The American Empire Is Bankrupt

And it gets even worse!

Chris Hedges at truthdig.com explains the ramifications of a meeting held this week in Yekaterinburg, Russia, by a new consortium called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Members include Russia, India, China, Pakistan, and Iran. The United States asked to attend the meeting, but was denied admittance.

The apparent purpose of this meeting is to strip the U.S. dollar of its status as a reserve currency. If they are successful, in the words of Mr. Hedges: “the dollar will dramatically plummet in value, the cost of imports, including oil, will skyrocket, interest rates will climb and jobs will hemorrhage at a rate that will make the last few months look like boom times. State and federal services will be reduced or shut down for lack of funds.”

China is beginning to unload its dollars to purchase factories and natural resources around the world, sometimes at fire-sale prices. This will also break us militarily, because the U.S. will be unable to borrow enough to finance a $623 billion military budget. (According to the CIA, the second largest military budget is China’s, at $65 billion).

I have been warning for some time that (1) China would lose its patience with the U.S. dollar, and (2) we are in for a hyperinflation (here and here). And then there is this quote from April 2008 in which Scott Ritter, a former head weapons inspector in Iraq stated that a war with Iran “would hasten the ongoing decline of American standing in the world,” enabling Russia and China to fill the void. However, it appears that the war with Iran will not be necessary (May still happen, but won’t be necessary to ensure our decline). In these predictions, I would rather be wrong.

Virtual buckeye to Ralph Meima at Vermont Commons.

Is resistance to authority unchristian?

Some Christians will quote Romans 13 as a reason for obeying authority -- any authority. In this piece, the Rev. Chuck Baldwin (who was the Constitution Party's candidate for President last year) explains why Romans 13 cannot be used in this manner.

After going through the Biblical arguments and noting numerous examples of men in the Bible resisting authority for Godly reasons, Rev. Baldwin makes this point:

"..If Christians (and others) had been properly obedient to the Constitution (and Romans 13), they would also have submitted to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which recognizes the authority of the States in matters not specifically ceded to the federal government. In other words, the Constitution intended that the authority of the federal government be small and limited, with most authority residing within the States and among the people themselves.

"As submission to the Constitution and Natural Law have provided a haven of peace and prosperity in these United States, Christians (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and defy their civil authorities. However, as it is obvious that a majority of our government leaders currently have almost no fidelity to their oaths to defend the U.S. Constitution, it is becoming more and more likely that we--like our forefathers--will need to rediscover Benjamin Franklin's declaration that 'Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.' (Of course, this effort, too, must be accomplished within the scope of law, both divine and civil.)

"The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore, and blatantly disobey, the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution."

Virtual buckeye to Frank at the Ohio Freedom Alliance.

Must secession be violent?

Recently, I encountered this reaction to the secession idea from a writer at the Ohio Freedom Alliance forum:

Since the topic of Secession was raised a few weeks ago. I can not understand why the secessionists members of the OFA desire to take extreme measures to Secede From the Union? When We the People still have the tools to bring our elected representatives to justice. And I do know some members have stepped up to the plate and even got in there Representatives face. Public accountability is a very good thing. I personally will support any Legislation or Law Suit brought forth to impeach members of Congress , the Senate and the Executive branch who have failed to uphold their oaths of office to Support and Defend the Constitution.

I totally agree, and support those efforts, including Rep. Kucinich's impeachment petition. I strongly agree that we need to hold our public officials to accountability, remove them from office when they fail to act in the public interest (and, contrary to most political scientists, I believe there is such a thing as the "public interest", but I grant that it is an abstract idea, and often a matter of opinion). I grant that we have the tools. Unfortunately, experience has shown that, with rare exceptions, they do not work.

My question to the Secessionists. Do you the Secessionists support secession though the legislative process? or by other means? The Libertarian party dose not support Violence in order to achieve political goals, Neither do i support violence.This issue just blows my mind.

I have stated unequivocally that I am opposed to the use of violence to secure Ohio's independence. The Ohio Republic's stated purpose is"... to advocate the peaceful, legal independence of Ohio from the United States of America. In it, I shall discuss the philosophy that will underlie the new political system; the emotional, legal, and practical issues involved in achieving independence; and highlight news of differences between the State of Ohio and the United States Government."

