(edwin vieira on secession, new world order and the american republic)

7/31/2019 (Edwin Vieira on Secession, New World Order and the AmericanRepublic)

1/4

Edwin Vieira on Secession, New World Order and the

American Republic

(Editors Note: My comments on Mr. Vieiras anti-secession article will follow this posting.)

Pastor Chuck Baldwins recent commentary, Breakup of U.S. Is Inevitable, sets out a provocativethesis in support of secession. Essentially, his argument is that:

(i) The United States is about to break up into small fragments.

(ii) This disintegration fits into the plan of the global elitists to construct a New World Order and

a world government.

(iii) American patriots should welcome, participate in, assist, and even accelerate this breakup

through secession of one or more States. And,

(iv) Secession will defeat the New World Order, at least with respect to the seceding States.

It may simply be that my mind is not sufficiently plastic to wrap itself around this argumentbut I

sense that something is missing here.

Now, I agree with Pastor Baldwin that freedom-loving people are reaching a point of frustrationand even fury. But I fear that he makes rather a large leap of logic to conclude that State secession

is, very properly, the last best option for freedomists to maintain fidelity to the principles of liberty.

First, Pastor Baldwin asserts that [t]he breakup of the US in inevitable! Short of another Great

Awakening, nothing can stop it. Well, I wonder if anything in the course of human events (as the

Declaration of Independence put it) is truly inevitable, if enough people, sufficiently committed

to another outcome, oppose it. And, as Pastor Baldwin himself correctly observes, freedom-loving

people are reaching a point of frustrationand even fury. So maybe a new Great Awakening, in

the political sense, is actually emerging.

Besides, it appears that Pastor Baldwins analysis may be mixing apples with oranges. For instance,

he states that [i]t is a historical fact that no empire can sustain itself. And America is more andmore becoming a global empire. Folks, this new American empire is not sustainable. Mark it

down: the American empire will follow every other notable empire of antiquity and collapse of its

own weight. The signs are already ubiquitous. To which I say: Amen! But is the American

empire actually America; or is it the twisted, unconstitutional, unholy perversion of America that

has been temporarily imposed upon WE THE PEOPLE by the globalists in our midst in aid of their

own megalomaniacal schemes for world hegemony? And if the American empire were to collapse

as I, for one, anticipate that it willwhy should the real America, founded upon the quite anti-

imperialistic principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, have to collapse

with it? Even more to the point, why should any patriot want the real America to collapse? Is it not

possible that, with and even because of the collapse of the American empire, the real America

could be restored and rejuvenated? And would not that be a desirable result?

In addition, if Pastor Baldwin is correct (as I believe he is) that no empire can sustain itself, then

why should we conclusively presume that the global empire of the New World Order could sustain

itself, or perhaps even come into being in the first place? It would seem that, the larger the empire,

the weaker it must be, and that therefore prognostications of collapse will most likely be accurate

when the imperialists attempt to impose their structure upon the entire world.

Second, Pastor Baldwin tells us that [g]lobalists are already planning Americas breakup. Indeed,

their plans for the future global economy DEMAND that America fracture. Now, there can be no

doubt that, on this score, Pastor Baldwin is accurate. The globalists New World Order cannot

survive, or even come into existence, with an intact, economically and militarily strong, and legallyindependent (that is, sovereign) America standing against it. America frustrated the globalists first

scheme for world governmentthe League of Nations. And although America was roped in to

their next schemethe United Nationsa large proportion of her population has always been (and


2/4

now remains) at least suspicious of, and even openly antagonistic to, that institution. So, if America

cannot be absorbed into some supra-national halfway house to global government, such as the

projected North American Union, the globalists would like to see her balkanized into a number of

mutually quarrelsome mini-states that they can manage politically by the age-old device of divide

and rule.

My question to Pastor Baldwin, though, is: Divide and rule being the globalists own strategy for

bringing America down and setting the New World Order up, why should patriots assist them,through secession or in any other way? As Sun Tzu taught, the highest form of generalship is to

baulk the enemys plans, not to accede to, let alone to aid and abet, them. See Sun Tzu on the Art

of War, Lionel Giles translation (Shanghai, China, 1910), Chapter III, 3, at 17.

True enough, if secession were a way to baulk the enemys plans, things would be different.

But that would depend upon the practicality of secession for that purpose. Pastor Baldwin

asserts that all of those who want to parade around and pontificate about the unconstitutionality

and impracticality of secession can do so to their hearts content. It changes nothing. The breakup

is coming. Well, [t]he breakup [may be] comingbut, even if it is, that does not necessarily

compel the conclusion that secession is the best way, or even any way, to deal with the situation.

Certainly, if secession were both constitutional and practical, it would be worthy of consideration.Under some extreme circumstances, secession would constitute a possible option, even were it

unconstitutional, if it were nonetheless practical. But if secession is both unconstitutional and

impractical, how can it be (as Pastor Baldwin claims) the last best option for freedomists to

maintain fidelity to the principles of liberty? If secession cannot be shown to be workable, it is

not a viable option at allunless one subscribes to the Divine Wind approach to national defense.

Also, I suspect that, far from fearing secession, the globalists would actually welcome it, because

they anticipate that a single seceding State or even a gaggle of seceding States could not

possibly stand up to the New World Order. And every move towards secession would accelerate

the breakup of America upon which (even Pastor Baldwin agrees) the globalists plans depend.

I believe that an united America, operating according to her Constitution and uncompromisinglyasserting her national sovereignty under the Declaration of Independence, could successfully fend

off the New World Orderalthough, perhaps, it might be a long-drawn-out and close-run thing. I

believe that the globalists think so, too, and are doubtlessly sore disturbed by that distinct

possibility. But what lone State or little group of States could put up such resistance? That one or a

few States (in Pastor Baldwins words) with the foresight to recognize the rise of tyranny and

globalism as it approaches, [might] muster the courage and fortitude to do what principled patriots

and lovers of liberty have always done: draw their line in the sand for freedom would not,

unfortunately, be enough. Something sufficiently strong must stand behind any such line in the

sand to keep the New World Order from crossing it at will. As Mao Tse-tung rightly opined,

[p]olitical power grows out of the barrel of a gun, not out of abstract line[s drawn] in the sand.

Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-tung (Peking, China, 1966), at 61. The Second Amendment

agrees (although on a much more principled basis): A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the

security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. And

Article 13 of Virginias Declaration of Rights is even more precise: [A] well regulated militia,

composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a

free state. [L]ine[s] in the sand, without lead and steeland, I should add, silver and goldin

the hands of the people to back them up, are as evanescent as gnats and of as little consequence.

At the present moment, any State which attempts to secede will simply be jumping from the

frying pan into the fire, because no State is preparedin terms of territorial expanse, size of

population, natural resources, economic development, and especially military preparednessfor

both secession and subsequent protracted conflict with the globalists and their New World Order.For instance, at the present moment no State (as I have pointed out repeatedly) has taken the first

step either towards actually adopting an alternative economically sound currency (to free her from


3/4

the Federal Reserve System) or towards actually revitalizing her Militia (to provide her with true

homeland security), let alone bothand without which two reforms, at a minimum, all calls for

secession hold about as much water as a sieve. If there is a single State which is now ready,

politically and practically, for secession, I should appreciate having someone identify that State.

And if, as I suspect, no such State exists, then I should appreciate having someone explain precisely

how any State can be made ready for secession in the near future. How secession might

actually be accomplished, according to a plan the efficacy of which is verifiable or falsifiable, is, tomy pedestrian mind, more important than whether secession might theoretically be a good idea

because if secession cannot be made to work very soon, it hardly seems worth discussing so late

in the day.

In short, I should think that, in the absence of a practical blueprint for secession that shows not

only how secession will come about but also precisely how it will baulk the enemys plans as to

the New World Order, the only prudent course for patriots is to do whatever can be done to retake

Americaas a wholeState by State, to restore her to true constitutional government, and to

reassert her sovereignty under the Declaration of Independence.

2010 Edwin Vieira, Jr. All Rights Reserved

Your faithful Editor responds:

Mr. Vieira has a long record of opposing secession. He has written extensively about the

constitutionality of secession, and has concluded that it is not possible. Of course I disagree with

many of Vieiras opinions.

Mr. Vieira also has his educational pedigree from Harvard, one of the very universities that helps fill

the District of Columbia with eager and willing big-government sycophants. It would be indelicate

of me to write him off as a Yankee lawyer predisposed to protecting the interests of Harvard and the

DC gang. Indelicatenot necessarily incorrect. But one can be right on some issues and wrong on

others.

I am far less concerned about the machinations of the New World Order crowd than Vieira and

Baldwin.

Vieiras assertion that America could resist the New World Order with adherence to its Declaration

of Independence and Constitution is naivete at its highest exhibition. What he omits is that the

Declaration of Independence is a document that asserts the sovereignty of thirteen free and

independent States. Jeffersons label of the United States of America was a decription of states

united under a common purpose, not a new nation. There was no new nation at that moment. Even

under the Articles of Confederation that were ratified after the war, the states were independent

and sovereign nations.

So, a Declaration of Independence is only fit for a state asserting its sovereignty against the tyranny

of an empire. It is absurd for a fifty-state conglomeration of un-sovereign serf states to make noises

about independence when they cannot muster the courage to become individually sovereign once

more.

As to the efficacy of the Constitution, I refer you once again to the Lysander Spooner epic work

No Treason. Spooner proves unerringly and irrefutably that the US Constitution has not now, nor

ever at any time, held status as a legally enforceable document. So, I find that Vieiras reliance on a

constitutional argument is fatally flawed from its foundational premise.

Keeping a nation of fifty states and over 300 million people together as a single national unit has

proven unworkable. When We The People was written by Thomas Jefferson, the population of the

thirteen colonies was less than 3 million. So, each state was only a few hundred thousand souls.Smaller units of government more closely available to the people always function more efficiently.

So, from the most elemental argument, smaller states are inherently more desirable than big nations.


4/4

Vieira is entirely correct that no state can secede without the power of the purse and the power of

the sword. He is also correct to assert that no state possesses either of these powers and that no state

is even preparing to secede.

The practical blueprint for secession that Vieira desires is quite simple, but not found in Baldwins

article. But here it is:

1. Establish a money system based only upon gold and silver. That is the power of the purse.2. Re-establish the well-regulated militia. That is the power of the sword.

3. Call a constitution convention in the state to rewrite the existing state constitution into a

document of governance fit for a nation.

4. Draft a Declaration of Independence and an Ordinance of Secession.

5. Present the Declaration and Ordinance to the proper Federal authorities.

Done! Secession completed. Now the REAL work begins.

The practical blueprint for secession omits the practical realities of politics. To wit, no state

government will consider secession until Washingtons system collapses. No state will voluntarily

secede until the economic system is so hopelessly, irrecoverably destroyed that Washington can

offer nothing more than hyperinflation and martial law. And even in the face of that desperatesituation, only a handful of states will secede. The rest will meekly await their orders from their DC

masters.

In conclusion, Vieira has deemed secession both unconstitutional and impractical. I assert that while

secession is presently impractical, the constitutionality of secession is irrelevant.

Secession is the Hope for Mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted,

provided full credit is given.

(edwin vieira on secession, new world order and the american republic)

Documents