DuckBites

Crossing the Rubicon
John Merryman - Posted: 08.18.00

There has been a lot of anxious speculation on the internet lately about the United States and its government - particularly the Federal government.

The anxiety centers around the ongoing assault on the Bill of Rights. The latest abuses to come to light, known as "Echelon" and "Carnivore." are both in flagrant violation of Amendment IV of the US Constitution. The fourth amendment guarantees privacy for the people, and prevents the government from engaging in "fishing expeditions" to find crimes.

One kind of fishing is called a "black bag job." Twice in the 1999 fiscal legislative calendar, provisions allowing the government to commit  "black bag jobs" were introduced in bills that may or may not have anything to do with crime. Luckily, these were found and excised, if reluctantly. Claire Wolfe has a wonderful term for these little nuggets, "Landmine Legislation."

In case you don¹t know the vocabulary of modern government (I didn¹t), I found the following definition at Dictionary.com.

black bag job also black-bag job (blkbg jb) - n. Slang - An act of entry, search, and sometimes removal or photographing of property, conducted by federal investigators without a warrant.

Carnivore and Echelon are both automated, computerized black bag jobs.

Thousands of new laws, rules, regulations, fees, registrations, environmental impact statements, zoning laws, tax districts; EPA, OSHA, and IRS Rules; tax-homes, and other forms of red tape are created every year. Frequently self-contradictory, it is simply impossible for an honest citizen - or even a bureaucrat - to follow them all.

To any objective observer, the government is out of control.

The Executive Branch of the government is tasked with enforcing these laws, rules, and regulations. The leader of that branch is the President of the United States. He has direct control of the military, National Guard, FBI, Department of Justice, FEMA, and hundreds of other agencies, and hundreds of thousands of people.

The nervous murmurings boil down to: "What if the President decides to use all these assets against us?" What happens if the President 'crosses the Rubicon' and tries to become a modern day Caesar?

The following is one possible answer to this question.

Worst Nightmare?

Prior to the election, the economy begins to go into recession. After a closely fought race, the new president is duly elected. A lot of the electorate are not at all happy with this new president. Those particularly incensed include so-called "Constitutionalists." Many of these call themselves "Patriots."

The new president, afraid of this sentiment, signs several executive orders. One of these includes mobilizing the National Guard of Ohio; pressing it into Federal Service.

There is much bleating and murmuring from around the country. Oddly enough, it is Maryland - not exactly a hotbed of anti-Washington activity - which makes the most noise.

Unhappy with Maryland, the President sends in troops in blatant contravention to the Constitution. He then proceeds to arrest many of the legislators of Maryland; throw them into prison, and declare martial law (not necessarily in that order). There are 51 prominent Maryland legislators and citizens thrown in prison - without being charged with a crime.

The Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, whose jurisdiction includes hearings on procedure and habeas corpus in Maryland, writes a stinging rebuke of the president¹s action. He states that the legislators were denied due process, and that the president¹s actions were unconstitutional.

Since Congress is not in session, the president says it is perfectly legal for him to suspend Habeas Corpus. It is his option as commander in chief of the military in times of civil unrest. In his ire at being questioned, the president writes a standing order for the arrest of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

The Chicago Times writes an editorial, asking if the President¹s actions are justifiable. In response, the military arrives at the offices of the newspaper, and shuts it down. In all, over 300 newspapers and media outlets would be closed by official policy of the president. Dozens of editors and publishers would be thrown in prison. However, some editors, cowed by what they had witnessed, would be lapdogs for the president. While some, with no cajoling, would be whole hearted supporters of the president ­ the most prominent being the New York Times.

Angered and dismayed by these events, hundreds of officers in the military resign en masse. The Army, decimated by the loss of many of its best officers, will not recover for years. It will be characterized by bad leadership manifested by indecisiveness, apathy, and arrogance.

The loss of men is accompanied by loss of materiel. Thousands of small arms and millions of rounds of ammunition go missing. Many armories are raided. Even a few small Federal properties are overrun - so far without bloodshed. But the tension is mounting.

Clear divisions are now appearing in the US. The Northeast Corridor is staunchly with the president - after all, they elected him. The South, again, is antagonistic toward Washington. They¹ve been screwed before by Washington; they don¹t want to get the shaft again.

The West is confused. California doesn't want to commit. It receives huge subsidies from Washington. Oregon is mute, but indications are they just want to be left alone.

The President orders elections held in Maryland - a gesture to reassure that local government is still controlled "by the people." But in order to vote, the citizens have to pass through a gauntlet of armed troops in full combat gear. Turn out is low, and the President¹s cronies are elected. Nobody is fooled by this dog and pony show.

Oh yes, the army troops - none from Maryland - also vote in these local elections.

