“But what happens if state governments become little more than federal puppets? And what happens if state laws become carbon copies of federal policy? Where do the people move to escape the tyranny of an all-powerful government?”
Yep, nowadays about all the locals get to do is decide who gets to park where. — jtl, 419
by Al Benson Jr. at revisedhistory
Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America
Moral decline is one of the main fruits of apostasy. It is always accompanied by a decline in the level of personal responsibility. However, because responsibility is neglected does not mean that it has been eliminated. If rejected, it will be transferred elsewhere. If a formerly responsible people decide, one way or another, to abdicate their responsibilities and adopt a “Let Eroge (the State) do it” then you can rest assured that “George” will do it, and those that abdicated their responsibilities will live to regret what George does. Read First Samuel, chapter 8, in the Old Testament Scriptures.
After the shooting phase of the War of Northern Aggression had ceased and federal power grew, the States lost power. Now, in these latter years of insanity we live in, state governors, in order to maintain their popularity with a jaded electorate that wants everything done for them, have jumped on the “federal funds” bandwagon! Many state governors spend more time running to Washington for “their fair share” of the collectivist federal pie than they spend at home governing their States. This political charade has turned the States into nothing more than vassals of the Deep State in Washington (just what Abraham Lincoln wanted) administering federally mandated programs in their respective federal districts–er, excuse me, I meant their States! Oh well, same difference anymore.
A few years back, a friend of mine in Illinois, Tom Parent, authored a small booklet called Local Government in which he made several cogent observations. Tom said: “…with the loss of state power, the growth of federal power threatens to destroy an important safeguard provided by the states; a safeguard upon which the American people depend greatly for their liberties: competition between the state governments!”
After the apparent part of the War of Northern Aggression was out of the way, what the abolitionist/reconstruction crowd sought to do, along with destroying the religious base of the South, was to destroy also its economic and political base. As to how they did that, read the Kennedy Brothers’ book Punished With Poverty.
The 1860’s Deep State would, therefore, end any Southern competition to the North. The concept of states’ rights necessarily embodied the idea of States in competition with one another. Under this concept of states’ rights, if one state did not deal fairly with its citizens, they could pack up and move on to a state more to their liking.
However, in Local Government Tom Parent asked the question: “But what happens if state governments become little more than federal puppets? And what happens if state laws become carbon copies of federal policy? Where do the people move to escape the tyranny of an all-powerful government?” Good questions all. And those living in the “reconstructed” South after the war had no real answer for such questions. Sadly, even with Trump in office, we don’t seem to today either. The situation Tom Parent mentioned is one Southern folks lived with daily. Today the entire country lives with it. As I have often said in some of these articles “reconstruction is ongoing.” So let it be stated here, one more time, federal intervention in state and local affairs did not start with the election of Franklin Roosevelt, or even in 1913, as most patriots today seem mistakenly to believe. It started with Lincoln in the 1860s!
In this context we might well question what radical Thaddeus Stevens’ true motives were in pushing so hard to get the 14th Amendment enacted into law. Vindictive and spiteful though he was, Stevens was no dummy. He had calculated the effect the “emancipation” of the slaves would have on the Republican Party. The federal constitution only allowed for three fifths of the unfree population to be counted in apportioning representatives for the Southern states. Now, if the slaves were “free” their whole number would suddenly be counted. Stevens’ calculations showed that, should Southern representatives be able to enter Congress, the Democrats would have a solid majority, and no radical Republican legislation could be enacted if such were the case. In order that such not be allowed to occur and thus damage the Republicans plans for a one party state, Southerners must not be allowed to share in the national government. At least they must not be allowed to share in it until the Constitution could be so amended as “to secure perpetual ascendancy to the party of the Union.” Stevens’ desire for basically a one party state is consistent with most socialist societies.
Stevens thought an appropriate amendment would be one that changed the basis for representation to the number of people in a particular state entitled to vote at that time. Stevens figured that would reduce the Southern congressional membership from 83 down to 46.
Stevens, from time to time, put his foot in his mouth and expressed his heart-felt desires. When the second 13th Amendment was passed on December 18, 1865, over seven months after Lincoln’s death, Stevens gave his arguments for maintaining the Republican Party in perpetual power. He said: “It is time that Congress should assert its authority and assume something of the dignity of a Roman senate.” His concept of how much power Congress should have was not in keeping with constitutional limits. But then socialists with visions of one party states are seldom fond of potential limits on their power.
Richard Nelson Current, in his book Old Thad Stevens (page 230) stated: “Now that he had suspended the checks of a tripartite system of government, at least for a time, Stevens turned to the problem of getting public opinion on his side. In his daily mail he was receiving the praises of carpetbaggers and scalawags in the South.” Current’s comments revealed how little Stevens cared for the system of checks and balances supposedly put in the Constitution. He just worked around them to achieve his revolutionary ends, just like much of Congress does today, in which he and others sought to completely restructure the American system of government. What Stevens and others of his ilk wanted was an amendment that would forever consolidate the Northern victory over the South. Many that sought this as eagerly as Stevens were men of considerable financial means, men in the railroad and iron industries in the North. After all, they reasoned, a little corporate fascism never hurt anybody, right? At least nobody important!
One brief note here as I close this out is a further proof that our “history” books today do not give us anything to really grapple with. I have mentioned this previously but a little repetition does no harm. When he was formulating the 14th Amendment, one of the people Thaddeus Stevens took advice from was Robert Dale Owen, son of the well-known English socialist. Worth noting here is the fact that Stevens was willing to take advice from the son of a well-known socialist, who also had socialist leanings himself. It seems, in our day, that what we refer to as “historians” have, for our own good, decided that we do not need to be made aware of such things. In all the American history books I read in school, and in other places as well, I have never seen the first reference to Robert Dale Owen having ever had anything to do with the 14th Amendment. After all, students having to deal with possible socialist influence on the 14th Amendment might just disrupt the “fantasy island” image of our history that our handlers have concocted for us.
If people in our Congress were taking the advice of socialists in the 1860s then can we really be naïve enough to believe that our problems with socialism and communism in this country didn’t start until the first third of the 20th century?
If apostasy produced national decline and neglect, it started happening lots earlier than most people, Christians included, will ever be willing to admit. And a final thought–if the War of Northern Aggression was responsible for the decline of orthodox Christianity in the South then what was orthodox Christianity in the South replaced with–theologically speaking? Ponder on that for awhile.
“Owning a handgun doesn’t make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.” – Jeff Cooper
Call for a pizza, a cop, and an ambulance and see which one arrives first.
In Warren v. District of Columbia the court ruled, and the Supreme Court upheld, that “(T)he desire for condemnation cannot satisfy the need for a special relationship out of which a duty to specify persons arises.” Because the complaint did not allege a relationship “beyond that found in general police responses to crimes,” the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim.
The bottom line is that your local police are not legally obligated to protect you, the average citizen. In addition to the Warren case, there are hundreds of court rulings which state that cops are not legally responsible for protecting individual citizens. For example, see Zelig v. County of Los Angeles.
The government can’t protect you as you saw on September 11, 2001 as well as during the Washington, DC area “sniper” rampage and the plethora of active shooter events that we have had since.
In fact, the government could very well be our greatest fear, due to its propensity to murder people because of their ideas (See Ruby Ridge, ID and Waco, TX).
A simple internet or youtube.com search of “the police state” or “police brutality” will reveal literally thousands of violent crimes (from assault to cold blooded murder) committed by the State’s costumed emissaries of officially sanctioned violence (aka The Police State) against harmless and innocent people.
So, who does that leave to protect you, your life, property and family? The one and only answer is: YOU It is your duty and personal responsibility to protect yourself and your loved ones.
This responsibility is a natural right given to us by God as human beings and guaranteed to us as individuals by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Options for Homeland Defense, Inc. offers professional weapons and tactics training that will make the difference. Instructed by experienced combat veterans—guys that have “been there and done that.” It offers private instruction at its privately owned range and mobile training teams are available. All interactions are confidential and discrete.