Friday, February 22, 2013

Has the world really changed?

Below are some facts about the US as it was 100 years ago, back in the year 1910 --

The average life expectancy for men was 47 years.

Death during childbirth was a realistic fear for women.

Fuel for the popular Ford Model-T was sold only in drug stores.

There was no TV or radio.

There were no antibiotics so every cut or wound was potentially serious. Cuts were treated with mecuricome or iodine.

Only 14% of homes had a bathtub.

Only 8% of homes had a telephone.

There were only 8,000 cars in the nation, and only 144 miles of paved roads.

The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 MPH.

The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower!

The average US worker made between $200 and $400 per year.

The average US wage was 22 cents per hour.

More than 95% of all births took place at HOME.

Ninety percent of all doctors had NO COLLEGE EDUCATION. Instead they attended so-called medical schools, many of which were condemned in the press and the government as "substandard."

Sugar cost 4 cents a pound.

Eggs were 14 cents a dozen.

Most women washed their hair once a month and used Borax or egg yolks for shampoo.

The five leading causes of death were -- pneumonia and influenza, tuberculosis (consumption), diarrhea, heart disease and stroke.

The American flag had 45 stars.

The population of Las Vegas was only 30.

There was no Mother's Day or Father's Day.

Two out of every 10 adults couldn't read or write and only 6% of all Americans had graduated from high school.

For the year, there were about 230 reported murders in the ENTIRE U.S.

Monday, February 18, 2013

The Paradigm Shift Dilemma

Nelson Hultberg

Paradigms are mega-systems of thought that explain certain realms of reality so as to shift mankind toward new visions. For example, mercantilism, Lockean limited government, species evolution, Pasteurian medicine, quantum physics, Keynesian economics, and welfare-state politics are paradigms that developed in their respective fields over the past several centuries. History is a continual process of shifting toward new paradigms in which the established thought of society is dramatically altered.

Paradigm shifts can be either positive or negative. When positive, these shifts are the manifestations of truth's discovery and a better way of life. But in bringing about a better way of life, they also create a powerful dilemma for those who find themselves on the wrong side of the shift.

The dilemma is this: Those whose views are being corrected resist the correction quite vigorously because of that human foible we call ego. People do not like to admit that they have lived the bulk of their adult lives subscribing to a serious intellectual error. Thus when a great ideological correction begins, for example, in the field of political-economy, they resort to sophistry in order to defend the older way of looking at things that they have supported for most of their lives. This is because 95 percent of humans, who are past 40 years of age, are no longer seekers of truth; they are seekers of "support for their previous convictions." This is what makes them feel content in life. Truth, therefore, takes a back seat to protecting their egos and the convictions they have held for several decades.

Egoism of the Intellectuals

This egoistic flaw in human nature doesn't just afflict the general public. It also afflicts that body of humans called "intellectuals." Human nature is such that it compels many scholars to also fight against challenges refuting their accustomed way of thinking. Scientists, who have spent years of their lives in support of a certain paradigm, will forsake all the pledges of objectivity that comprise their creed to vehemently fight against a new paradigm that clearly presents a more rational perspective. Truth, the most highly prized goal of all, is forsaken to protect personal egos and previous convictions. This flaw exists in layman and intellect alike.

A good example of how this flaw stifles social progress was the predicament of the communists in the Soviet Union throughout most of their twentieth century reign. By 1950, history's verdict was in. State socialism was a morbid, tyrannical, and unworkable philosophy of social organization. It decimated the human spirit. It was living death. Yet the intellectual authorities of the communist bloc shut their eyes to these unwelcome facts of reality and marched imperviously on for four more decades shoring up their sham with lies, sophistries, and doctored statistics.

Today's liberal welfare-statists have also succumbed to this flaw. Especially if they are past 40 years of age, they are finding it very difficult (in light of Washington's present Keynesian debt insanity) to admit they have committed decades of their lives to a false ideology based upon dangerous irrationality. Consequently most of them are doing what the communists did. They are closing the windows of their minds and continuing to fight for their welfare-state vision of politics despite the fact that its flawed paradigm is breaking down all around us.

Welfare-statists are choosing, not truth and progress, but support for creatures like Obama. Yet they insist they are promoting the American ideal as this malefactor of a President heaps the monstrosities of government regimented healthcare, amnesty for 12 million illegals, and Orwellian gun control upon us. These statists are confronted with the "paradigm shift dilemma," and their egos are driving them into forsaking the truth so as to cling to the illusion that they have not been wrong in supporting massive government programs and Keynesian economics throughout their adult years.

