Rand Paul, Secession And The Sins of A Father

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Email | RSS

Rand Paul Suffering For The “Sins” of the Father

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “Every time that word comes up, it’s nuclear: secession.  You can’t say it without people — it’s almost — it has to be, other than certain words that describe racial minorities and women as being less than classy, shall we say sexually promiscuous, the word secede is a four-letter word.  As the Catholic British historian might say, Michael Davies: I don’t understand why the word would be controversial.  Why is there a controversy associated with the word?”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

FOLKS, a message from Mike – The Clip of The Day videos, Project 76 features, Church Doctrine videos and everything else on this site are supported by YOU. We have over 70, of my personally designed, written, produced and directed products for sale in the Founders Tradin’ Post, 24/7,  here. You can also support our efforts with a Founders Pass membership granting total access to years of My work for just .17 cents per day. Not convinced? Take the tour! Thanks for 18 years of mike church.com! – Mike

[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|Founding Brother|Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]

[/private]

Mike:  … this opinion piece that’s on the editorial page of the Washington Compost today saying that Senator Paul’s presidential aspirations are going to be quashed or clobbered because his father went to an event — Ron Paul went to an event that some of you listening to me right now probably went to in Houston on Saturday hosted by the Ludwig von Mises Institute about secession and about withdrawing consent.  Think about that word again.  Every time that word comes up, it’s nuclear: secession.  You can’t say it without people — it’s almost — it has to be, other than certain words that describe racial minorities and women as being less than classy, shall we say sexually promiscuous, the word secede is a four-letter word.  As the Catholic British historian might say, Michael Davies: I don’t understand why the word would be controversial.  Why is there a controversy associated with the word?  If we went back to the opinion column, David Fahrenthold at the Washington Compost, we’ll find this:

[reading]

And on Saturday, he [Ron Paul] came to Houston to talk about secession.

The event was organized by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, an Alabama-based think tank named after an Austrian economist [Mike: No, named after THE Austrian economist.] whose writings are highly respected by libertarians. Ron Paul is a member of its board.

[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|Founding Brother|Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]

[end reading]

Mike:  By the bye, full disclosure, I have spoken at — I used to go every year to the — I know this will come as a shock to some people, but they used to invite me to the — I think they did invite me last year but I couldn’t because of the Hogs for the Cause on the same weekend — to the Austrian Scholars Conference every year.  As a matter of fact, if it’s on the right date this year, I might make a trip back to Auburn, Alabama.  It’s a cool place, Ludwig Von Mises Institute.  If you haven’t been and you get a chance to go, it’s worth the trip.  You Alabamans, you people that are from or live in Alabama, if you go to a game at Auburn, it’s not far from the stadium.  It’s not far from there.  Anyway, just to go to the library at the Mises Institute is worth the trip.  If they’re having an event, go if you get a chance.  Here’s what Paul said at the secession conference.  We must not talk about these things, by the bye.

[reading]

“We’ve been conquered. We’ve been occupied by the state, and its phony veneer of democratic elections,” Deist, the day’s first speaker, said, contending that the federal government has taken on powers the Founding Fathers never envisioned. He continued: “Why not seek out ways to split apart, rationally and nonviolently? Why dismiss secession, the pragmatic alternative that’s staring us all in the face?”

[end reading]

Mike:  Folks, we’ve talked about this for years upon years upon years.  When you think about secession, you’re not necessarily automatically thinking about states leaving the union.  You may also be talking about counties leaving states and forming their own states, so that they can elect their own governor, their own pair of U.S. senators if they’re dumb enough to join the union.  I’ll give you an example.  The best example I can think of is in the 2013 elections, I believe, in Colorado, there were ten counties, I think, that wanted to secede, didn’t want to be part of Colorado any longer.  Sixty percent of them voted yes, voted to break away.  They never did anything with it, that I’m aware of, but they did vote.  They were going to form the State of North Colorado because they were tired of paying taxes and tired of having a bunch of demagogues in Denver tell them what to do.  They don’t have anything in common with people in Denver.  It only makes sense that you would break away and form your own state.  I still fail to see what the big deal about this is.

Let me give you an example.  It was barely even debated whether or not Kentucky should become its own state in 1794 when it broke away from Virginia.  Do you know why?  Because Kentuckians knew that they were different people than the Virginia gentry, as they would be called.  Virginia didn’t argue.  Virginia blessed it.  The Congress blessed it.  It was no big deal.  Same deal with Maine breaking away from Taxachusetts under similar circumstances.  The Dakota Territory being split into north and south, no one implied that North Dakota and South Dakota had to remain as one state.  It’s just silliness.  The territory formerly known as the Northwest Territory, there’s a clause in the U.S. Constitution to deal with it.  What does the clause say?  It lays out the conditions under which parts of the Northwest Territory could organize themselves into states, draft constitutions, have a republican form of government, and then join the union if they wanted to.  If you can join the union if you want to, that implies what?  Voluntarism, that’s what it implies.

