The Breakup of the United States -- if it was Brad and Angelina you'd read it!

I found this article by Michael S. Rozeff over at Lew Rockwell to be very insightful, maybe you will too!
Recently by Michael S. Rozeff: International Banking Colossus in the Making

As the dissatisfactions of Americans with their national government grow, so does the likelihood of the breakup of the United States. I believe that most Americans can improve their well-being by ending the national government, that is, ending the Union. I believe that this goal should shape politics if politics is to do much good.

I don’t think Americans are going to be the first people in the modern era to initiate a large-scale anarchy. But Americans might conceivably move back to a federal form of government something like that under the Articles of Confederation. If so, the problem is how to proceed. Many Americans feel (and are) trapped and thwarted by government power.

I see two paths. Americans can do this either acting as individuals formed into a body politic of 300 million Americans or as 50 body politics organized by state. I think action by state has a better chance of success.

To act as one body, Americans would have to alter their Constitution. The divisions among Americans make this highly unlikely. Even if it were pursued, the results would be highly uncertain.

I like to think of federal programs being made optional at either the state or the personal level, but that means ending the Constitution or radically amending it. This takes me back to the other path of change: the States. This path looks more viable.

We the People created the Constitution through state legislatures. That is a quasi-legal path to undoing the Constitution and thus breaking up the United States. This begins a process by which Americans take back their own government. I say "begins" because most states are also candidates for restructuring. Many local governments are also out of control.

I don’t think Americans can improve their lot by participating in national politics under the current rules of the national game. I think they have to change the rules. They have to end the Union and get out from under the existing Constitution, which is now entirely controlled and interpreted by the national government.

Since there is no consensus for going back to the original Constitution and since it would have to be rewritten and renegotiated, which is a process of uncertain outcome and which is impractical anyway, this leaves one viable path: ending the Union and ending this Constitution.

Rather than thinking in terms of national politics, which at best can only produce marginal changes and which plays into the hands of the national powers-that-be, it would be far smarter to have no national or federal government at all. Although this involves significant political restructuring, We the People and the States can always retain or exercise options to form federated organizations for specific and limited purposes if we so desire.

But by what means can Americans undo the Union?

A viable means is the withdrawal of consent by Vermonters or Texans or Alaskans or Arizonans or Californians or the citizens of any state to the U.S. government. People gain leverage and power against the national Leviathan by acting as citizens of their respective states. They need to act through their state legislatures, not as citizens of the United States. In the old days of whaling, the method of bringing down the whale was by several crews working together in several boats. It was not by individual whalers rowing around by themselves and confronting Leviathan on their own.

The states entered the Union. Secession once before almost ended the Union. The states are the political entities by which the Union and its burdens and injustices can be ended.

Action through one or more states is one of the few and maybe the only viable political means by which the Union can be broken up.

Contrast this with a national tax revolt, something that I believe is not a viable means of achieving a significant and lasting change in our politics. A tax revolt movement that seeks redress at the national level will not cause the U.S. to break up. That is the politics of accommodation and adjustment. It doesn’t challenge Congress itself. It doesn’t challenge the United States. It doesn’t challenge the Constitution. It leaves the power structure intact. As soon as such a movement is tossed a few crumbs, it loses its momentum. The national government divides it and conquers it. The national government lives on. It can regain its dominance over time by any number of means, such as by invoking some imaginary emergency.

A tax revolt that works from and through the state legislatures directly undermines the Union. It directly challenges the power of Congress to tax. That’s a far stronger political platform for restructuring the United States.

Outright secession is one political measure in a spectrum of possible actions by which one or more states stand up to the U.S. government. Nullification is another. Withdrawal from the banking system is another. A separate payments system at the state level is a fourth. Refusal to obey any of hundreds of U.S. directives is a fifth. The formation of alliances among states is another.

In fact, there are so many possible ways by which one or more states stand up to the Union that, given enough time and the right conditions, a breakup is all but assured. The same cannot be said of any movement that seeks to work change by confronting Americans as one large group with their national government.

All that has to happen at present is a spark lit by one or more States and the Union will go up in smoke. The Empire will fall. The tinder is very dry right now. One bolt of lightning will set the U.S. ablaze.

The breakup can start small. Momentum will do the rest. There will be a bandwagon effect. The accumulated dissatisfactions with the monumental corruption, power-mongering, waste, and totalitarian nature of the United States government will seek and find channels of political relief.

The number of potential actions that can set off a chain reaction is very large. Once one or more of the States throw down the gauntlet, the downfall of the U.S. will be sparked.

This will come through the financial markets. The value of the United States paper currency depends critically on the taxing power of the United States. Anything that undermines U.S. tax collections undermines the U.S. dollar.

To bring down the U.S. government, all it may take is for one state to declare that its citizens need no longer pay taxes to the U.S. government. No matter what the national government does next and no matter what complex sequence of political tit for tat ensues, the uncertainty will balloon.

The financial markets will do the rest. A flight from the U.S. dollar will set in. Flight from the dollar will torpedo and sink the national government.

The Chinese and other foreign lenders will be very unhappy about their investments. So will anyone who is a creditor of the U.S.

Financial market prices at present are not factoring in even a small chance of this happening. Lenders to Uncle Sam act as if everything is hunky-dory. U.S. government bonds even look attractive to those who believe further and deeper depression is imminent.

No break up is visible in the short run. This seems to confirm such thinking. But boiling beneath the surface is a rising stream of heated discontent. Major political change is far more likely than it may seem to superficial observation.

Greek bond prices fell very sharply when the government went into crisis. They only recovered when the rest of Euroland decided to bail out the Greek government and bondholders.

There is no external bank or government that can or will extend credit to the U.S. to save the dollar once the perception spreads that its tax-collecting power is permanently impaired.

The Federal Reserve can’t save the dollar or the U.S. government by extending credit. The markets will see right through that. In a politically fragile situation where the tax-collecting power of the national government has sunk, the Fed is powerless to save the national government.

Once enough people in a given state gain the conviction that they will be far better off by shutting off the flow of their incomes to Washington, then they will get their legislature to stand up to Washington’s dictates. This will encourage citizens of other states who are in a similar situation.

There does not have to be a shot heard round the world as on April 19, 1775. A Declaration of Tax Independence will take its place.

Even if such a process of one state standing up against Uncle Sam fails, even if it elicits responses from the national government that thwart immediate success, experience will be gained. The national government is bound to show its true oppressive colors in such an episode. The game changes. A game-changing event or series of events is what is needed.

The government of the United States markets itself as the nation’s defender. It advertises that it provides security nationwide for We the People. It claims that it provides military security, economic security, and social security.

These are all false claims. More and more Americans recognize these claims as false. More and more Americans recognize that the United States government has reduced their security in all its many forms.

The United States government has succeeded in entangling Americans in an endless succession of foreign wars. It has succeeded in retarding and even reversing standards of living. It has succeeded in raising medical care costs and reducing the quality of medical care. It has perpetuated a Ponzi scheme of social security that is doomed to fail. The United States government is responsible for reducing American freedoms, for spying on Americans, for searching them, and for turning travel into a nightmare.

More and more Americans realize that promises of security do not create security. More and more Americans realize that the United States government creates insecurity and disorder.

The United States government does not deserve the tax dollars it collects. This is the fundamental bread-and-butter reason for ending the Union. The Constitution allows massive tax collections for purposes enunciated by Washington. There is no way to stop this process, which is killing the country, except by undoing the political foundation by which it is enforced.

The stream of tax dollars flowing to Washington can be turned off by the action of one or more state legislatures who act on behalf of their citizens. When that source of financing is halted, the United States government will be well on its way to breakup. This is the great gift that we should bestow on ourselves and future Americans.

Americans will remain. America will remain. The nation will remain. The People will remain. The country will remain. The United States government is none of these things. It will go. With that burden lifted from our shoulders, we can once again make our way to better lives. We can renew a process of liberation and liberty that has been frustrated.

July 26, 2010


Red said...

I think that is why the Fed is coming down so hard on Arizona. It isn't that Arizona is breaking any federal laws it's that Arizona threw down the gauntlet with passage of the illegal alien legislation SB 1070 which basically supports federal laws that are already on the book. Yet it clashes with the Feds agenda of open borders and a 'North American Union" of sorts. which is why people like Calderone have been allowed by our government to speak out against our own states in our own House. It is downright blasphemy and treasonous. Our Federal government is committing high treason as I type this. That's why the movement for states rights and the reassertion of the 10th Amendment have been so powerful. As soon as states get a whiff of their own God-given autonomy then the Fed will start to get really nervous. It isn't going to be pretty either.

I see our country going one of two ways: becoming a complete socialist sheeple state or states bowing up and secessions starting up. If Texas would only follow suit with Arizona then the sleeping giant will truly have awakened. God bless Texas.

Red said...

Totally linked!

Mango's Madness said...

All of the troubles we have in this country are a result of the Imperial President and his Congress. We are nothing but serfs, the peasants to be used and controlled for the Imperial good. Look at the kingdoms of old Europe and you can see the same type of events. Greed and power is their motto!


LandShark 5150 said...

Red - I hear ya sis, me has a tape of our (Texicans) grease for brains gubner, getting a standing O from LaRazza. He is pandering for votes when he plans for the prez. He has said that he has NO intention of border control and thinks Arizona is wrong, its a fed issue. He talks the "S" word only when the tea partiers hold rallies or Beck comes to town to grand stand with DeceptiCons. We are SOOOO fucked it hurts. Belize is sounding better each day I wake up in this fed-er-ally fixed faux fubar we once called home. I'm disgraced to call meself a Texan, when we have a mouthpiece like Perry. We once were admired for our backbone, now we just get boned from the backside.
Thanks my pirate smiled sis, for your comment!