The Integrity to Change

This is one of the tragic facets of human nature. Only a handful of humans ever have the strength of will and integrity to change fundamentally flawed beliefs if they are long-standing. One such sterling human who did have that strength was the woman who brought me into this world, my mother, Charlotte. She was a devoted FDR fan and big government liberal for 35 years after graduation from college. My father was a staunch conservative, so you can imagine the scintillating conversations we often had at the dinner table while I was growing up.

At the age of 28, I came across the writings of Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and Ayn Rand in defense of the free-market and the libertarian political-economic view. I had always instinctively been in support of such a view, but had no strong ideological or theoretical grasp of it. But now I did, and when I came home from California to Indiana that Christmas, I naturally had to explain such a view to my mother who had always engaged in spirited intellectual discussions with me throughout my educational years.

I spent about an hour one evening after dinner with her divulging my discovery of this wonderful philosophy of freedom that so powerfully refuted the idea of Keynesian economics and liberal welfare-statism. My mother listened intently, but with considerable distress because she had never heard such arguments before, which were opposed to not just the level of state welfarism, but to the concept itself. I could see the wheels of her mind churning as I explained how FDR had ruined the country because, as Ayn Rand shows, he destroyed the concept of "individual rights." He created all sorts of "false rights" granted by government that destroyed our "real rights" derived from the laws of Nature. After further discussion of Mises and Hazlitt and their refutations of Keynesian economics, I could see that the lecture needed to end. I had no desire to cause distress in the genteel mind of my mother whom I loved dearly. We, thus, went on to other subjects and had a wonderful Christmas holiday. I went back to California after New Years and thought no more about it.

The next Christmas I naturally returned to our family gathering for the holidays. One night after dinner, I was sitting in the front room, and Mom came in and sat down beside me on the couch. She looked me square in the face and said, "You know, I'm going to have to admit that you are right. FDR did screw up the country, and we are going to be a long time fixing it."

I was astounded. What possibly could have happened in the course of just one year to allow her to accept such a major revision in her political-philosophical convictions? It certainly couldn't have been our brief one-hour discussion the previous Christmas. What happened, I learned, was that she had approached an old family friend of ours at church, Benjamin Rogge, who was the Dean of Wabash College there in Crawfordsville, Indiana. She told him of my interest in the libertarian political-economic philosophy, and asked if he would recommend some books to read on the subject. Rogge, being a libertarian, was delighted, of course, and told her to read the beginning books of Mises and Hazlitt, and also to read what is one of the most powerful statements on individual rights in the twentieth century, Ayn Rand's essay on "Man's Rights" in the Appendix of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

In the ensuing days, my mother and I went on to discuss why, if one stood for freedom and individual rights, one had to oppose the FDR welfare-state. A return to the Founders' vision was demanded. And one had to pay more than lip service to such a goal; one had to back it up with votes and allegiance. Her acceptance of this did not come immediately, but in correspondence over the next couple of months, she came to accept that it was either-or. One had to stand for a society of individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism, or a society of special privileges and socialism. To advocate a mixture was immoral, for it violated our fellow man's rights. In order to be morally legitimate, welfare had to be voluntary. Government had to be drastically reduced. Here was a woman who had been a lifelong, big government liberal; yet at the age of 57, she was capable of changing her fundamental beliefs on monumental issues. Unfortunately I did not get the chance to thoroughly delve into all this with her, for she died the next year.

Why this sea change came about, though, is because my mother was one of the handful of humans on this earth who, after the age of 40, still possess the integrity to seek the truth rather than just "support for one's previous convictions." A remarkable woman; America needs more of her kind. Truth is what is important, not the conjuring up of sophistic answers to defend irrational political views so as to protect fragile egos, which is what drives today's liberals.

Rights vs. Privileges

We can have a government that protects our rights, or a government that violates our rights so as to convey special privileges to various factions of society. But we can't have both, which is what the welfare-state is all about. It is an attempt to have a government that violates our fundamental rights, yet is committed to protecting our fundamental rights. This kind of ideological legerdemain is what liberalism is all about.