Violence defeats the purpose for two reasons: first, it merely begets greater violence against us from a régime that is all too eager to use it, and second, it destroys our moral authority -- consider the examples of Mohandas Gandhi and Dr. King.

However, the legislative process will not work, either; because it will not be seen as a sufficient expression of the will of the people on a matter of this magnitude. The method used by the Confederacy -- that of state conventions, was the standard method at the time for revising state constitutions, and was generally recognized at the beginning of the War for Southern Independence, even by the U.S. Congress, as being a lawful expression of the will of the people. Since that time, we have developed the initiative and referendum (added to the Ohio Constitution in 1913), which I believe would be even better, since it would constitute a direct mandate of the Ohio people.

Now, I am not delusional. If an ordinance of secession were to be put before the Ohio people today, I would expect a vote of approximately 87% in opposition (based on the results of a survey I shall post in The Ohio Republic shortly). However, with education and the crises I think are coming (loss of liberty and collapse of the dollar), the idea may gain popularity very rapidly.

Albert Einstein was quoted as saying that insanity was doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. No third party in the United States has elected a President since Abraham Lincoln. No third party has ever gained a majority, or even a significant minority, in Congress. We have tried reform over and over again. There was an extensive reform movement in 1912-1913, which produced many excellent changes at the local and State levels -- and some horrible ones at the Federal. In my lifetime, we have had George Wallace trying to rise above his segregationist roots to provide an alternative to two parties between which there wasn't "a dime's worth of difference" -- this in 1972. John Anderson tried to take a more moderate tack in 1980. Ross Perot got 20% of the popular vote in 1992 and not one electoral vote! The Libertarian Party has run in every election since, when, 1976?

Reform clearly isn't working. We have allowed our Federal Government to become corrupt beyond all repair. If Ohioans are to regain our freedom, we must try a different approach.Understand that advocating secession is not the same as advocating sedition (advocating the overthrow of the government by violence or other unlawful means) -- or treason (giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war). We are not seditious, because if the other 49 states all want to remain in the Union, they are welcome to do so, or to paraphrase the rabbi's blessing in Fiddler on the Roof, "God bless and keep the President of the United States --- far away from us!" As to treason, we all agree that there is no legitimacy to the war in Iraq, so withdrawing our soldiers from that war would be a highly moral act showing that we really care that they risk their lives for a cause worth defending. I invite you to read more about my thinking in The Ohio Republic. I suggest you begin with my Basics label, then move about as you please.

Isn’t secessionism a betrayal of our war dead?

Today, I received an e-mail from a reader which asks this question: “Although I see the need for a 'new paradigm' when it comes to governing our nation, how can I overcome the feeling that I am somehow 'betraying' those closest to me who gave their very lives for this nation?”

This is not a concern to be taken lightly. We have family and friends very dear to us who have fought, and too often, died in defense of the United States of America. The very idea of secession can sound treasonous. Most of us have grown up believing that the United States was morally superior to other nations because we promoted personal political and economic freedom, equality of opportunity, and the rule of law; and I am sure most Americans who have served their country in the armed forces did so in defense of those ideas against nations who were not so committed.

Unique among the nations of the world, the United States was founded on ideas, not tribalism or loyalty to a strongman. This foundation was laid with our Declaration of Independence, which includes these words:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed – that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” (Emphasis mine)

Twenty years later, George Washington, in his farewell address, warned us about entering into “entangling alliances” with foreign powers. Unfortunately, his advice was ignored almost immediately. Since then, the United States has engaged in nine major wars. One of them was the Civil War, which requires a whole discussion to itself. Of the others, only two can even be partly justified as self-defense: the Pacific theatre of World War II, in response to the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor and Santa Barbara, and its occupation of some Aleutian islands near Alaska; and the current war in Afghanistan, in response to 9-11. The American involvement in all of the others was the result of some action instigated by the United States, to either expand its territory, its economic influence, or its military power.

Sadly, then, we would have to acknowledge the fact that thousands of Americans died for an unworthy cause; but the truth is, they thought they were fighting to preserve the liberties that we won in the American Revolution. The bankers and politicians pursued one cause, but the soldiers and sailors fought for another, higher one.

Therefore, if we agree that America was founded on the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence, and that the present government of the United States has become destructive to the rights of our people, it not only follows that secession into a Republic based on the same principles does not betray the sacrifices of our warriors – it may prove to be the only way that we can really honor them.