Department of Homeland Security Preparing for Civil War?

The Department of Homeland Security -- Why Is It Buying Millions of Hollow Point Rounds?

It sounds incredible -- on second thought, not so incredible anymore -- that the Department of Home Security is preparing for a civil war or an economic collapse.  One website claims the DHS has purchased over a billion hollow point rounds of ammunition.  The site further claims that international law prohibits the use of hollow points by the military, and that they can only be used domestically.  Putting two and two together, one might conclude that the DHS is preparing for civil war.  See their video here.

The same video documents the massive public purchases of firearms following Obama's re-election, as well as massive buying of ammunition.  Many Americans appear to be preparing for a civil war as well....as rebels.  Much of the public instinctively knows a great internal conflict is coming and want to be ready.

The same website claims that the Illinois State legislature is planning to ram through a state law banning all firearms from the state, with confiscation to follow.

The Signs Are There:  the Federal Government Has Become a Threat to Liberty

More and more, our federal government appears to be plotting to end our freedoms and impose a form of fascism on the country.  Obama's re-election has emboldened the Left, and they appear to be seizing an historic opportunity to transform the United States into a socialist/fascist tyranny.  They have been at this for decades, but previously were content with a slow gradualism of transformation, a subtle pollution of the zeitgeist.  The metaphor most often quoted for this is "boiling the frog."  If you drop a frog into a pan of boiling water (the theory goes), it will immediately jump out to save itself.  However, if you increase the heat a degree at a time, the frog will be cooked before it realizes the danger.

We seem to be moving from slowly increasing the heat to microwaving the frog.  Feinstein's fascist gun confiscation bill is proof.  Obama, a radical punk, continues his destruction of the economy and forcing many more citizens onto the welfare rolls, making them dependents of the state.  A New York Times Op-Ed this week advocated ending the Constitution of the United States so that government politicians can do whatever they like.

A few months ago, a military magazine carried an article advising the military on how to prepare for and fight an internal insurrection -- a civil war.  Of course, that eventuality will be moot if the populace is disarmed and unable to fight.  In any case, statists are recognizing the possibility of civil war.

Time to Bring Back the Militias?

I believe it is time to bring back the militias, and to support them and fund them.  Under Bill Clinton's regime, many concerned citizens feared the destruction of their rights, and formed unofficial and unrecognized militias.  Militias were groups of armed men who practiced target shooting together and even trained together in military tactics.  They held meetings and discussed survival tactics and techniques.  These militia members saw themselves as the "unorganized militia," as provided for in Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 13 -- United States Code.

The Left did its usual slander job on the militias following Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma.  McVeigh was not a member of any militia, nor was he acting from any philosophy or dogma put out by the militias.  Nevertheless, the Left successfully tainted the reputation of the militias, and hung the McVeigh albatross around militia members' necks.  Now when you mention "militias," many people automatically envision mass murderer Timothy McVeigh.

In spite of this, it's time to bring these militias back.  The threat of an oppressive, unconstitutional federal government is now greater than ever.  Once gun confiscation begins in mass, it will be time to fight.  We cannot give up our guns meekly.

Will the Military Step In, and If So, Whose Side Will They Take?

The U.S. Military is largely patriotic, loyal and conservative.  If civil war breaks out, will they support the federal usurpers, or will they support the Constitution and the people?  Aren't the military sworn to oppose all enemies, foreign and domestic?  If there is a domestic enemy, will they consider that enemy us, or the Democrats in office?  What about Posse Comitatus?

Since the Obama and the Democrats are already busily dismantling all of our constitutional protections, why should the Military be any different?  Military leaders should privately think on these awful possibilities, and what their reaction will be in the event of civil war.  Instead of becoming an arm of tyranny, they could become the sword of liberty, by deposing an out-of-control, leftist tyranny.

Four States to Vote on Nullification of Obamacare

The Tenth Amendment Center states that four states are planning to vote on bills that would nullify Obamacare, making the law null and void and unenforceable in those states.  Another ten or so states are mulling over the creation of similar bills.  Nullification, an old American strategy, may yet be the best way to end the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The principle of nullification is not new, and is described in Thomas E. Wood's book 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask.  The Virginia Resolutions of 1798 concluded that if the federal government should encroach upon the powers reserved to the states, the states have a right to nullify the offending law and refuse to enforce it—after all, a law that violates the Constitution is no law at all. Taken together, these ideas became known as the “Principles of ’98."

It doesn't matter if a federal court, including the Supreme Court, decides differently.  Ultimately, it is the right of the individual states to determine the constitutionality of any federal laws and choose to obey them or not.

This principle has precedent in American history.  Of course, there is the well-known "Nullification Crisis" of 1833, when South Carolina passed an ordinance of nullification against the 1828 federal Tariff of Abominations that would have greatly increased the tax on imported goods from Britain, resulting in a significant lowering of British demand for Southern cotton.  President Andrew Jackson was prepared to send federal troops to South Carolina to enforce the tariff, but a compromise ended the crisis.

