Conspiracy, Census and the Case for Secession

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

After reading
my title, I suppose many will automatically think I am some sort
of anarchist or revolutionary. If so, then thank you for the complement.
If only I could be thought of in such an honorable way?

The very intrusive
and invasive U.S. Census, which I have written about in the past,
here
and here, can
be used in my opinion, to make a case for secession. Not that a
case for secession can't be made using a myriad of other criteria,
but due to the original reasoning for the census, I think one can
show that any country with more than 300,000,000 people cannot possibly
remain a free republic. It simply is not possible. Our nation was
intended to be several states, with a federal system to oversee
the protection of individual rights. It has become a single nation-state
with all control coming from a central-planning leviathan. This
is an untenable situation and was bound to lead to tyranny. This
in and of itself is reason enough to pursue secession.

First, let's
look at the Census issue. Stated in Article 1, Section 2 of our
constitution:

Representatives
and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states
which may be included within this union, according to their respective
numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number
of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of
years; and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other
Persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years
of the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and
within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they
shall by law direct. The number of representatives shall not exceed
one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least
one Representative.

There are a
couple of things that stand out in this passage. First, an actual
enumeration (simple head count) shall be made every ten years.
This count of heads is all that is authorized by the constitution,
and is to be done so that a proper ratio between the representatives
and the people can be determined, and to also determine the proper
apportionment of direct taxes among the several states.
As an aside, the number of representatives has been fixed at 435
since 1911. The total population of the United States in 1911 was
93,863,000. Obviously, our population has increased almost three
and one half times since then without any change in representation.
Secondly, the writers of our current constitution said that there
should not be more than one representative for every thirty thousand
people, and going forward from the original 65 members, the rule
of one representative for every thirty thousand people was generally
accepted. As I will discuss later, there were no fixed upper limits
on the number of representatives, but the Founders did caution against
too large a number; but why?

The ratio of
representatives to people was not exact as heavily populated centers
would have fewer representatives per capita, but the end
result was to be full and fair representation of all the people.
Since the number of representatives has been fixed for almost one
hundred years, what is the point of the current Census? Since no
additional representation is even being discussed and no talk or
legislation exists to change this number, is the Census now valid
and/or constitutional? I do realize that specific district changes
do occur and that apportionment of some taxes (actually very little)
is still constitutional, but I think a very good argument could
be made that not only is the modern Census completely unnecessary,
but that it might now be unconstitutional as well due to the fact
that the primary reasoning for this count has been thrown aside
by the federal government. If no count will result in a change of
representation, then the costly and invasive U.S. Census should
be stopped immediately. Obviously, the modern census count is used
not to determine representation as originally intended anyway, but
is used as a tool to determine the improper and unconstitutional
amounts of wealth redistribution, and to gain personal and private
information about the citizenry. The coming census also includes
a precise mapping by GPS of every address. What in the world does
locking in my home position in a government database have to do
with representation or apportionment? This information, by the way,
is none of their damn business! This in and of itself is reason
enough to scrap this invasion of privacy because the entire census
count is nothing more than a farce to help expand government interference
into private matters.

What does all
this mean? A breakdown of the numbers is useful here. Initially,
there was one representative for every 30,000 people. In 1911 when
the representative number became fixed at 435, there was one representative
for every 216,000 people. Currently, there is one representative
for approximately every 760,000 Americans. If we were to go back
to the original plan, we would now have to have about 11,000 representatives.
Is anybody up to 11,000 campaigns and elections every two years?
Before you answer, think about the unseen consequences.

Karen DeCoster
pointed out to me that having thousands of representatives, as ridiculous
as it sounds, might prove to be beneficial. Can you imagine the
bottleneck if 11,000 politicians were trying to agree on a particular
piece of legislation? Nothing would ever get done, rendering the
political process mute. This might not be a bad idea after all,
as gridlock is a desired end. Gridlock stifles political aggression
and is certainly a friend of freedom.

Times have
certainly changed over the past 200 years or so. James Madison once
thought that the number of representatives, as long as not too small
or too large, was not a big issue. He thought this because he had
faith in the American people; in that they would not continue to
vote for those who would advance tyranny, and considering the times,
he was most likely correct in his assumption. What in the world
would Madison think if he were alive today? His trust in the American
people would be shaken beyond repair. How could anyone today believe
that our liberty is safe in the hands of the imbecilic and unenlightened
American voter?

His foreknowledge
was evident when he said:

What change
of circumstance, time, and a fuller population of our country
may produce, requires a prophetic spirit to declare, which makes
no part of my pretensions.

Judging from
his words, he understood that times would bring change and that
larger and larger populations would cause problems in representation.
Given the times of our Founders, one representative for every 30,000
people seemed proper, but today, one for every 760,000 is absurd.
Let's face it; this country has become too large for freedom to
survive under its present form of government. Instead of freedom,
we now have socialism, fascism and tyranny. So what can be done
about it? I think there is only one logical answer: Secession!

Secession should
not be feared but embraced. Our country was borne by secession and
in my opinion can only be saved by secession. Secession in my mind
is an inherent, God-given right. If one is bound by or to the state
by force, freedom has no validity and cannot exist. Secession is
the virtual unbinding of the chains of tyranny. It is the emancipation
if you will, from the servitude of the state and awakens the spirit
of liberty. What better solution is there when extreme conditions
exist?

Many will balk
at the idea of secession but there is no need. Our country would
not be torn apart, but restored, by separating ourselves from a
tyrannical government. Secession is not a breakup of the country
because the country will remain intact. The spirit of America would
not be lost but regained. The oppressive power of the federal government
would be curtailed, and in many cases eliminated. Just think of
the benefits if the federal government's power was eradicated. Massive
taxation and inflation would all but disappear. Unjust and unholy
foreign aggression would not be possible. Spying, wiretapping and
unwarranted searches would be a thing of the past. The growing police
state and standing armies could not be funded at current levels
and would have to be pared back. U.S. military bases in other countries
would have to be closed and all military personnel could come home
where they belong. The insane war on drugs and its accompanying
prison-state apparatus would shut down. With these changes, torture
would no longer be the rule of the day, and civil and just law could
return. In other words, a return to freedom would be evident and
real prosperity would once again be available for all to seek. Does
this sound euphoric? Of course it does, because freedom and free
markets are euphoric in a real way, unlike the so-called socialistic
euphoria based on theft and oppression.

This is serious
business! It is important, it is imperative, and time is of the
essence! Any secession from this tyrannical government, whether
by states, portions of states, or regions, will require gargantuan
efforts by individuals. This government will never be receptive
of any plan to limit its power, and secession is a virtual elimination
and negation of centralized government. No break from this behemoth
can or will be achieved through government action or government
process. That would be an exercise in futility and would fuel even
more oppression. It will require that those involved, whether individuals,
groups of individuals or entire states, not obey any unconstitutional
or unjust federal law. As should be evident, this will be no easy
task, but the rewards of victorious secession are freedom, liberty
and prosperity.

June
8, 2009

Gary
D. Barnett [send
him mail
] is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc.,
in Lewistown, Montana.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts