Last Updated on November 4, 2020 by Constitutional Militia
Daily Bell: Thanks for sitting down with us again. Let’s jump right in with a discussion of your new book, The Sword and Sovereignty. Give us a synopsis, please. Where can people buy it?
Edwin Vieira: The Sword and Sovereignty is available at Amazon.com. It is a study of the actual constitutional “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” in the Second Amendment in its inextricable relation to “the Militia of the several States,” as opposed to the historically inaccurate and legally indefensible so-called “individual right to keep and bear arms” on which almost all contemporary advocates of the Second Amendment fixate. I describe “the individual right to keep and bear arms” as legally indefensible because fundamentally it is a right in name only, inasmuch as it lacks an effective remedy if an highly organized and armed tyranny sets out to suppress it, whereas the true “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” exercised in the context of “well regulated Militia” is the Constitution’s own preferred remedy against usurpation and tyranny in their every aspect. Even though the Second Amendment is very much the subject of contemporary political debate, I seem to be one of the very few commentators saying as much − which, in these days of rampant legal and political confusion, misinformation and disinformation, is probably very convincing evidence that I am correct.
In any event, The Sword and Sovereignty breaks down into four parts: First, an analysis of the correct manner of interpreting the Constitution. Second, an application of the rules of constitutional interpretation to the question of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” in relation to “the Militia of the several States,” elucidating the basic principles of the Militia through a thoroughgoing analysis of the pre-constitutional Militia statutes of the Colonies and independent States. Third, an application of the principles of the Militia, and especially of the duty (as well as the right) of all eligible Americans to be armed, to present-day problems of what is called “homeland security.” And fourth, a warning that, should these principles not be applied in the very near future − immediately, if not sooner, as I like to put it − America will slip under the control of a national para-militarized police-state apparatus (which anyone with even the least insight should recognize is taking place at an ever-accelerating pace even as he reads these words). The book is heavily freighted with footnotes and endnotes identifying primary sources, so no one has to take my poor word alone for its premises and conclusions.
Daily Bell: What’s the response been?
Edwin Vieira: The Sword and Sovereignty was first made available in mid-December of 2012. It had to be put out on a CD in PDF format because there was insufficient interest shown among potential readers to justify producing a quality hardbound printed version (although that may become an option in the future). In light of the popularity of the subject matter of the book − the Second Amendment and related constitutional issues − that depth of disinterest really surprised me. But now, with all of the brouhaha over new, draconian “gun-control” legislation in the States as well as in Congress, the very slow sale of, and dearth of commentary about, the CD is more than surprising. It is shocking, even appalling. Especially so when more and more commentators, bloggers, and others on the Internet are recognizing, and correctly so, that the ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment is not to protect hunters or target shooters, or even to enable individuals to protect themselves against common criminals but instead to enable common Americans to resist the political crimes of usurpation and tyranny. Which, I believe, the historical record proves beyond peradventure cannot be accomplished through the exercise of an “individual right to keep and bear arms,” but rather demands collective action through “the Militia of the several States.”
Daily Bell: What was the most interesting thing you discovered while researching the book?
Edwin Vieira: The extent and depth of the evidence for the construction of the Second Amendment and the Militia Clauses of the original Constitution, which The Sword and Sovereignty lays out. Over the years, I have studied many aspects of pre-constitutional legal history; but as to no other matter is the historical record as complete, consistent and compelling as it is with respect to the Militia. The evidence supports the conclusions in the book beyond a reasonable doubt, which is far more than can be said about such matters taken as “legal gospel” today as the reach of the Supreme Court’s power of “judicial review” or of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.
Daily Bell: What are some of the fundamental conclusions?
Edwin Vieira: There are far too many to compile here. The five most consequential for the average man’s understanding of the present-day issue of “gun control” are that: (i) The maintenance of freedom depends inextricably upon the American people’s collective participation in “well regulated Militia,” not upon individual action; (ii) “A well regulated Militia” is composed of nearly all of the eligible adult residents in a State, who are required by law to serve; (iii) Every member of such a Militia (other than conscientious objectors) must be armed with one or more firearms, ammunition and accoutrements suitable for Militia service, all of which must always be maintained in his personal possession; (iv) Because two of the most important responsibilities of the Militia are to repel invasions by foreign countries and to put down domestic usurpation and tyranny by rogue public officials, every armed member of the Militia must be equipped with a firearm suitable for those specific purposes − which means a firearm equivalent to, if not better than, the firearms contemporary regular armed forces bear: that is, not just a semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifle in 5.56 x 45 (.223) or 7.62 x 39 caliber, but a fully automatic or burst-fire rifle, preferable in a caliber more effective than the latter calibers, such as 6.5 x 38 Grendel (which can be made to work reliably on an AR-15 or M-16 platform); and (v) because “the Militia of the several States” are State governmental institutions, 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. That is, as to the Militia and their members (which includes essentially all adult Americans), all forms of contemporary “gun control,” including those of the Feinstein and Cuomo patterns (to name two of the more infamous poster-children for “gun control”), are absolutely unconstitutional.
Daily Bell: From your perspective, a free people is an armed people?
Edwin Vieira: It has nothing whatsoever to do with my personal “perspective,” or my “opinion,” or my “view.” The Constitution tells us, in no uncertain terms, that a “well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State.” This is a declaration of law and historical fact − as well as an admonition − set out in the supreme law of the land, and therefore from a strictly legal perspective to be accepted and acted upon. It is also a first principle or axiom of American political philosophy. Had I a different “perspective,” “opinion,” or “view,” I should to that extent be an opponent of the Constitution. And if I were in a position to attempt to impose that different, anti-constitutional “perspective,” “opinion,” or “view” on the American people by enacting legislation and enforcing it against them through the threats and assaults of jack-booted, uniformed, para-militarized thugs, then I should be, as well, a traitor (in the strict sense in which the Constitution defines “Treason” in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1).
Daily Bell: How can people with guns hold off the tanks (or “non-lethal” weapons) of a repressive government?
Edwin Vieira: This is a complex question because it incorporates so many implicit, unexamined and likely false assumptions. It probably is true that, even though many in overall number, individuals acting only in isolation, without coordination or even a common plan, cannot hold off rogue armed forces or even police agencies that are armed only with small arms, let alone tanks and other heavy weaponry. But the desired goal is not necessarily to win an all-out, once-and-for-all nationwide firefight but instead to deter usurpation and tyranny at their onset and grind their perpetrators down even if they are initially successful.
If Militia exist which could effectively resist aspiring usurpers and tyrants to any degree for any length of time, the usurpers and tyrants will be compelled to think twice about attempting to repress the people. Indeed, under such circumstances, the regular armed forces and police may themselves fracture: some supporting the rogue regime, others supporting the people. And, in the long run, the armed forces and police that remain on the side of the usurpers and tyrants may prove unable to suppress the people, their supposedly superior weaponry notwithstanding.
Look at Afghanistan. In more than ten years, the armed forces of the United States and their puppet “coalition partners” have been unable to defeat a rag-tag people’s army of cave-dwellers and primitive tribesmen armed with weaponry less effective than was used in World War I (no tanks, no planes, no heavy artillery, no poison gas and so on), in a land-locked country which receives no significant outside assistance.
Now, there are some 300 million people in the United States. Assume that 150 million are adults and that of these some 50 million, spread throughout a landmass than spans North America, would actively sympathize with and even personally participate in a resistance-movement. And remember that of these 50 million, most are already fairly well armed. The difficulty of suppressing this level of opposition, particularly when the resistance-fighters could directly attack the logistical support of the usurpers’ and tyrants’ puppet forces, would make Afghanistan look like a cakewalk.
Daily Bell: Do people need to form their own militias?
Edwin Vieira: If you mean do individuals need to form private militia, on their own, then the constitutional answer is an unequivocal NO. The constitutional Militia, “the Militia of the several States” incorporated in the original Constitution and the “well regulated Militia” to which the Second Amendment refers, are State governmental institutions or establishments. This is what imbues them with legal − indeed, constitutional − authority, which no private militia can possibly claim. Think about it: If the people on the south side of Main Street in Smalltown USA form their own private militia, and the people on the north side of Main Street form theirs, which one of them, perforce of its mere existence, can claim even a semblance of legal authority over the other, or over anyone else for that matter? Or are both of them − and any other armed groups that happen to coalesce in that area − of equal legal authority, so that no generally applicable system of law can be applied in that territory? In which case, one might conclude, there can be no legal authority there at all, just a multiplicity of Freikorps settling their inevitable differences by main force. Not a very pretty picture.
Daily Bell: What’s your take on the current gun control controversy?
Edwin Vieira: The present controversy − at least as it is being mis-argued in the media, both mainstream and alternative − can basically be characterized as two huge gas-bags colliding head-on, but with no real harm possibly done by or to either because neither articulates the issue actually at stake.
If the problem is viewed from the constitutionally true perspective of the Militia, then “gun control” of the familiar contemporary variety must be seen as legally impossible and politically perverse. Any form of “gun control” is illegitimate, on its face, if its intent or effect is to any degree to disarm the Militia because the Second Amendment declares that “[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” any attack upon which is precluded (and therefore unreasonable) as a matter of law. And the original Constitution incorporates the Militia as integral components of its federal structure, with which neither the General Government nor the States may dispense. That is the end of the matter. Any other supposed merits or demerits of a particular “gun-control” proposal are simply irrelevant. If it undermines the Militia − as all contemporary “gun-control” schemes do, and are objectively intended to do − then such a scheme is out of bounds, absolutely and irretrievably. Period.
On the other hand, if the problem is viewed from the constitutionally false perspective of “the individual right to keep and bear arms,” then “gun control” becomes a matter of what can be deemed “reasonable” in relation to something other than the maintenance of the Militia and “the security of a free State.” Something, perhaps, with highly emotional appeal, such as guaranteeing the supposed “safety” of children from irresponsible, criminal, or insane individuals who somehow get their hands on guns. If “gun control” is aimed only at curtailing some vague “individual right” entirely separate from the Militia and the maintenance of “a free State” (which is inextricably tied to the Militia, not to any “individual right”), then why is it not perfectly “reasonable” to prohibit the possession of some sorts − indeed, many or even most sorts − of firearms, by some or even many sorts of putatively “dangerous” people, as long as individuals not within the prohibited classes are left with a few firearms with which arguably they can defend themselves as individuals against adventitious attacks by common criminals?
Why, the Feinsteins and Cuomos of this benighted country may ask with some semblance of cogency, does anyone “need” a supposedly dangerous semi-automatic rifle if he is not a member of an official institution with the responsibility to repel invasions (such as the Army) − which, according to the dogma of “the individual right to keep and bear arms,” most individuals are not? Conversely, if one is a member of such an institution − as most adult Americans are (or should be) with respect to the Militia − then the question the Feinsteins and the Cuomos pose lacks not simply cogency but even logic and legitimacy. It becomes a question which might be asked appropriately in North Korea but never here in America.
Daily Bell: What’s the most critical problem facing America right now? Previously you claimed it was authoritarianism and a growing police state.
Edwin Vieira: Claimed?! I have “claimed” nothing. As a political and legal scientist, I have observed and reported on my observations, which is an entirely different matter. Moreover, anyone who cannot and does not make the selfsame observations needs to have his political eyes examined.
America’s national para-military police state is not simply “growing“; it has grown to fantastic proportions. Why else do you imagine that I am devoting the last years of my life to promoting the revitalization of the Militia? Nostalgia for the by-gone Colonial era? When the Executive Department of the General Government declares, as it has today, that nameless, faceless bureaucrats can order the assassinations of Americans, anywhere in the world, on the basis of the mere suspicion that the targets are somehow allied with “terrorists” or other “enemies,” and no other department of the General Government or the States at any level of the federal system challenges that declaration, then America has degenerated into a politically putrescent state beyond mere “authoritarianism.” This condition constitutes a species of legal nihilism with which, heretofore, only monsters such as Caligula and Hitler were associated. For if one’s life can be stripped from him under such circumstances, what other rights does he retain? None, as all rights inevitably depend upon the right to life itself. And if such an individual − indeed, every American − retains no rights, because the theory of “official assassinations” embraces essentially anyone and everyone who might be denounced from within the bowels of the bureaucracy as an “enemy combatant,” then what limits exist to rogue public officials’ powers? None. This is totalitarianism with a vengeance.
Daily Bell: We mentioned directed history the last time we spoke, and you indicated that in your view a “paper-money oligarchy” was at least one group organizing this kind of history. These are basically banking families and their enablers based in Britain and Europe with military and intelligence arms (along with other such families) in Israel and the US. Why are they busy in Africa creating wars? Is it because their credit scheme is in the final stages of Ponzi self-destruction, as you indicated? Has that advanced in the past two years?
Edwin Vieira: What I might describe as “intermediate Ponzi banking pyramids,” based upon national or regional central banks − namely, the Federal Reserve System and the European Central Bank − are shaking themselves to pieces, as all such Ponzi schemes eventually must. As a result, “the paper-money oligarchy” will now try to salvage the basic system by elevating it to a global level with some sort of world central bank, perhaps based upon the IMF. This may prove difficult if not impossible to accomplish if the Chinese, for example, cannot be cajoled or coerced into joining or at least acquiescing in such an operation. At present, that does not seem likely. The Chinese appear to be staking out a position based upon competition with, rather than complicity in, any new global paper-money-and-credit scam run by the “Western” elites. So those elites are taking defensive measures to shore up their position, based upon their realization that the purpose of all paper-money-and-credit schemes is not simply to manipulate paper “obligations,” “claims,” and misnamed “assets,” but instead to redistribute real wealth from the unsuspecting members of society at large to the manipulators and their cronies and clients.
Ultimately, real wealth consists of human labor and natural resources. Africa is awash in critical natural resources; and the potential for enserfing its native populations as docile workers under puppet “governments” controlled by the “Western” elites makes those resources even more valuable. So the military conflicts in Africa now being billed as parts of “the war on terrorism” are actually parts of a “war of terrorism” intended to destabilize the region, introduce “Western” neo-colonialism and thus preempt the Chinese from obtaining an economic or political foothold in the area.
Daily Bell: We spoke about dominant social themes and how they are used by this power elite. What have you noticed about their fear-based promotions? Are they more powerful than ever or are they losing their power to convince?
Edwin Vieira: A little of both. We observe with the present orchestrated hysteria over “gun control” − all of which is based upon promoting irrational fear of and loathing for firearms amongst the general populace − that, although many Americans are being swayed by the elitists’ propaganda and agitation, perhaps even more Americans are not: The more the elitists scream for radical “gun control,” the more common Americans listen to the real subliminal message in these rants, and the more firearms and ammunition they amass.
On the other side, though, the elitists have successfully imparted a subtle twist to their propaganda and agitation: At first, “the party line” was simply that Americans must fear “terrorists” from abroad, and therefore must surrender some of their freedoms to a nascent national para-military police-state apparatus. To this was soon added the supposed necessity for Americans to fear “domestic terrorists” (such as their fellow countrymen who support the Constitution, advocate the restoration of sound money and possess firearms), coupled with the necessity for Americans to surrender even more of their freedoms to a burgeoning police state. Most recently, the theme has shifted to the utterly discordant note that Americans must fear their own “government” most of all but can do nothing about its ever-more-abusive inroads into their remaining freedoms because, with all of the political, economic, and military power at its disposal, “the government” cannot be effectively opposed, no matter what excesses it may commit.
This at least has the advantage of bringing the discussion into concordance with the true meaning of words, inasmuch as the very first definition of “terrorism” in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (the standard reference for American English) as well as in The Oxford English Dictionary (the standard reference for English generally) is none other than “government by intimidation.” But it also points up the psychotic nature of the “national debate” being foisted upon us: namely, that (at least according to the elitists and their touts) Americans’ only defense against “terrorism” is to acquiesce in the worst sort of “terrorism.” If this is not the best argument for revitalizing “the Militia of the several States,” immediately if not sooner, then what is?
Daily Bell: What is a nation? Are they necessary?
Edwin Vieira: These are typical of open-ended questions the complete answers to which would require volumes. Suffice it to say here that nations must have been sufficient, if not absolutely necessary, for some historical purposes of general significance, or they would never have arisen let alone assumed such importance throughout the world. Today, if they did not already exist, they should be created for the specific purpose of opposing globalism.
True, throughout history many nations have been guilty of all sorts of crimes and other wrongdoing. But because of the multiplicity of nations, various “alliances” and “balances of power” among them have tended to deter, defend against, or mitigate many of the worst potentials and consequences of nationalistic hubris, aggression, imperialism and kindred disorders. Under a globalist regime, conversely, such “alliances” and “balances of power” will, by hypothesis, be impossible. For that reason, a globalist regime will usher in the possibility − and, I should suspect from the plans and pronouncements of contemporary globalists themselves, the likelihood − of the most horrific tyranny from which mankind has ever suffered.
There being no other effective defensive measures that can be interposed against globalism in time to interfere with its proponents’ schedule, nations and national sovereignty are necessary. That is especially true with respect to Americans, in particular. For our Declaration of Independence announced that Americans have “assume[d] among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” The last time I looked, the Declaration of Independence had not been rescinded.