Why liberals have gotten away with this sort of flimflam over the past 70 years is because FDR's Brain Trust sold the country on the economic fallacies of Keynes. In addition they declared the people to have a "right" to government's conveyance of privileges. But there can be no such thing as a "right" to welfare services, corporate and banking subsidies, affirmative action quotas to minorities, etc. as FDR and his progeny have claimed since 1932. These are not "rights"; they are "special privileges" that violate our rights in order to be implemented.

For example, the privilege of subsidies to low income earners, farmers, and banks necessitates the confiscation of other people's income via progressive taxation, which destroys their right to their property. Conveyance of affirmative action quotas to minority groups necessitates the destruction of other people's right to free association. And so on for every privilege conveyed to the various factions of society by welfare-state politicians in Washington. They all destroy other people's rights to property, association, trade, or equality under the law.

Thus liberalism, by its nature, must evolve into a dictatorial society because it allows people's rights to be voted away in pursuit of special privileges. It has been doing so ever since 1913 when the income tax and the Federal Reserve were brought into being as a means to increase government growth and usher in Marx's vision of collectivism. Once you allow citizens to vote themselves "special privileges" at the expense of other people's income (which is what progressive taxation does), then the rest is only a matter of time. The people will decide to take more and more from others and produce less and less on their own.

This is the great flaw of liberalism. It was a fraud from the beginning under Woodrow Wilson because it took the policies of "fabian socialism" that sprang up in the latter nineteenth century and sold them to America in the twentieth century as the wave of the future. This allowed Keynes and FDR to smuggle a continual violation of rights into the American concept of governing. When FDR's progeny adopted the concept of a "living Constitution" to be rewritten by judicial oligarchs on the Supreme Court, the collectivist conquest of America was finalized. We were no longer a free country.

Liberalism has fooled an awfully lot of people into believing that it is on the right side of morality and political legitimacy. NOT SO! You can put a dress and lipstick on a pig, but you still have a pig. You can dress up the ideology of liberalism with all kinds of sophistry, but you still have the tyranny of socialism. It's just the "velvet glove kind" that the fabians espoused rather than the "iron fist kind" of the communists. This is the hideous legacy of liberalism: it is socialism through the back door.

What America needs is more seekers of truth like my mother - more people of intellectual integrity who, once the above political flimflam is explained to them, have the courage to alter their convictions so as to be on the right side of truth's paradigm shift. The political paradigm in America must be changed in a major way. Our citizens must come to realize that the liberal welfare-state is deranged and despotic. If such a paradigm shift is to happen, however, it will require our men and women of the mind to be willing to face the truth and suppress their egos' drive to never be found wrong on life's big questions. Liberalism is wrong, wholly, heinously wrong, and we need citizens who are capable of accepting it.

Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic His articles have appeared in such publications as the Dallas Morning News, The American Conservative, Insight, The Freeman, and Liberty, as well as on numerous Internet sites such as The Daily Bell, Financial Sense, and Safe Haven. He is also the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values to be released in March of 2013. Email him at:

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

The Dirt-bags!

Dr. A. H. Krieg

Quinquagesima Sunday

In the annals of American politics we see lots of scoundrels, liars, and dirt-bags, but Hillary Clinton is a standout whose qualifications have no mach. From faking illness, inability to remember, to accidental falls, throwing her UN ambassador under the bus, she has no equal. From over 125 “I can’t remember,” “I was unaware,” I didn’t know” in congressional testimony when she had wasted $25 million in her failed attempt to nationalize healthcare, an effort only to be accomplished by her lying new boss, she has careened through the Washington political scene like an out of control locomotive.

The current issue relating to Benghazi is unprecedented in American history it is the first murder of an American Ambassador in over 30 years, the first time in memory where the entire ambassadorial staff was murdered, the first time where over 30 Americans not one of which has been allowed to be media interviewed by anyone had to be evacuated, and the first time ever in which the American government has remained mute and has not made any effort against the killers, not even four months later. Obama lied again when he said there would be retribution! No effort to save those State Department and CIA agents was launched by any agency of our government. Worst of all every person in the Obama administration from the president to the CIA, military, Joint Chiefs, Secretary of State, UN Ambassador, and Secretary of Defense lied about the happening. The entire chain of command lied from the top right down to the bottom! Liars all!
The Lamestream media from TV to the New York Times and Washington Post, were so desperate to get their socialist/communist agent (progressive) re-elected that they obscured, hid, purposely misinformed, and propagandized the American Public to hide the issue until after the election. CNN’s, Cathy Crowley went so far as to provide the president the talking points of the second debate and then come to his rescue and lie about the president’s actions relating thereto. They have done no better since; all that remains has been nicely tucked away as past history. Had this taken place under George Bush he would have through pressure by the very same media, been impeached!

The State Department then stuck back, I’m not kidding they produced an advertisement featuring Obama and Clinton, and then spent $70,000 to get it publicized, in the Middle East. The advertisement was an apology for an Islam derogative video, made by a Coptic Egyptian living in LA, which the President and Clinton, and Susan Rice on 5 Sunday Morning TV shows, and then, claimed the cause of the Egyptian and Libyan civil disturbances was about. It was all a lie to protect the president’s re-election campaign and they knew it within 15 minutes of the beginning of the attack.

The former security officer CIA for Libya, Eric Nordstrom in testimony before the House Oversight Committee in October 2012 stated; “For me the Taliban is inside of the State Department building.” When Clinton in Testimony before congress stated; “What difference does it make…” the cat was out of the bag. Clinton articulated the Obama strategy obfuscate, delay, deny, lie, drag it out as much as possible so that when finally forced to speak on the issue it is so long past that it in public eye becomes obscured in irrelevant. Did you notice that Hillary was absent again at the State of the Union presidential address. This is the real issue, obviously it is the mantra of the entire Democrat apparatus, they have a new motto, “and we will do what we want, when we want to do it, the media is in our pocket and we will never be held accountable to the American people.” After all the Presstitutes of the Lamestream have ignored scandal after scandal. Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Black panther voter intimidation, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, forged birth certificate, no college transcripts, no draft card, false Connecticut issued SS#, $6 trillion wasted in just four years, an almost $ 17 trillion deficit, rampant unemployment underreported by 15%, 47 million Americans on food stamps, its all just water over the proverbial dam of obscurity!

The distance from Sicily to Benghazi is 580 miles. The American fighter F-16 can attain the speed of 915 Mph so it could make the trip from its base in Italy to Benghazi in about 47 minutes. C-141 A has a top speed of 500 Mph and could make the same trip from Italy to Benghazi in I hrs. and 14 Min. Both of these aircraft were available with troops from Italy. The Benghazi event consumed seven and one half hours, prompt action would have saved the lives of four valiant patriots! Personnel in the White House, State Department, CIA and Department of Defense were all ogling the video feeds from Benghazi in real time, everyone was full aware that this was a coordinated attack by al Qaida no one outside the politicians ever claimed this to have been the result of some poorly made video. People with mortars, LPG’s, and automatic weapons do not participate in demonstrations they are terrorists! Secretary Panetta in testimony in Feb 2013 clearly articulated that no one knew were Clinton was and that she had not read or seen the repeated requests from Ambassador Stevens for better security in Benghazi over the previous five months. If Clinton were in the military that would be cause for court marshal. The president was informed but his whereabouts were unknown by the white House, Defense Department or State Department. Obama was AWOL, who had the football? He did not even check with Panetta or the Pentagon as to what was taking place. The following morning without one shred of knowledge of Benghazi outcome he flew to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Dereliction of duty is a minor event in this scenario, treason is much closer to correct. This applies to Clinton, Obama, Panetta, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Not to be forgotten is General Petraeus whose dalliance with a lady is hardly cause for dismissal, after all if we began firing people in Washington or the military for their sexual encounters the entire city and the Pentagon would be empty in a week. In a speech in Denver on July 28, 2012 Petraeus articulated his personal CFR grounded motto, oh yes, all Obama’s generals are now all CFR, those who were not have been retired, General Ham is a case in point, Petraeus said, “I had access to everything, and it was my experience not to leak it, not to violate my mentor, if you will.” Obviously the good general forgot that his oath as an officer is to the Constitution not to his mentor, Obama.

Clinton claims she accepts responsibility for Benghazi, but the issue is not responsibility, it is accountability something the entire raft of dirt bags avoids like the plague. What difference does it all make? Well, with an entire administration refusing to accept accountability for their actions, we wonder if any responsible individuals are left in our government.