LandShark 5150 said...

Mango - long time.
The ruled and the rulers. If ya would elct me to congress, I'd lock the doors and kill'em all. Dreaming of course, maybe sedition, but it is less than what they do hourly and only would effect 545 people.

Red said...

I blame Beck for helping Perry get re-elected. Capt. Instigate had to paint the contender to look like a 9/11 truther. I would say that Weepy the Clown needs to consider the repercussions of his actions but he is too busy selling books and being enamored with himself. Basically too buys believing his own hype.

We'd have more of a fighting chance if other states would sack up and make the stand. Trying to convince this generations up and comers to fight for American sovereignty let alone state sovereignty is a task for Sisyphus—about as effective. We have so many elected state reps who buy into the big governemtn cheese and become transfixed on propelling themselves at the expense of our democracy. Ever seen "Jericho"? It would probably take a reset button of that caliber to really affect anything unfortunately.

The Griper said...

nice bit of dreaming, my friend. a study of history would declare that the solutions you propose are not workable.

Our Constitution, as written, is not the problem. the problem lies in the interpretation of it. and given this we must conclude that it will happen with any Constitution for there will always be those who place political ideology above all else even to the point of interpretating any Constitution to fit their particular ideology.

LandShark 5150 said...

Griper -- much like Reagan's 64' speach for Goldwater, which is good, the question has to remain.
What have we (as conservatives)gained? The tea party movement is a new breath of it but really, have we gained anything, has one item of government intrusion been yielded, other than that brief moment of clinton rollback of welfare, in a nut shell -- no.
I agree with you on interpretation aspect that is lost in translation. But the document is dead and other than blowing up the existing system and resetting the foundation, there is no answer.
We have the same blue/red, yankee/redsox, bullshit that is the same sided teams, they both are masters and we thier servants.
Look at yesterday, the so called conserves voted for the borrowing of non-existing funds, 33 bil, for the war effort. We do not have it, but they dont care.
The nullification and seccession is the only answer. That is constitutionally the only answer, one that has been lost by lib interpretation being taught and lost, taught and lost.

The Griper said...

history shows us what happened with the idea of seccession. it is called the Civil War. the founding fathers understood this possibility of wars because of the wars in Europe between the States there. and this Constitution was written in such a manner as to prevent this. the Supreme Court was created just for this purpose.

as for nullification, that was tried too. remember, the Articles of Confederation was our first Constitution and the one we have replaced it.

nullifying it would require a nation whose mindset was such that would allow for its nullification and if that mindset ever would exist then there would be no need to nullify it because there would be enough to demand the rightful interpretation of it.

LandShark 5150 said...

Griper -- The Revolutionary War was America’s first war of secession.
America’s most prominent secessionist, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, was very clear about what he was saying: Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and whenever that consent is withdrawn, it is the right of the people to "alter or abolish" that government and "to institute a new government." The word "secession" was not a part of the American language at that time, so Jefferson used the word "separation" instead to describe the intentions of the American colonial secessionists.
The Declaration is also a states’ rights document (not surprisingly, since Jefferson was the intellectual inspiration for the American states’ rights political tradition). This, too, is foreign to most Americans. But read the final paragraph of the Declaration which states:
That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other things which independent states may of right do (emphasis in original).
Each colony was considered to be a free and independent state, or nation, in and of itself. There was no such thing as "the United States of America" in the minds of the founders. The independent colonies were simply united for a particular cause: seceding from the British empire. Each individual state was assumed to possess all the rights that any state possesses, even to wage war and conclude peace. Indeed, when King George III finally signed a peace treaty he signed it with all the individual American states, named one by one, and not something called "The United States of America." The "United States" as a consolidated, monopolistic government is a fiction invented by Lincoln and instituted as a matter of policy at gunpoint and at the expense of some 600,000 American lives during 1861–1865.
Jefferson defended the right of secession in his first inaugural address by declaring, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." (In sharp contrast, in his first inaugural address, Lincoln promised an "invasion" with massive "bloodshed" (his words) of any state that failed to collect the newly-doubled federal tariff rate by seceding from the union).

Jefferson made numerous statements in defense of the defining principal of the American Revolution: the right of secession. In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly he wrote:
Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation [i.e., secession] at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.
In an August 12, 1803 letter to John C. Breckinridge Jefferson addressed the same issue, in light of the New England Federalists’ secession movement in response to his Louisiana Purchase. If there were a "separation" into two confederacies, he wrote, "God bless them both, & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."