“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
Declaration of Independence – July 4th 1776
George Orwell’s once wrote “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” The “truth” about our predicament in America today is that folks are frustrated and fed up feeling that things continue to get worse in this country and that nobody’s listening. Writing representatives, protesting, joining tea parties, voting for “change”, contributing to candidates promising a ‘new’ direction – nothing seems to turn the tide of further government insanity or the growing feeling that our way of life is going down the tubes and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it through the ‘accepted’ means. Clearly, the United States government has evolved into mechanism representing corporate & Wall Street interests rather than any semblance of representing the People. While few doubt this paradigm anymore, it still needs to be admitted out loud and we should accept what that really means.
Like it or not, this usurpation of our Republic must be stopped or our way of life and our heritage will be lost forever. If the abuses of fundamental Rights continues unabated, if a change in the direction of this country is not forthcoming (damn soon), a line will be crossed and a tipping point reached after which, either this nation will will fall into complete tyranny or, as Jack Kennedy warned: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”
Certainly, it’s obvious to any Citizen who can still fog a mirror, that years of inept management of the public’s affairs, outright corruption, the passage of questionable law after law, initiated by federal authorities, and not resisted by the judicial branch, directly and adversely effects the continuance of honest Constitutional government as we know it. The ongoing quasi-legal usurpation of the Bill of Rights and lack of real or honest responsiveness of government to the People appears fueled by the complete lack of any belief at the federal level that they are accountable to the People.
The current ‘state of the Union’ might be summarized as follows, the national economy is in free-fall from the SEC and federal banking regulators neither regulating nor ‘protecting’ anything due to their ‘relationships’ with those whom they’re tasked to regulate – in fact, they’ve abetted blatant criminal fraud. The private banking cartel know as the ‘Federal’ reserve bank is creating money faster that the Weimar Republic, backed by nothing at all and flooding the world markets with it. The food supply suffers recalls of tainted and poisoned food and drugs regularly due to the FDA ‘relationships’ with the drug companies and agricultural conglomerates, the borders wide open and defenseless because Homeland Security refuses to act on its mission statement and now there’s an ecological catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, unprecedented in human history, due to the government’s lack of any legitimate oversight of their patrons in the oil industry. Foreign wars continue against increasingly larger numbers of peoples and countries throughout the world for ‘special’ interest rather than for ‘national’ security as things unravel at home under the cost of it all. There is a growing realization that the federal authorities will, inevitably, order the use of our military against the People of the United States as evidenced by the mission statement imposed on NORTHCOM. Clearly most of the three branches of government have compromised ‘their’ Oath and are subverting their sworn duty and principals. Countless examples are seen of the continued gathering of unauthorized power within the central government which is prohibited by our Constitution, as well as a growing internal security apparatus who’s purpose (it certainly appears) is not defending Citizens from foreign threat but protecting the government and their corporate (special interests) sponsors from any internal resistance. In short, we’re an the path to becoming a banana republic without the bananas.
The government and elected ‘Representatives’ prove almost daily by their actions, their public statements, their support of certain legislation and their votes that they are representing the interests of these corporate sponsors and benefactors rather than the People or, even remotely, the best interests of our country. When time and again this fact, this betrayal, is made plain, what’s to be done? Edmund Burke once said “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
‘Service’ in government, either on a state or federal level, requires an individual to take an Oath to “bear true faith and allegiance” to our Constitution. For example, the Officer corps of our armed forces and even our FBI swear “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same”; all the other branches have a similar Oath. Our politicians pay little heed to their Oath, rather, for the most part, they’ve demonstrated they’re only interest is attaining levels of power and wealth by way of their ‘influence’ for personal gain. Our military and other ‘professionals’ in government, on the other hand, have a ‘system of beliefs & principles’ ingrained into them throughout their training which is, it could be argued, embodied in their fiber. Organizational credos such as our Marine Corps’ “Semper Fidelis” meaning Always Faithful, our Navy’s “Non sibi sed patriae” meaning ‘not self but country’, our Army’s “Duty, Honor, Country”, our Special Forces “De oppresso liber” meaning ‘to free the oppressed’ and our FBI’s being “Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity.” may not (to them) be pure nonsense, indicating (hopefully) these people are cut from a different cloth with regard to their Raison d’être than those in charge in DC. An interesting question might be: What if, hypothetically, there were a larger number of individuals in government than was perceived, who were privately discussing with their colleagues, their inner beliefs that the Oath they swore, under God, actually ‘required’ them to act in order to stem the obvious movement in this country by the Executive, the Legislative and even the Judicial branches of government to usurp the foundations of our Constitution Republic. Were those within civilian and military establishments to realize they were not alone and that the Republic was, in fact, slipping from our grasp, might not honorable individuals, still ‘believing’ in their Oath, still believing in our Republic, eventually act in order to reinstate the foundational principals of our country?
What if enough of these people, who swore this Oath, actually decided to take direct, coordinated, action on it? What if a committed group of senior officers, at the highest levels of the command structure, able to command/control certain critical military installations within the United States and their counterparts in the civilian bureaucracy to recognize they have the ability to initiate the removal of the government and establish a ‘transitional’ government which could reestablish Constitutional checks and balances and thus, reestablish the foundation of the Constitutional Republic? From the military perspective their participation in a ‘coup’ (were one to describe it as such), removing the existing regime, could (ironically) be justified on the basis of the officer corps’ sworn Oath to “support and defend the Constitution from all enemies ‘foreign and domestic’”. As such, from a legal standpoint, such a direct action would not, in fact, ‘be’ a coup rather a fulfillment of their primary mission statement.
Were such an alignment of honor bound individuals, seeing the growing threat to America remaining a ‘free’ Republic, to coalesce and act, what ‘form’ might the agenda and plan look like in order to restore the Republic? How might this group ‘re-boot’ the system, as those with PCs often need to do, in order to restore the operating system to its original parameters?
A priority would be to establish, from the commencement of such a regime change, that it would be for a limited period rather than a permanent ‘change’ in the way America was used to being governed. The transitional government would need to declare its intent to remain in power for a maximum of eight years (effectively two election cycles) acting as the Executive branch, during which time its goal would be to reestablish the foundational principles of the Republic by the systematic undoing of any Law or encroachment of authority beyond the stated Constitutional limits of the founding documents. The new government might describe its actions as a “Reconfiguring Government” act. Among the first Executive Orders issued by the new government might be the following:
Executive Order 1: Their first act, by Executive Order, should be to declare that corporations (created by the state to essentially be ‘artificial people’) have no Rights to free speech under the First Amendment. Rights articulated in our Constitution were and are intended for Citizens or ‘natural people’ not artificial constructs. As such, activities of lobbying groups and political action committees, hidden under the guise of “freedom of speech” and the People’s Rights to “petition the Government” would be recategorized (correctly) as attempts to bribe public officials. Under such an Executive Order, virtually overnight, lobbyists would cease to be a factor in politics since they could no longer contribute to campaigns, write legislation or in any way interact with members of government without being prosecuted for bribery and subversion of government. Lobbying organizations representing foreign governments such as AIPAC would be outlawed and their membership and affiliates (representing foreign interests) be deported as “foreign agents”. This first act would render potentially organized and well financed efforts to create or incite ‘popular resistance’ to the transitional government (and their stated goals) a very risky enterprise since lobbying to ‘effect’ public opinion by private groups (PACs) would be no longer construed as ‘free speech’ or ‘petitioning government’ but (rightfully) as attempts to coerce public officials and effect public policy for ‘special interests’. Thus, these organizations would find themselves open to asset seizure under laws passed by previous administrations and Congress. These “special interest” groups, organizations and their financiers would fade away.
Executive Order 2: Both legislative houses would be dissolved and their offices closed and sealed pending investigations of corruption. Members would be sent home to the respective states unless substantial evidence already existed of corruption. States would be instructed to reinstate the the old method of appointment of Senators pursuant to the original intent of the Constitution, Article 1, Section 3 (versus popularly elected) thereby affording the new Senate the ability to ‘lead’ and pursue their respective state’s interests (as was intended) rather than needing to pander to “special interest” groups as feared and envisioned by the Founders. States would also be instructed to schedule new elections within 90 days wherein a new Congress would be be returned to Washington to carry out the business of ‘representing’ the People. Electronic voting would be universally outlawed.