The Moral question relating to the issue of terrorism remains below the radar. Seems that the administration feels it is perfectly ok to send drones to kill Americans but that it is reprehensible for that same government to protect Americans overseas. The worst part of this equation is the fact that these targeted Americans have not had a day in court, no judge has had oversight of the issues, there is no arrest warrant, they have not been allowed to see their accusers in fact their accusers are secret, somehow this reminds me of the Salem witch trials.

It is a fact of present history, that in American politics insight of any perception of politicians is the whole enchilada. Hillary, Obama, and all the rest of the progressives, are fully aware that, who you are is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is what the public sees you as being. This by the way, is the preview of the Lamestream who missies no opportunity to highlight all progressives in a warm and rosy light. These people have charmingly lied their way across the political landscape to a mindless and uneducated population that last week by margins of over 60% approved of the progressive leadership. While we have 10% inflation, average $ 3,000 plus loss of income, 20% rise in healthcare costs, a falling dollar, doubling of fuel and food prices, no energy policy, and a foreign and domestic policy in shambles. After all, according to them and the media, it’s that worthless Bush who was by the way close to this prince of darkness, who remains responsible for it all!

There remains one slim chance you could change your party allegiance to the American Freedom Party whose positions are well publicized on their Internet site.

Get a free monthly newsletter sign up at:

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Revitalization of the State Militias

A Review of Edwin Vieira’s The Sword and Sovereignty

by Nelson Hultberg

On April 19, 1775, the battles of Lexington and Concord on the outskirts of Boston ignited the conflict that led to the most momentous political event of man’s history – the Declaration of Independence and the birth of America. In the early morning hours of that day, a command of British troops was dispatched from Boston to search out and confiscate stores of militia weapons and supplies at Concord. On the way they confronted a small and unimposing band of armed American militia at Lexington. The British Major John Pitcairn shouted out, “Ye villains, ye Rebels, disperse; damn you, disperse! Lay down your arms!”

The American militia were under the command of Captain, John Parker; and their orders were to remain non-antagonistic to the British. They were outnumbered by almost ten to one. So why didn’t they lay down their arms when ordered to do so? “Because,” says constitutional scholar Edwin Vieira, “free men with a duty to keep and bear arms never willingly lay down their arms. And at Lexington, none of them did.” The heroic militia Captain John Parker warned his men, “if they mean to have a war let it begin here.” And begin it did.

Importance of the State Militias

With his newest book, The Sword and Sovereignty, Edwin Vieira, Jr., has given us a magisterial work that meticulously documents the history of the early American militias and why similar units must be revitalized today if we are to adequately confront our disintegration as a society and restore the republic that the Founders gave us. It is a book that will profoundly shock 98 percent of Americans. It is so overpowering in its legal logic and constitutional veracity that the intellectuality of Cicero and Plutarch comes to mind as one reads the prose. It is not a book that can be read lightly; it demands a tolerance for legal thought and abstract conceptualization. But for those “men of the mind” who understand the importance of ideas in the unfolding of history, the effort will be most rewarding. You will be shown an entirely new way of seeing things regarding guns, militia, the Second Amendment, homeland security, how they intertwine, and how they have been grossly misrepresented by quisling, pseudo-experts of the establishment.

For the first 125 years of our history, the “Militia of the several States” was a highly honored institution that played a vital role in preserving the concept of federalism upon which our system of freedom depends. This ended with the Militia Act of 1903, which shifted the “Militia of the several States” into National Guard units under the auspices of the national military. State and local control was eliminated.

In addition, as Vieira tells us, over the past century decades “of disuse, misuse, and abuse have so thoroughly muddled the meaning of ‘Militia’ in contemporary American political discourse that the word is hardly ever encountered except as invective, usually well-freighted with vituperative adjectives such as ‘extremist’ and ‘violent’, broadcast by the enemies of constitutional government (and their dupes and other ‘useful idiots’) for the purpose of intimidating into silence the people they intend to oppress as soon as the vast majority of Americans has been thoroughly disarmed through one form of ‘gun control’ or another.”

Anybody today with a modicum of brains can see that our nation is being transformed into a “first-class police state.” Homeland Security and Washington’s outrageous “Patriot Acts” are Alice in Wonderland institutions that have taken us a giant step down the path to Orwell’s nightmare. Our military-industrial complex grows exponentially. The Federal Government has become a Godzilla of ugliness and menace. Our Congressmen are Machiavellian schemers wallowing in sophistic mazes and treason to truth.