Daily Bell: Is it possible the Colonial period was merely a prelude to globalism? In other words, that nations had to be created before globalism could occur? Too paranoid?
Edwin Vieira: I should think such a conclusion would go far beyond paranoia. Do you mean to suggest that globalism is a consciously elaborated project, going back literally centuries, in which one intermediate stage has been the creation of independent nations for the very purpose of destroying those nations at some indeterminate time in the future? If so, who are this project’s original architects? And how have they recruited followers true to the cause over the centuries? What is the evidence for such speculations? Are we to give credence and credit to (say) the musings of such as Francis Bacon, who proposed the establishment of “an universal republic” several hundred years ago?
To be sure, the contemporary globalist movement can attempt to take advantage of the existence of nations, which provides possibly ready-made building-blocks for the construction of some globalist edifice − as, for instance, by incorporation of individual nations into a multi-national organization such as the United Nations which can serve as a predecessor to the final globalist structure. This, however, is as likely to be historical happenstance − nations are available for such use, so why not use them − as it is to be the result of some long-range plan the origins of which are obscured in the mists of time.
Nations, moreover, are obviously two-edged swords in this duel for political power between themselves and the globalists. True enough, nations could conceivably be finagled into becoming stepping-stones to globalism, by coopting them in international organizations, then transmogrifying those organizations into supra-national organizations, then simply eliminating the nations as independent sovereignties, then wiping out international borders and their political, economic, and legal significance entirely − especially if traitorous political leaders could be coopted, bribed, blackmailed, or otherwise convinced or coerced to connive or cooperate with the globalist steering-committee. But the various nations’ peoples, and even some of their political leaders, also might balk at being dragooned into a globalist regime that reduces them to pawns on the elitists’ political chessboard; and they might then assert national sovereignty − and the legal, political, economic and especially military power that goes with it − in forcible opposition to globalism.
Daily Bell: The power elite uses false flags to promote global control. Is one of their goals gun control?
Edwin Vieira: Always. As Mao Tse-tung correctly observed. “[p]olitical power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” The Second Amendment makes the same point but with a special political and ethical gloss: “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.” In America, the guns are supposed to reside in We the People’s hands, in order that “a free State” − not “a police state” − may be maintained. So, for Americans in particular to be brought under the globalists’ control − a boot stamping on a human face forever, as Orwell described the situation in his novel 1984 − they must first be disarmed, as other peoples subjected to oppression throughout history have been disarmed.
“False flags” − in the sense of shocking events, sometimes manufactured, sometime perhaps spontaneous − have become the preferred vehicles today for stampeding the populace into “gun control” of one variety or another. It is almost as if the political actors were working off the same dog-eared B-movie script in scene after scene. Which, thankfully, is why these “false flags” are becoming increasingly less credible, and the American people increasingly less credulous.
Daily Bell: Was Barack Obama re-elected legitimately or was there a lot of voter fraud?
Edwin Vieira: Doubtlessly voter fraud was pervasive in the last election, as it has been in many others, to the disgrace of this country. More to the point, however, is whether Barack Obama was even constitutionally eligible to stand for election or re-election in the first place. Did his putative father’s British citizenship (as a resident of Kenya) disqualify Obama as a matter of law, even if in fact he was born within the United States? Did he become an Indonesian citizen when he was relocated there as a child; and, if so, did he as an adult ever reassert his supposed American birth-citizenship when he returned to the United States? As an adult in the United States did he seek educational benefits on the basis that he was a foreign student?
Why are these and related questions not being asked, let alone answered, either in Congress or in the courts? How is it that you and I must submit to a comprehensive background check before we can purchase a single firearm, but this fellow, whose origins, peregrinations and other personal details are purposefully being sequestered from public scrutiny at very great expense in attorneys’ fees, can have his finger on the proverbial “nuclear trigger” and thereby threaten the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and no one in public office seems to be concerned?
Daily Bell: What was your feeling regarding Ron Paul’s campaign? Were you surprised at the way it ended?
