by the Constitution and within the timetable the Forces of Darkness seem to be setting—then America will surely suffer some or all of the horrific scenarios that the prophets of doom are predicting. I have a way, not only to overcome that fear, but also to remove its source. But I need your help, or the help of someone you know. So please contact me—by mail only at 13877 Napa Drive, Manassas, Virginia 20112.

2. Even the best model statute for revitalizing the Militia in some State will not succeed without grass-roots pressure on legislators. And that will require massive public education and mobilization. The Internet can supply the means, if its leading spokesmen for patriotism—outside of News With Views—will speak up in favor of revitalizing the Militia, as some of them are already doing. Encourage them to republish or link to my commentaries. Even better, encourage them to recruit others who can write effectively on the subject, to publish their work, and to spread the message into every corner of the electronic universe. To fuel the issue to such white heat that it cannot be ignored.

What do you have to lose—other than your country if you do nothing?

 

© 2007 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved
________________________________________
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

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

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

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

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


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


E-Mail: Not available