Vieira’s answer to this pernicious evolution is startling. As with all big thinkers in history, he asks us (like Steve Jobs did to his comrades at Apple) to “Think Different!” He maintains that America cannot be saved unless she revitalizes her original concept of the “Militia of the several States.” The Sword and Sovereignty explains – in 1,945 pages of text and 305 pages of appendixes, tables, and notes – why this must be done and how to constitutionally do it. Magisterial scholarship is putting it mildly.

History and Restoration of the Militias

The book explores the legal history of the pre-constitutional Militia statutes of colonial times to demonstrate that armed and well-regulated Militias formed on the state level are what the Founders intended for the provision of “homeland security.” The monstrosity of today’s centralized Homeland Security Department in Washington is not needed; a revival of the “Militia of the several States” and unequivocal acknowledgement of the people’s right to bear arms will give us everything we require. This will decentralize “security” in the country and help greatly to check the ominous peril of the military-industrial complex.

Many Americans will perceive this as a quixotic attempt to turn back the clock and revive a hopeless anachronism that prevailed in the era of flintlock muskets and tri-cornered caps. Not so. Vieira demonstrates his points legally with the same overpowering logic that Ludwig von Mises puts forth economically in Human Action. Mises was relentless in rational destructions of the socialists’ sinister fallacies. So too is Vieira in his dismantling of the arguments of today’s collectivist control freaks.

After he traces the legal history of pre-constitutional Militia and gun statutes, he then lays out seventeen fundamental principles (in seventeen chapters) to define how the constitutional structure and service of a revitalized “Militia of the several States” would be validated. When one is done reading these seventeen chapters, he sees clearly that a revitalization of the state Militias is constitutionally legitimate and workable in the modern day. Whether or not they can be revived is, of course, an open question. There is huge opposition in all establishment schools, bureaucracies, and courts to such a radical restructuring of society’s power relationships. But Vieira demonstrates in compelling fashion why and how it can be done if Americans still have the will.

One of the most profound parts of the book is its explanation in Chapter One of the present day fallacy of “judicial supremacy,” showing how the Supreme Court is not the ultimate judge of “what the law is.” Congress stands above the Court and may stipulate how the Judges are to interpret the laws. But most importantly, the People stand above Congress, for they are the creators of Congress via the Constitution. WE THE PEOPLE rule in America, not congressional despots and judicial oligarchs.

As the famous eighteenth century jurist, Sir William Blackstone, stated in Commentaries on the Laws of England, “whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself: there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.”

Thus the salvation of America must come with reassertion of the citizens’ fundamental right to decide the ultimate issues of their lives. Through political techniques such as nullification on the part of juries and state governments the overweening excesses of today’s Federal Government and its bureaucratic thugs can be brought to heel.
It is important to understand that Vieira is NOT proposing “private” Militias, the likes of which we have seen in recent years from racial supremacy groups and neo-Nazi extremists. What Vieira is proposing is the revitalization of governmentally created and legitimized Militia units among the states that our Constitution calls irrevocably for. These will be legislated and regulated by the state governments. They will be official government bodies in all the towns and cities of the land, not rogue factions that operate from wilderness hideouts. The leftist establishment media will, no doubt, attempt to portray Vieira’s plan as the promotion of wilderness wackos reveling in burning crosses and white sheets; but hopefully learned Americans will recognize such smear tactics as the inexcusable liberal vacuity that it is.

Benefits of Militia Restoration

There are so many benefits to such a revitalization. As Vieira writes, “Today, at every level of the federal system, America is woefully unprepared to deal effectively with hurricanes, tornados, floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters; with major industrial accidents, such as leakages from offshore oil-drilling rigs or meltdowns of nuclear power plants; with epidemics and pandemics; with crop failures and possibly attendant famines; with invasions through the Volkerwanderung of illegal immigration; with economic breakdowns, and in particular a collapse of this country’s monetary and banking systems; and with the myriad threats posed by real terrorism. ‘[W]ell regulated Militia’, however, not only could deal with the consequences of such events, but also could forefend many of them.”

In addition, the Militia can be used to investigate the constitutionality of the laws that they execute, they can supervise honest elections, they can help to repel a foreign power invasion, they can help local police, they can be very instrumental in defeating the machinations of globalism, etc.