The policies of the President have fractured the United States into many factions. The media has been silenced, or brought on board. Virtually no voice of dissent is heard. Hitler and Goebbels could take lessons from these actions.

The actual fighting in the streets starts in April. The presidential policy toward his enemies is total annihilation. Eventually, entire towns are burned to the ground. Millions are thrown out of their homes, which are subsequently razed.

The president, unable to get enough recruits for his military, coerces a frightened Congress to initiate the draft. Riots break out in New York City. Hundreds are killed; the President orders the military to quell the riots. The riots are the worse in US history - even worse than the Los Angeles Riots, or the civil rights riots of the 1960s.

When it was all over, Washington would prove victorious, but over 600,000 Americans lay dead.

Can¹t happen here? Is this scenario too bad to be possible? Can the president, really get away with suspending habeas corpus? Throw state legislators in jail? Close media outlets? Throw dissenting attorneys, judges, and newspaper editors in prison (indefinitely)? Call out the National Guard of one state to occupy the capital of another state? Write an arrest order for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Confiscate or destroy property without compensation? Bomb, kill, and imprison noncombatants including women and children? etc. etc. etc.?

Aren¹t there checks and balances here? Where is Congress during all of this? We already saw what happened to the judiciary!

I submit that ALL of these things - and worse - are possible.

And the irony is, that all of these atrocities already did happen! Here, in America.

In 1861, with "Honest Abe" as the president.

In the name of holding the Union together, he violated virtually every clause and amendment to the US Constitution. He was a despot, and a tyrant. He is responsible - more than any other president - for the present degenerate leviathan Federal State we find ourselves mired within.

Between him and his successors, especially Franklin D. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the US government has become an oppressive, cloying,  terrorist police state.

This history may disturb you. I may be excoriated and called a "Southern Sympathizer," or just a Southerner. Ad hominen attacks do not address the issue. They are merely a way to deflect arguments that cannot be attacked with facts.

Those kind of attacks attempt to deprive me of moral authority. Somehow, if the rhetorician doesn¹t have this moral authority, all his arguments are rendered moot or false. I do not seek to rehabilitate any such fictitious authority. I say, look at the facts.

Rational Basis in Fact

Some questions arise: If this scenario can happen here, what do we do? When do we act?  How do we act? And most important : How do we know when to act?

More history and philosophy discussions are needed before these questions can be thoroughly answered. One of the first questions is: Why did this happen? In light of the founding documents of this country, and the spirit of the founding fathers, how was this possible?

These questions will have to be answered in another forum. The object of this essay is to bring to your attention that you are not paranoid. And thereby give yourself a moral and rational justification for your concerns.

Further, it is necessary that fence-sitters and those with contempt toward us and our worries understand that we have a rational basis in fact for our distress. As the famous quote goes "Those who ignore history, are doomed to repeat it." There are objective historical facts we can point to. Even the current Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, (though an apologist) has commented on this very topic. What more validation could one need?

To those who say it couldn¹t happen in America, we can point to not less than nine presidents who have violated the Constitution despotically, and consequently helped to kill millions of young Americans, and imprison hundreds of thousands of dissenters. (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton).

Method of Resistance

If we are to get our country back, we have to do so with a cold objective attitude. We have to prove our case with facts, not rhetoric. Above all, we cannot become what we are rebelling against, monsters who kill innocents.

I have a phrase that I use to describe this: "Take care of the means, and the end will take care of itself."

That means, use force in retaliation. Do not initiate force. Resist against the aggressor and only the aggressor. Do not involve innocent bystanders - and there will be many innocents.

If we stick to this principle, the media will be unable to realistically attribute atrocities such as the Oklahoma City Bombing to our Bill of Rights Movement.

Some will correctly say, that the main problem here is identifying the aggressors. Others will say that we can retaliate only against those who literally have a gun to our head.

This last view is fatuous. The state uses laws to enforce its will. Hitler took over Germany and swept away the Weimar Republic legally. He didn¹t literally knock on every door, holding a Luger to each victim¹s head. He employed others to carry out his agenda. He squeezed and squeezed until his victims were defenseless and penniless. He couldn¹t have done it without people enforcing those laws.

According to our Constitution, the redress we¹re supposed to have against these onerous laws is through the judiciary. This assumes that our opposition will yield to Constitutional arguments. How can one say that we have objective justice when the lawmakers, the law enforcers, the prosecution and the judiciary, receive their paychecks from the same entity? How can one get justice when the means of defending oneself is stripped away by law enforcement in the form of imprisonment, liens, levies, and asset forfeitures, even before conviction?

The courts truly were [sic] the last resort for the innocent man. But when a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court openly declares that discarding the Constitution is ok, or even imperative "in times of emergency and war," how can anyone believe the courts will enforce that same Constitution? That virtually any action taken by the Executive Branch is justifiable during these hours, what is the likelihood that an innocent will indeed receive justice?

