From Fear is Your Responsibility
Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
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
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
• 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
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
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’
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
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
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
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
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
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