Just like when Louisiana was purchased by President Jefferson, no one held a gun to the head of Julien de Lallande Poydras, who was the foremost politician of the Orleans Territory at the time and organized the convention that took place in New Orleans in December of 1811.  No one held a gun to the head of New Orleanians, Jefferson certainly didn’t, and told them that they had to form a state and join the union.  Quite the opposite, Jefferson sent a letter to Governor Claiborne, who was a territorial governor at the time, saying: Look, if you guys don’t want to join the union, don’t.  Hang on and be a territory.  You are free to do that.  You are free to govern yourselves.  That doesn’t just imply, it demonstrates voluntarism.  The union thus is a voluntary system and that’s the way it ought to be.  You ought to want the union to be voluntary.  You ought to want the organization of states to be voluntary.  If you want compulsion, perhaps you should try one of those countries in the Middle East that you want to bomb off the map.  They’re into compulsion.  To me, these issues are just so simple and boilerplate to grasp, yet so few people get it.  You know why?  Because we are taught to be historically ignorant because it serves the elites to keep us dumb.

[reading]

Other speakers offered a number of definitions for “secession.” They said individual states could break off, notwithstanding the experience in the Civil War . . . [Mike: That’s right, bring Lincoln up. The best way to stop a secession argument is to bring up: If St. Abe said it, it must be obeyed, inviolably obeyed.] States could even break off and join other countries, if they wanted.

[end reading]

Mike:  From Brion McClanahan, my buddy who co-authored and helped me put the Is Davis a Traitor? or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War of 1861? — there was, as I just demonstrated to you — helped me put the book together that was written by Albert Taylor Bledsoe, which is the best research, the most complete argument for what I just told you.  It’s in that book.  Get yourself a copy in the Founders Tradin’ Post today.  Why wait?  We even have some 1866 handmade editions, just like the one that Bledsoe had printed for himself.  He famously gave a copy to Jefferson Davis.  It’s in a library somewhere today.  Anyway, McClanahan is an expert on this.

[reading]

“If Texas wanted to secede and they wanted to join Mexico, I think they can do that. There’s nothing stopping them,” said Brion McLanahan, another speaker.

“I think Mexico is in many ways far freer than the United States,” Deist agreed.

But the speakers said that there were other ways to “secede,” beyond convincing your state to go it alone. Individual people could “secede” by doing such things as home-schooling their children, not going to mainstream colleges, owning gold and foreign currencies, and stockpiling food, fuel, firearms and cash (“seceding from dependency,” that was called).

In theory, speakers said, every American could just secede from the others, creating a nation where no one was subjugated to anyone else’s rule.

“What do we do for national defense?” someone in the audience asked.

[/private]

“National defense is largely a myth. In other words, my fears for my family from Mr. Putin are far more remote than my fears of Mr. Obama and Mr. Boehner,” Deist said, meaning Russian President Vladimir Putin and House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). He conceded there was one problem with this plan: “The thorn . . . is that nuclear weapons do exist,” and somebody would have control over them, Deist said. “But secession is not perfection. It’s not utopia.”

Ron Paul’s speech, the day’s last, was titled “Secession and Liberty,” but the focus was largely on the latter. Paul spent relatively little time on the mechanics or morality of secession . . .

[end reading]

Mike:  Again, there is a moral issue to this, by the bye.  It comes to us in the form of, or the way you would discuss this and ponder it: Is your consent legitimately granted?  Is the authority that is being waged on you, is it legitimately granted?  That’s the moral issue, if you’re going to ask a moral question about this.

[reading]

. . . instead talking about the virtues of a smaller federal government and the ways in which big governments impose war on peace-loving people.

Mike has been talking about many different ways to deal with the American Union & it’s attack dog, the “Federal” government –There’s Article V & Nullification too

Paul’s son — the one headed to California — was mentioned only once onstage. “We have five children. There’s one involved, I think, in politics. I can’t remember his name,” he said, as the audience laughed.

“He is the ‘Star Wars, Episode I,’ ” said Kent Ohler, 38, who records sound for TV and movies. He meant that the younger Paul was like the long-anticipated but largely disappointing sequel to the “Star Wars” movie franchise. “You have to like him to some degree, just because the name’s still stuck [on him]. But at the end of the day, he’s just not freakin’ right.”

Ohler and his younger brother Adam, sitting next to him, took the analogy further: Rand Paul’s endorsement of Republican Mitt Romney in the 2012 election was his “Jar Jar Binks” . . .

[end reading]

Mike:  Then there’s more on this.  Just on the subject that is at hand here and the subject of withdrawing your consent, that’s how Jordan Bloom put it to us when he was our guest when I was in DC last.  To secede, as I’ve explained many, many times, is a Latin word, secedere.  To withdraw is what it means.  It’s not a dirty word.  You do it all the time.  People withdraw from trade unions, don’t you?  You withdraw your effort at one employer so you can go employ somewhere else.  You withdraw your support of certain retailers if you don’t like what they carry longer, whatever the case may be.  We withdraw consent all the time.  Why should it not be the same when you withdraw consent to a governing entity?  The inability to be able to withdraw your consent to me says that you live under a tyranny then.  If you can’t withdraw your consent, then you don’t have self-government because you don’t have the “self” part of it.  Please, let’s not confuse this.  That doesn’t mean that it’s advisable in all cases to withdraw your consent.

End Mike Church Show Transcript