Executive Order 3: The current membership of the Supreme Court would removed from office and a new Court appointed. New Supreme Court justices would be appointed from preselected list of Constitutional scholars who’s writings, teachings and views clearly demonstrate unwavering support of a strict interpretation of the ‘original intent’ of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution ‘limiting government’. The stated ‘mission’ of the new Court would be to re-implement the Tenth Amendment and to broadly strike down all laws, statutes and legislation not passing Constitutional muster. The court would begin with the Federal Reserve Act, illegally passed in 1913 while most of Congress was not in the Capital and put in effect without the legal ‘quorum’ required by Law. The court would subsequently move forward, beginning with laws passed from 1900 through the present, beginning a process of closing down all agencies not serving a function which the Constitution clearly empowers the federal government to have authority over.
Executive Order 4: Universal suffrage (voting rights) might be discontinued in favor of limiting voting to those who are Citizens of the United States, at least 18 years of age and are taxpaying property owners or those having served the state or federal armed forces honorably. Henceforth, those ‘paying for government’ or having a vested interest in ‘having defended it’ would be the ones with a say in who serves in government and what state & national priorities are set and implemented.
Executive Order 5: A proposed Amendment to the Constitution might be delivered to the states, clarifying ‘new’ criteria for impeachment of members of Congress wherein “Sponsoring or voting for legislation found later to be unconstitutional and/or extending the reach of government beyond its Constitutionally limited role is deemed a felony.” With regard to government appointees and officials, the felony would be committed if the individual is found to have ”implemented or enforced an unconstitutional law, regulation or statute”. This way there would exist a two tiered protection; Congress would be self policing regarding the passage of ‘bad law’ in order to avoid summary removal from office and the bureaucracy would fear implementing any questionable law. Contrary to the current method of impeachment, those subject to an impeachment proceeding under this Amendment would be removed from office pending the outcome of the trial and Federal Marshals would seize and impound their offices. This, once passed, would curtail the long-time practice of passing poorly crafted legislation with the expectation that the courts would ‘sort it out later’ and insure that those individuals suspected of a breach of faith (their Oath) or criminal activities were not left in position to wield influence potentially effecting the outcome of the investigation or the ability to suppress evidence of malfeasance.
Executive Order 6: Pursuant to the new court’s position on the illegality of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, all foreign debt denominated in Federal Reserve Notes (issued previously by the private banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve) would be abrogated. Control of currency would be returned to the Treasury & Congress and new United States Notes would be issued backed by a full accounting of government bullion deposits or national assets (land).
Executive Order 7: During the transition, the military would defederalize the National Guard. Those serving actively abroad would be returned to their states. The State governors and their state administrations would be left unhindered to administer their jurisdictions as they had before. Foreign troop deployments would be withdrawn to the CONUS and the borders (especially the southern border) would be secured with active duty troops. Priority of withdrawal would be given to forward combat units on a first in (theater) – first out basis. Last to go would be European bases.
Executive Order 8: Immigration would be suspended for three years pending new criteria being established for those wishing to come here. In broad strokes, a plan might emerge prioritizing educational background, language (English) skills and financial independence as primary criteria. The US would cease to be a dumping ground for the failed policies of corrupt governments, offloading their poor or criminals. The nation would incorporate a model closer to the Swiss. Illegals currently operating within the United States would be located and repatriated (with their children) at the cost of their national governments. Employing illegal aliens would be severely prosecuted under the existing Section 8 USC 1324 of the federal code and provisions of civil asset forfeiture as defined in Bennis v. Michigan 517 U.S. 1163 (1996) would be implemented as a penalty.
Executive Order 9: Personal, Federal income taxes would be ‘publicly’ abolished on domestic earned income of US Citizens pursuant to a strict interpretation of (the existing) Title 26, Section 861 of the Internal revenue Code which, (seemingly unknown to the public) by itself, renders domestic earned income of Citizens exempt from taxation. Corporate taxes would be restructured to a flat 20% on domestic earnings. No deductions or tax incentives would be granted to corporations and those having production/manufacturing or operations outside the United States would be taxed at 50% their gross earnings.
Executive Order 10: Foreign trade would be restructured such that tariffs & duties (originally intended to fund government operations) would be established based on reciprocal basis with importing nations. If country ‘A’ charges tariffs on American goods entering their country or jurisdiction then equal barriers would be established by the United States on their products entering our borders. Critical industries would be protected none-the-less by trade barriers and additional tariffs to insure national security infrastructure was protected. Preferential trade or tax provisions for corporations outsourcing US jobs would end.
Hypothetically, how might such a regime change involving military and civilians leaders be taken by the general public? How might a flurry of ‘dictatorial’ Executive Orders such as these be taken by the People as a whole? Finally, what might the result of a two term reign be in impacting the return to Constitutional governing presupposing our coup leaders were honorable and hand the government back to civilian elected rule after its term?
People ‘resist’ change and Americans are a well armed and feisty bunch. They would resist a disruption in their daily affairs or of their finances. ‘If’ regime change was launched by honorable individuals that was essentially bloodless, and the public was not confronted with tanks and troops in the streets, then there may be a period of days, perhaps weeks, where “the People”, seeing little change to their day to day business from such a regime change (except the immediate cessation of income taxes), might adopt a ‘wait & see’ outlook. An important step for a transitional government would be an announcement, on the first day that no attempt to disarm the public (contrary to the standard coup d’etat play book) would be forthcoming. Rather, the transitional government could publicly order an end to the enforcement of federal gun laws pending the new Supreme Court’s expected decision to dismantle laws restricting and licensing firearms ownership pursuant to numerous previous court decisions on the subject of Rights & Liberties such as Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 stating: “No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.” and Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946 stating: “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” This public position would demonstrate a lack of fear of ‘the People’ (80 million of which, by last count, were gun owners) and would corroborate the new administration’s stated commitment to reaffirm the foundations of the Constitutional Republic. Very likely, this would buy time, perhaps weeks, before the People would decide if this change in leadership was a threat or merely, a possible change for the better. These weeks would be crucial in allowing the leadership time to demonstrate more fully, their honorable intent.
The leaders of the deposed administration and even the previous administrations would become targets of investigation regarding both overt violations of US laws as well as international war crimes. These individuals could, ironically, be detained under laws they themselves passed during their administrations including the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions act. Under Section 802 (Title 18), “domestic terrorism” was defined (by them) as involving “acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;” which “appear to be intended–to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (or) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion” The leadership of the old federal government, members of various Cabinet departments as well as ’compliant’ media outlets could be shown to have ‘conspired’ to misrepresent foreign and domestic intelligence in order to illegally initiate hostilities (wars) against foreign countries. The facts of this ‘conspiracy’ are generally well known and would require the transitional executive leadership to merely ‘connect-the-dots’ for the public. Where a crime was committed (“conspiracy” is a federal and state crime.) that was “intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (or) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion” into the acceptance of an aggressive foreign policy in violation of International Law, the Patriot Act would come into play. Once the Patriot act was engaged, Section 806 of the act would afford the new government the authority to seize “All assets, foreign or domestic–of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism (as defined in section 2331) against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property, and all assets, foreign or domestic, affording any person a source of influence over any such entity or organization;” In addition, provisions of the aforementioned civil asset forfeiture laws would come into play such that the deposed leadership, their handlers and all who participated in the illegalities committed, would lose all bank accounts, real estate, stocks, inter-locking corporations and, in effect, all assets (controlled or owned) which, seized by the new government, in one fell swoop, would render these people and their corporations penniless. Under the Military Commissions Act these individuals could be stripped of their citizenship and, while not ‘formerly’ charged with any crime, could be held at an undisclosed location for a yet to be specified period, after which some senior individuals might be transferred to the Hague for war crimes prosecution prior to facing the US court system.
In the ensuing months, after the seizure of governmental authority, using almost a “bread & circus” mindset, the new leadership could (using seized media outlets) provide an almost nightly foray of going public with examples and evidence of (previous) government’s complicity in events (both current and historic) demonstrating corruption and complicity at the highest levels in everything from assassinations, election fraud, contract malfeasance as well as popular ‘conspiracy theories’ which, once exposed as more than “theories” would provide both public theater as well as the means to totally discredit the previous regimes. At each disclosure more of those involved, at various levels in government (federal & state) might fall victim to the laws they themselves helped put in place, losing their assets, their lifestyles and any ‘influence’ they once had. Within the first full year, a ‘clean sweep’ would neutralize ‘business as usual’ politicians and those who empowered them. Unlike the provisions of the Patriot laws allowing for “secret” evidence, the new government could make all evidence public and declassified so there would be no appearance (domestically or abroad) of a “show trial” atmosphere.
