• Conspiracy, Census and the Case for Secession

    Email Print
    Share

    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
    Share