With few notable exceptions, the courts have become extensions of the Executive branch. The overwhelming majority of judges are elected or appointed from prosecutorial ranks. Their bias is clear.

The notable exceptions stand out because they are so few in number, and the decisions handed down astound us. The case in Texas recently where a judge actually upheld the 2nd Amendment was cause for jubilation for Bill of Rights advocates. However, it stands virtually alone in the last fifty years.

By what standard will we judge that we've had enough? Where and when is the line-in-the-sand? How do we resist force with force morally? This question has vexed many of us for a long time.

Definition of Force

My criteria is this: I will allow them to take neither my property, nor my freedom. I will not allow them to imprison me. I have done nothing immoral. I am not a thief or a criminal in the original meaning of the word.

I have earned my property literally with my life. The time I have spent working to buy it, is time I will never regain. I have already paid for it twice, because I had to pay half of my earnings in taxes. What little remains is mine. They cannot have it. Since my property represents portions of my life, I will therefore be defending my life. The twisted and tortured rules of law that specify the state¹s definition of "justifiable use of force" are not relevant to me. I will defend my life - as represented by my property and my family.

For now, I will continue to pay their fees, licenses, and other extortions as long as I can, because I am not a violent man. I can shoulder that burden a little longer. However, if the state tries to make the bounty on my property any more odious, I will stop paying even those fees I do now.

I will not be blackmailed by the state with the threat of imprisonment and poverty. If they attempt to confiscate (steal) what little they have let me keep, I will resist.

Let me be precise: any agent, under color of authority, who attempts to deprive me of my property or liberty by enforcing liens, asset forfeitures, court costs or fines, license fees, property taxes, levies, etc. will be resisted. Any judge who adjudicates against me in court with the state in relation to same, will also be resisted. As the Germans should have resisted the Gestapo and Brownshirts of Hitler¹s day.

I will not accept their cries that they are merely doing their duty as public servants; only following orders - the so-called "Nuremberg Defense." Taking my property away is synonymous with taking my life away. I will not tolerate it. I will not allow them to say they were ignorant of the legality of the laws they are enforcing.

This resistance against those who would deprive me of my life or property is therefore utterly justifiable, moral, and imperative.

As should be apparent by now, I do not believe it is possible to repeal the Government to its Constitutional limitations "within the system." The System [sic] is stacked against the people. It is too large; too powerful. But most important, since they enjoy "sovereign immunity," its agents are not held accountable for anything that they do. This abomination is a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment "equal protection" clause. But hey, otherwise, they couldn¹t do their job, right?

A Moral Foundation

The above arguments provide a moral foundation and a moral method to resist the oppressive Federal (and state) government, as well as a reasonable definition of who it is specifically that must be resisted. This discussion is by no means comprehensive. There are myriad additional points that can be stated.

Some will argue persuasively that passive resistance - like Gandhi¹s - is the route to go. Claire Wolfe is one advocate of that. Though it¹s obvious to me that she doesn¹t think it will be ultimately successful.

The fact of the matter is that we are opposing a violent adversary. This antagonist routinely kills unarmed civilians (NYC). It regularly frames innocent people (LA). It even kills its own honest police officers (New Orleans).

The IRS, FBI and the BATF ('F Troop') are especially egregious in their violations. The FBI has been a ceaseless usurper of the Bill of Rights (1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments to name a few) since its inception. J. Edgar Hoover was no different in method than Heinrich Himmler - only in degree. And even that is open for debate!

Department of Justice attorneys recently stated that a citizen has no right to firearm ownership (U.S. v. Emerson). They also defy Federal law regarding "record keeping" of gun purchases gathered from background checks (NICS). They do this is the name of "auditing." Yeah, right.

Corruption and malfeasance in the Executive and Legislative branches are ignored and stonewalled, while the agents themselves violate their oaths of office daily.

Conclusion

The subject here is complex. It is difficult to constrain myself to these very few issues. The goal of this essay was to validate the concerns of my target audience - people who are worried about our country¹s descent into a totalitarian police state.

Once this crucial validation is given, the next goal was to give a moral foundation for the actions that will become necessary in the very near future. Finally, I wanted to give a definition of who specifically to resist. Giving a moral sanction to violence may give one pause, and I do not do so lightly. But remember, force is moral (and imperative) in reaction to force.

Now that we have a moral sanction in the abstract, how does it translate into concrete action?

John Merryman
nom de guerre

"Take care of the means, and the end will take care of itself."


Epilogue

This was written when Clinton was in office. Little did I suspect that his successor was an even greater - and more likely - threat to pull off just such a coup!


Copyright © 2000 by Neil Alexander