On the foreign stage, the United States could go into a defensive mode, withdrawing all but naval assets from foreign forward deployment while making perfectly clear that our national interests would not be compromised. Foreign “aid” would end like many domestic entitlement programs. Client states would find they had to make their own way. Actually ‘doing business with’ countries rather than trying to beat them over the head to do our bidding could prove to be far more cost effective than deploying troops in a misguided empire building methodology. Savings provided by this realignment of foreign policy would enable the military to more effectively upgrade our defense systems, technology and national defensive posture focused on the north American continent.
Domestically, the public might well except the changes, including those to the ‘suffrage’ (voting) issue since apathy rules election day anyway. As the effects of the new government’s policies became evident within the economy, industry and the professional ranks of the military, more people might actually register, vote and take part in public affairs under the new criteria than had been evident with universal suffrage in place. With lobbyists and electronic voting out of the picture, people again would be ‘empowered’ to control their governmental destiny. ‘Earning’ the Right to vote and participate (once it was realized their vote mattered again) would become a personal goal for people.
After the two terms served as the Executive, as promised from the onset of the removal of the existing regime, the leadership would relinquished the executive branch. Elections would result in a president being most likely elected from one of the ‘new’ parties that might sprout. The overall result of the regime change would be the reestablishment of the Republic within its original Constitutional framework; as stated above, a sort-of ‘re-boot’ of the system would have reset its operating parameters. Stepping down, the leadership would surrender themselves to the newly ‘elected’ administration for court marshal or civil prosecution were it felt they acted outside their strict interpretation of their Oath to “protect & defend the Constitution for all enemies, foreign & domestic.” While I doubt that would happen, the leaders of this action would need to be prepared for losses nonetheless. Certainly, the fifty six signers of our Declaration of Independence paid a significant price for having involved themselves in what became our Revolution but, the resulting “Republic” was worth it. The price of returning the country to a Republic may be dear but again, would be worth the price.
For those believing a directed action against entrenched and corrupt ‘powers that be’ in order to regain our Republic and the Constitutional rule-of-law therein, would be completely inappropriate, foolhardy or misguided, I quote Albert Einstein who said that “The world is a dangerous place to live not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” As for the concept of somehow achieving change and a restoration of our Rights through the standard means, acceptable to the existing ‘powers that be’, another remark from this brilliant man is, perhaps, prophetic: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.“
For those fearing a military supported solution, perhaps suspecting that rather than the reestablishment of legitimate governance and Constitutional revitalization, direct action might result kicking our Republic further under the bus, I would point out that US Intelligence officials estimate there are a mere 100 al Qaeda fighters in all of Afghanistan and the investment of troops and operating expenses has required one thousand soldiers and $300 million dollars for every member of al Qaeda we’ve attempted to keep in check. Thus, when one reflects on the potential of 80 million well armed and pissed off Americans, any would-be oppressor with less than honorable intensions might be given certain ‘pause’ since, if ‘change’ for the better isn’t forthcoming soon, these Citizens might well conclude they have something to say about further oppression by a government. To those who might claim it is illegal for the military to support such forced removal of the existing regime I would point out that while I am NOT advocating an armed insurrection, I am pointing out that military officers and government employees swear an Oath to our Constitution not to a President or ‘leader’. Actions carried out pursuant to their sworn Oath, to ”defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; (and to) bear true faith and allegiance to the same“ is their prime directive, their ‘mission statement’ and is, frankly, the very expectation we have of them from the moment they are appointed and put on their uniform or are granted authority.
If you fear our military under the hypothetical context of a “transitional government” acting to restore the rule-of-law posited above, I submit you should fear them even more if, by inattention to, or disregard of their sacred Oath to our Constitution, they continue to lend legitimacy (and their armed might) to a government that no longer represents the interests of the People who granted it authority to govern and to exist in the first place. To paraphrase Bush II (who, by the way, stole the line from Mussolini), “they are either with us, or against us”. Thus, I ask, “Always Faithful”- “Duty, Honor, Country” – are these empty slogans and rhetoric for rubes or do they, like our Republic, still stand for something?
Again, our Declaration of July 4th 1776:
“…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, … evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”