Edwin Vieira: I was hardly surprised at the manner in which the Republican Party big-shots systematically stabbed Ron Paul in the back. I was disappointed, though, that after such shoddy treatment Dr. Paul did not bolt from the Republican Party and run for the Presidency on a “fusion ticket” composed of the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party and other splinter-parties that might have created the foundation for a true second party in this country, as well as consigned the Republican Party to the dustbin of history once and for all. Such a “fusion ticket” might not have won the 2012 election, just as the original Republican Party did not win the first Presidential election it contested in 1856. But, once formed, “the fusion ticket” could have become a formidable force in 2016 and thereafter. Now, the necessary work has to be begun all over again.
Daily Bell: Will there be a successful states’ rights movement − or even secession?
Edwin Vieira: I believe that “secession” − the assertion by a State of a right to remove herself from the Constitution’s federal system on her own recognizance − is unconstitutional. I have a long series of articles on this subject posted in my archive at Newswithviews.com. And even if such a form of “secession” were not unconstitutional, or some other arguably legal form of “secession” were tried, the exercise would be futile at the present time because no State is prepared to deal with the primary consequences of “secession.” How, for example, could a State successfully “secede” economically if she remained tied to the Federal Reserve System’s phony regime of paper currency and unlimited bank credit? Obviously, as a precondition to “secession” a State would have to adopt an alternative currency entirely independent of the Federal Reserve and the United States Treasury Department. Has that been done anywhere? No.
Moreover, how could a State expect to “secede” politically if rogue agents of the General Government could enter her territory at will and attempt to enforce that government’s statutes, regulations and executive orders on her citizens? Obviously, as a precondition to “secession” a State would have to revitalize her Militia, in order to be able to interpose against such assaults on her own sovereignty and on her people’s lives, liberties, and property. But has that been done anywhere? Again, no. So in the absence of these necessary preliminary steps (and many others, too), talk of “secession” is plainly little more than the expulsion of hot air.
The assertion of the States’ special constitutional status within the federal system − what is often described as “States’ rights” − is another matter, though. Many opportunities for asserting the States’ special status now exist. The problem, of course, is that the General Government’s courts are ready, willing and able to attempt to nullify these assertions of federalism by invoking an overly expansive misconstruction of the Constitution’s “supremacy clause” (Article VI, Clause 2). So if the States are serious about protecting and promoting their rights and the rights of their people, at some point in the near future they will have to reject the notion that the General Government’s courts, or any department of that government, or all of them acting in unison, are the final arbiters of what the Constitution means. Indeed, this should be obvious. The General Government is merely the agent of the people, not the people’s master. The people are the principal. On what theory of agency is the principal required to accept the agent’s unilateral, self-serving and possibly corrupt determination of what the agent’s powers are, thereby effectively subordinating the principal to the agent? To be sure, this is the twisted formula usurpers and tyrants invariably employ in drawing all powers to themselves, at the expense of the people. But to contend that it is a principle, precept, or permissible interpretation of the Constitution is at best a nice piece of effrontery to which no American should give credence, if not a rotten piece of political treachery, which every American should condemn and oppose.
Daily Bell: You were a bit doubtful of the Internet’s effect last time we spoke, saying it was full of misinformation. What’s your take on that now?
Edwin Vieira: As far as I can tell, that particular problem has become worse. Today, the Internet is inundated not only with misinformation posted by the ignorant and the insouciant but also with carefully crafted disinformation posted by professional trolls and agents provocateurs. That does not mean that useful information is not to be found but only that one must use a very great deal of discernment in uncovering it, particularly if the subject is politically “controversial” (that is, runs against the grain of the elitists’ party line). The great value of the Internet remains, however, that unlike books, which are costly and time-consuming to print and then may not be immediately accessible to the people who need to read them, the Internet allows for the almost instant posting and retrieval of information. So I remain cautiously optimistic.
Daily Bell: What’s going on with Afghanistan? It doesn’t appear that the war is going well for the elites.
Edwin Vieira: Except, of course, with respect to the reintroduction of the cultivation of and trade in opiates, which seems to be a smashing success. As I pointed out earlier in this interview, however, the quagmire in Afghanistan does give the lie to the elitists’ claim that rebellious peoples will always be helpless in the face of the modern technology, which contemporary armed forces can deploy against them.
Daily Bell: Any news on the martial law front as regards the US? Does Obama have it in mind? Would law enforcement cooperate?
Edwin Vieira: I doubt that Obama, personally, has anything in mind with respect to “martial law” (or any other subject you might mention). His handlers, however, doubtlessly are considering the invocation of some variety of “martial law” if the banking and financial systems collapse, with subsequent economic stringencies, social dislocations and civil unrest and disobedience spreading throughout America. And they are not reluctant to have their mouthpieces suggest in various fora the possibility or even likelihood of “martial law,” doubtlessly in order to condition common Americans into acquiescing in its inevitability. A chapter in The Sword and Sovereignty deals in great detail with the question of “martial law” in all of its ramifications. The bottom line is that the type of “martial law” commonly presented as a political possibility in America is actually a constitutional impossibility, and would be a practical impossibility were “the Militia of the several States” revitalized.
Would “law enforcement” cooperate in the imposition of such unconstitutional “martial law”? Surely some would, simply to continue to receive their paychecks. And the extent of “police brutality” throughout this country, documented in often terrifying videos on the Internet, evidences the existence of all too many “law enforcement officers” who are ready, willing and able to oppress their countrymen with almost lunatic outbursts of violence that result in unpunished official homicides (or, as the vernacular has it, “death by cop”). “Martial law” would provide these psychopaths with the opportunity to vent their animalistic rage on a very wide scale. Here, too, as The Sword and Sovereignty explains, the solution to the problem would be revitalization of the Militia.
Daily Bell: What do you think of Chief Justice Roberts’s decision regarding Obamacare?
Edwin Vieira: Very little that is fit to print. It is an abomination, if I may be allowed a juxtaposition of letters in order to make a play on words. Roberts held that the so-called “individual mandate” in “Obamacare” − the supposed requirement for Americans to purchase health insurance which they do not want, or be penalized for their refusals − could not be sustained under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause or its Necessary and Proper Clause. Fine. That means that no substantive constitutional power exists that can rationalize that provision in “Obamacare.” But then he opined that, notwithstanding the absence of any such substantive power, “the individual mandate” can be enforced as a “tax.” What is the result of this aberrant reasoning? Namely, that Congress may, through the imposition of a “tax,” coerce Americans into behaving in any manner whatsoever, even though it admittedly enjoys no particular power to require such behavior. Furthermore, as we know, taxes are often enforced not only by the confiscation of money or other property but also by imprisonment. So the bottom line is that Congress can provide for the imprisonment of any and every American who refuses to obey any Congressional command to behave in a certain manner, even though Congress has no independent power whatsoever to require such behavior!
Obviously, this is far worse than the constitutionally crackpot notion that Congress can “regulate commerce” by coercing Americans to engage in “commerce” against their wills; for at least some forms of personal behavior do not constitute “commerce” (or even, to use the judiciary’s gibberish, “affect commerce”) by anyone’s definition, and therefore could never be subject to such a ludicrous misconstruction of Congressional power. Roberts’s “tax” theory, in contrast, embraces every conceivable form of behavior known to man, all of which can be compelled by the imposition of some “tax,” and in the final analysis by imprisonment. Thus, appealing to just one clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1), Roberts has concocted a rationalization for a complete totalitarian state! Even Alexander Hamilton, the most consistent and candid centralizer among the Founding Fathers, would have repudiated this theory in no uncertain terms. Even Stalin, I suspect, would have been surprised (albeit pleasantly) to discover that the power to tax, by itself alone, could be so employed. If this is not a perfect illustration of the utter imbecility of “judicial supremacy” − the notion that decisions of the Supreme Court control the meaning of the Constitution − nothing could be.
Daily Bell: Is the central banking system beginning to fail? Will it self-destruct? Is a global currency going to be established in the near future? Will it feature a commodity like gold?
Edwin Vieira: Yes, the present central banking system is in the process of catastrophic failure. And this is a matter of self-destruction because the problem derives from the inherent unworkability of fiat currency and fractional reserves, not simply from the incompetence of the particular individuals appointed to manage the system from time to time. Which is why the Money Power intends to introduce a new currency in the near future, just as in America the Money Power supplanted State bank notes with National Bank Notes in the 1860s, folded the National Banking System into the Federal Reserve System in 1913, then reneged on redemption of Federal Reserve Notes in gold in 1933 (domestically) and 1971 (internationally).
The formula has always been the same: As the paper-money and bank-credit scam implodes at a lower level, give the scheme a new lease on life by translating it to a higher level. But, in each case, the translation has required the promise − albeit one made to be broken − that the new currency will somehow be more stable than the one it replaces. So in a world increasingly disenchanted with and suspicious of irredeemable paper currencies, expect the new global currency to have some sort of gold veneer applied to it, so as to inspire unwarranted confidence amongst those uneducated in the long-term twists and turns of monetary and banking fraud.
I doubt, however, that the new scheme will allow for actual redemption of the new paper currency in gold for individuals (as did the Federal Reserve System prior to 1933) or even for central banks (as did the Federal Reserve System between 1933 and 1971), for the very last thing the Money Power wants is for individuals to recognize that gold itself is money, that paper currency is not really money at all but only an oft-repudiated promise by the bankers to pay gold and that the only true monetary security for any individual demands that he should always enjoy the legal right and should always exercise the physical ability to hold his own gold in his own hands whenever he so desires. Nonetheless, the integration of gold into the new system will gull many proponents of sound money into supporting the scheme. “See,” they will crow, “the bankers have been forced to return to a ‘gold standard’. We have won!” And that approbation will enable the bankers to impose upon the entire world another century or so of monetary manipulations, redistributions of wealth, Ponzi pyramids and associated financial frauds and other chicanery. Every time I hear some purported champion of sound money call for returning the Federal Reserve System to a “gold standard,” or for adopting a supra-national paper currency linked to a “gold standard,” I wonder how it is that one hundred years of sorry experience with the Federal Reserve System has taught these people absolutely nothing.
Daily Bell: What can one do on an individual level to combat the elite matrix that has been built around is?
Edwin Vieira: For starters, never passively accept that people in “authority” actually have the “authority” they claim. Never take at face value anything people in “authority” may say. Always investigate the nature of their “authority,” verify or falsify the purported bases for their “authority” and try to predict the likely untoward consequences of their exercises of “authority.” Hold all of their assertions and applications of “authority” up against the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and carefully gauge whatever disparities become apparent − and there will be many of them, you can be sure.
Daily Bell: Finally, are you more or less worried because of Obama’s re-election?
Edwin Vieira: I can supply no really satisfying answer to that question. On the one hand, that Obama received a majority of the votes could evidence a profound and dangerous split in the electorate between (i) the remnants of the population that still embrace semi-traditional American political values and (ii) an emergent, aggressive “social-democratic” bloc (that is, Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism with a temporary human face). On the other hand, that Obama was running against Romney tends to dilute that concern because an approximately fifty-fifty split between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee can be interpreted to signify no more than that the electorate was basically indifferent to the candidates, insufficiently aware of the issues, inclined to vote more in line with evanescent media “spin” than with permanent ideological convictions and above all, inured to the political status quo.
Yet one’s hopes cannot be overly sanguine when one considers the likelihood (indeed, arguably the certainty) of a major national economic catastrophe breaking out within the next two or three years, and the already demonstrated propensity of Obama’s handlers to cause him to employ extra-legal devices, from sweeping executive orders to “official assassinations,” as a matter of course in “crisis” situations. Moreover, that Obama cannot seek re-election and therefore personally has nothing more to gain or lose politically, can only exacerbate the situation.
As the Chinese are wont to say, the next few years will be “interesting times,” indeed.
Daily Bell: Congratulations on your new book. Thanks!
We’ve been doing this for 20 years or more and never have we run into this level of constitutional literacy – an understanding of REAL history married to growing anger as this remarkable litany of responses progresses.
Fortunately, we believe we have the kind of audience that shall appreciate what we’d characterize as a kind of tour de force.
Like someone launching a huge ship, we can do no more than hang back open-mouthed as Dr. Vieira takes to the sea with waves breaking timidly around him. This is a surprising spectacle. He makes the ramblings of supposed “constitutional scholars” such as Barack Obama look like the disconnected babble of infants.
Journalism is like yesterday’s newspapers, useful only unto the day. It is forgotten by tomorrow, as we all shall be. But perhaps Dr. Vieira shall not be forgotten. He is REALLY bearing witness to America’s decent into fascism and horror.
What is going in the US will not end well – or not for many – for the perpetrators are motivated by humankind’s worst characteristics: both greed and fear. They are greedy for the spoils of power but scared their actions shall be revealed.
And, of course, what we call the Internet Reformation is recording every aspect of their behavior.
Dr. Vieira and a few others like him are its scribes.
This bloody globalist episode will pass one day and a New Time will arrive. People will turn to Dr. Vieira among others to understand what went wrong and how and why.
We have listened to Dr. Vieira and thus have the melancholy privilege of knowing in advance.