However, that nullification crisis of 1833 wasn't the first time individual states have nullified federal laws.  The first was by Massachusetts, reacting to federal government's Embargo of 1807.  This embargo was designed to punish Britain and France for depredations of American neutrality rights on the seas, and prohibited any American trade with foreign nations whatsoever.  The U.S. Navy was to enforce the embargo by stopping and searching merchant ships -- a clear violation of the 4th Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures.  Further, the embargo badly damaged the New England economy.

A federal district court ruled the embargo constitutional, but Massachusetts did not agree, and passed state laws to nullify the federal embargo.  The nullification held.  The important thing to note is that the federal court's decision was not the last word on the matter.   The Massachusetts House explained:

“Were it true, that the measures of government once passed into an act, the constitutionality of that act is stamped with the deal of infallibility, and is no longer a subject for the deliberation or remonstrance of the citizen, to what monstrous lengths might not an arbitrary and tyrannical administration carry its power…. Were such doctrine sound, what species of oppression might not be inflicted on the prostrate liberties of our country? If such a doctrine were true, our Constitution would be nothing but a name—nay, worse, a fatal instrument to sanctify oppression, and legalize the tyranny which inflicts it.”  (Thomas E. Woods, 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask.)

The Governor of Connecticut, John Trumbull, agreed with the Massachusetts legislature, stating:

“Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous task—it is their right—it becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government.”  (See Woods Jr., Thomas E. (2007-07-10). 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask (p. 30). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.) 

Conclusions:  Nullification of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is both legal and constitutional, and is undoubtedly the most expedient way to dispose of this unconstitutional and oppressive federal law.  However, each state will have to pass its own separate nullification laws.  Which state will be the first to do so?  Once one does, others will quickly follow.

The Sickening Reality of the Obamacare Decision

I really wasn't surprised by the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare.  I generally expect the worst while hoping for the best.  When I turned on the radio Thursday morning on the way to work, and learned of Justice John Roberts' utterly asinine position, it was mere confirmation of what I already knew:  America is over.  America was over when Americans elected Barack Obama to be President of the United States.

Now that we can finally acknowledge the death of America, perhaps we can move on to finding a way to resurrect her, or, if not all of her, perhaps part of her, through an association or even secession of like-minded states (like Arizona and Texas).  I know it sounds bizarre, like something out of a cheap novel, but it's way past time to realize that the federal government (including and especially the Supreme Court) is the enemy of freedom -- at least in its present form.

It's time to realize that our Constitution and Bill of Rights are dead letters.  The statists will enforce them when convenient, or when they can twist their original meaning and purpose to somehow increase federal power over the individual.  They will not enforce them merely to protect the individual from an overweening federal government.

One of the immediate acts that can be taken is nullification.  Nullification is when individual states refuse to implement or obey federal laws that violate the Constitution.  This is not "rebellion against law," because unconstitutional enactments are not law.  Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolutions that “whensoever the [federal] government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…”

Let the peaceful revolution begin.

Related post:  The Republic of the United States of America is Dead

Jim Robinson is Right

The Free Republic post that Rick Moran and Charles Johnson find so disagreeable is here.

Jim Robinson, the founder of FreeRebublic.com, is not a friend of mine. I have had my issues with him and have stated categorically that I consider the man an asshole. However, on the topic of his post I would have to say that he is right. Right in assuming that the radical left administration now in power is beyond the scope of normal politics and normal solutions through normal channels.

I too have called for steps by the individual states to resist the tyrannies now being foisted upon us in the name of socialism and environmental extremism. Robinson is merely posing some possible alternatives to just sitting still and accepting the extreme hardships that Obama has in store for us. It is a discussion worth having. Yes, we can wait four years until a new election, but much damage will have been done by then, to the Republic and to future generations who will have to pay for the fiscal catastrophe that this neo-Marxist is busily implementing.

If we do nothing, the economic destruction will be devastating, creating a new depression similar to the 1930's, with poverty and misery our lot for many years to come. We have to decide whether "politics as usual" is worth that price.

I don't necessarily believe that Robinson's solution is the correct one or the only one, but it is a starting point for a discussion worth having. My own solution would include a convention of all willing states to form a pact or block that would actively resist socialist tyranny by a flat refusal to go along. Representatives of these states should state that they will not implement or allow implementation within their borders of socialized medicine, cap and trade taxation or the reckless creation of debt that is unprecedented in our history. Further, they will not honor as binding law any unconstitutional decrees by a dogmatically leftist and activist Supreme Court (such as, for example, any decrees stating that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to individuals, a position that Obama has long held).

How all of this could be accomplished is something that would have to be worked out by a conference of the willing states. Secession should not be ruled out as an option to be used only in an extreme situation. "Consent of the governed" is the foundation of our Republic and perhaps it is time to withdraw our consent. Such a movement would indeed create a lot of controversy but the implications of it might be enough to stop Obama's aggressive program. The Democratic Party might grow some gonads and join us in stopping him.

Yes, Obama won the election; however, the Constitution is supposed to create boundaries beyond which elected officials cannot go. Obama and his administration do not feel in any way obligated to respect those boundaries. Therefore, we are put into a position of accepting serfdom or finding new ways to peacefully resist.

Jim Robinson is right: we need a serious conversation about our alternatives.