Another crucial point to grasp is that the revitalized Militia will not be in anyway a part of the regular military, nor will they be under the thumb of Congress. This is the way the Constitution established them in the beginning, and this is the way they must be revived. They will be institutions of unity and defense at the state government level. Their revival will begin the vital process of restoring “federalism.”

Owning Guns Not Enough

Vieira explains that the individual right to bear arms as a defense against tyranny will not suffice in and of itself. “For, confronted by usurpers and tyrants deploying ‘standing armies’ and para-militarized police forces, or by hordes of foreign invaders, armed individuals in isolation or in small groups would likely prove feckless.”

Thus we need the establishment of collective, coordinated state Militias, which is why the Second Amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Revitalized Militias will build a protective wall between ourselves and all tyrants. “Because ‘the Militia of the several States’ are State governmental institutions,” says Vieira, “no contemporary form of ‘gun control’ can be applied to them or their members by either Congress or the States’ legislatures. Rather, it is the duty of Congress and the States’ legislatures to see that all members of the Militia are properly armed, not to any degree disarmed.” Thus the gun controllers will be stopped dead in their tracks.
The pre-constitutional colonial and state statutes during the 150 years leading up to 1787, demonstrate irrefutably that Militias organized on the state and local levels were held by the patriots of the era to be vital for the defense of freedom and order in the republic. The modern day is no different; in fact, such institutions are even more vital. Upon this right of individual and local self-defense, there can be no compromise.

Most libertarians and conservatives are aware of the recent testimony in front of Congress by Suzanna Hupp regarding our right to bear arms. She was one of the victims of the tragic Luby’s massacre in Killeen, Texas in 1991 and lost both her parents to the gun-toting madman. She testified to our Washington solons that if she had been allowed to carry the gun she owned in her purse, she would have been able to kill the madman and would have saved numerous lives including her parents.
Then she topped off her heroic testimony with these searing words as she stared Senator Charles Schumer and his imperious cronies right in the eyes: “I am sitting here getting more and more fed up with all of this talk about these pieces of machinery having no legitimate sporting purpose, no legitimate hunting purpose. People, that is not the point of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting….It is about our rights, all of our rights to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there.”

How to Bring About the Revitalization

The Militias of early America in both pre and post Constitution eras were basically compulsory institutions. The states mandated that all able-bodied men were subject to membership and duty. In other words the states had the right to impress citizens into the Militia. This, of course, will not be acceptable to the libertarian community of the modern day. So if the Militias are to be revived, they will have to be voluntarily joined as Independent Militia Companies formed by the state governments. And this is the procedure that Vieira advocates. Independent Militia Companies must spring up under the auspices of the state governments via volunteers.
Vieira goes into detail, however, explaining how the early American viewpoint was that membership in the Militias had to be compulsory, and that eventually they should be formed into such units as Americans are educated in this upcoming century toward their duties as well as their rights in maintaining a free republic. He makes a very passionate case for regaining the “all for one and one for all” spirit that animated early Americans’ willingness to tolerate compulsory membership in their local Militias. Being a political libertarian, I would disagree on this point and rely permanently on voluntary units as the undergirding structure to revitalization. The Militias might not work as efficiently, and their memberships might not be spread as evenly among all citizens, but they will be a lot safer units of government under volunteer recruitment policies.

The Founders understood the power lusting nature of man and the necessity for citizens to be armed and organized at all times as protection from their rulers. Suzanna Hupp understands this. Edwin Vieira understands it. And now we as a people must come to realize it. Our right to bear arms has nothing to do with duck hunting. State Militias have nothing to do with wilderness wackos.

“The struggle that has been thrust upon Americans,” writes Vieira, “is not one to preserve the uniquely American way of life, but to restore it.” The plague of factions and collectivist usurpers has decimated the republic. “Today, the true America exists only as fleeting, dissipating shadows of her former self.”

The Sword and Sovereignty’s message will go a long way toward restoring that resplendent America we lost. It is a profoundly patriotic work of powerful impact that can direct our intelligentsia toward a rediscovery of our real roots. Any thinking man or woman today who fears for America’s survival needs to tackle this book. It is available in CD format at Amazon.

Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic His articles have appeared in such publications as the Dallas Morning News, The American Conservative, Insight, The Freeman, and Liberty, as well as on numerous Internet sites such as The Daily Bell, Financial Sense, and Safe Haven. He is also the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values to be released in March of 2013. Email him at: