"When misguided public opinion honors what is despicable and despises what is honorable, punishes virtue and rewards vice, encourages what is harmful and discourages what is useful, applauds falsehood and smothers truth under indifference or insult, a nation turns its back on progress and can be restored only by the terrible lessons of catastrophe." … Frederic Bastiat

Evil talks about tolerance only when it’s weak. When it gains the upper hand, its vanity always requires the destruction of the good and the innocent, because the example of good and innocent lives is an ongoing witness against it. So it always has been. So it always will be. And America has no special immunity to becoming an enemy of its own founding beliefs about human freedom, human dignity, the limited power of the state, and the sovereignty of God. – Archbishop Chaput


Monday, January 14, 2013

Response to Texas Secession Requests Settles Nothing

I found the White House official response to the Petition on its website requesting that the state of Texas be allowed to peacefully secede rather comical.

Invoking Lincoln, as if to lend credence to its dogmatic denial, settles nothing.

First of all however, before I get to that, I wish to state that no state need ask "permission" to secede. Secession in and of itself, is the last resort of free people whose unalienable rights are no longer respected or protected by a runamok central government - Such a government which regards itself as superior to any document limiting what it can or cannot do according to that founding document. Take away that right, and no people can be said to be truly free for what you have in effect created is a FORCED/INVOLUNTARY UNION from which no man or woman can ever hope to be separated, irregardless of any future circumstances or chain of events which might arise in the future.

Does any rational individual believe that under such circumstances, those who are the oppressors would graciously accede to any "request" from the beleagured citizens to depart? Hearkening back to the time of Israel in its bondage in Egypt, , one might just as well have expected Pharoah whom when COMMANDED, not requested by the Most High, to let His oppressed people go free, stubbornly refused.

The response to any "response" from the central authority is taken directly from the founding document of these United States.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they 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 its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Appealing to Lincoln and his warped vision of such a thing as a "perpetual union", settles nothing in the matter. The South was subjected by force and brought back into the union against its wishes. We might as well argue that had the British defeated Washington's army at Yorktown and captured his officers thus ending the war, that the attempt by the colonists to "declare their Independence" and "secede" from British authority was also null and void. Force only settles one thing - that a governing power bent of crushing the unalienable rights of its citizens can and will succeed given enough force of arms even thought it may be resisted.

The whole idea of a Constitution creating a system of Federalism with limited power to the Central Authority and checks and balances upon the three, co-equal branches of government, was to prevent the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY. The Founders well understood that a purely democratic system of government would eventually fail to secure liberty since the ultimate outcome of such a system would be the permanent subjection of the rights of the minority to the whim of the majority.

Unalienable rights are God-given, meaning that they cannot be infringed upon by government. Indeed, government exists only to SECURE or PROTECT AND MAKE CERTAIN, these rights are not violated or transgressed.

Here then is the main difference between those on the left and those on the right. The left wishes to create their version of utopia here on earth. The right believes that while a well-ordered and peaceful society is the ultimate purpose of any government, here, in a fallen and sin-corrupted world, no utopia is possible. Given the nature of men, steps must be taken to ensure that they never hold sufficient, unbridled power with which they can usurp these unalienable rights.

The left, in its attempt to create its paradise, takes whatever steps it deems necessary to bring it about, EVEN IF IT MEANS PUSHING ASIDE GOD-GIVEN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. You see, a large part of the problem with the left is that many are either agnostic or are true secularists. (As an aside - there are some who are agnostic who still understand something about human nature and thus liberty and the need to preserve it from governmental overreach but such are few and far between.)

This poses an immediate clash with those of us who believe in a God, a Higher, Supreme Power, to which all men must answer and who is the bestower of certain rights. If there is no God, no Hgher Power, then the very idea of unalienable rights derived from Him becomes an archaic, utterly meaningless concept.

I will go so far as to declare that many of the left see the state in the role of God, the Higher Power, to which all must submit and that it and it alone is that which dispenses "rights" to the citizens or subjects. It may thus grant or withdraw any such rights that it grants depending on that which it aims to achieve. This is why you will see constant attacks on the Constitution by those who hold it up to ridicule as outdated or insufficient to deal with our modern times. The simple fact is that it stands as an obstruction to their grandiose schemes.

What happens however when the check on power which the Founders built into the Constitution is pushed to the very edge or even disregarded? What are free men to do when their own central government begins to whittle away at their unalienable rights all in the name of achieving some leftist nirvana (income equality, equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity, reduction of violence, free medical care, etc.)? What are they do to if their voices are no longer heard nor represented in the halls of power in a far away district? What course can they take if they find themselves in the MINORITY now subject to the whims of a ruthless majority which feels no restraint upon its quixotic quest for an earthly paradise?

The answer should be as "SELF EVIDENT" as it was to the author of the Declaration of Independence who deliberately chose those words to describe a sacred truth - namely - they have a right, nay a duty, to cast off such a government, separating themselves from it and pursue that system of government which can best secure those unalienable rights.

This is what secession means and why those in power will always detest, despise and condemn it. I have said it before and will say it again - the FORCED UNION of Thomas Jefferson and Karl Marx is doomed to failure. One side will eventually vanguish the other as there is no common ground between them both. It is best to let them both peacefully go their separate ways.


  1. Dan, great post and I agree with you 100%. I would like to comment on Lincoln and his views at the time on Secession. The war may have begun over issues related to rights of secession, but Lincoln and his people learned that it was actually about something very different. As Lincoln wrote in a memo to himself (not intended to be made public), "God's purpose for this war is something different from the purpose of either party...I am almost ready to say this is probably true-that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet." Lincoln learned, over time and with much fasting and prayer, that God was administering this war as a punishment, to purge the nation (both North and South) of sin. Lincoln's understanding of this was the result of his heaven-induced conversion. He knew, and thus stated, that the war was a punishment inflicted upon the nation for it's sins and inhumanities against people of color and certain religious organizations. The war was to complete and solidify what the constitution promised to all, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that "all" men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
    It couldn't be done at the nations founding but God could no longer bless this land and honor His covenant upon this land until these rights were guaranteed for "all" persons regardless of belief or color.
    The reason Lincoln is blasted by his critics is because his views did change but they changed because he desired with all his heart to know God's will in all things and as he learned that will he made it his priority to do it.

  2. If you're stuck in a lousy marriage and being treated like dirt by your other half, and all attempts at communication and conciliation have failed, you don't stick around for more of the same abuse, you leave. A marriage is supposed to be an equal partnership, not an arrangement where one is master and the other a slave (isn't there an amendment somewhere in the constitution which outlaws slavery?). It's high time for a divorce. Let's hope it can be civilized, not some battle involving blood, sweat and tears.

    Good post, Dan.

  3. I see Thomas Jefferson as someone whose wisdom resonates down the ages; eloquent and insightful, inspiring in his vision. Neither a God, nor a Saint, TJ got things more right than most, and earns my deepest admiration.

    I was taught that Lincoln was a God, and a Saint, who staved off darkness by saving wicked Southern slave owners from themselves. Preserved the Union. As a state-weary and cynical adult, I have since read actual histories of that time, supplanting my sanctioned and highly revisionist school history texts, and I now believe Lincoln to be the single worst President in our history. The war between the central elitists and those who cherished Liberty probably began moments after the signing of the Constitution; it certainly ended with the decisive victory of their champion, Lincoln, with his victory in the war of Secession. Things were bad then, and in regards to Federalist overreaching it's been downhill ever since.

    Bless all Texans, for living where Freedom is still an ongoing concern. Bless Trader Dan, for the lives he touches and the good he does. And Bless every common man, may we one day regain our sovereignty, have money that we can trust, and live lives with due respect for all others.

    1. Daniel,

      I never thought of it that way. I'ts certainly a mind exercise to break free from the indoctrination that we were subjected to in our younger years (late 50's through the mid 70's). We weren't aware of it then, but with the obvious threat to our liberties today many of us are starting to see things more truthfully. Your perspective is coming into focus and is truly an eye opener. Thank you for your comment! And thank you Mr. Norcini for this execellent blog!

    2. To claim that the liberty you love was lost during the Civil War is, to me, very naive. And to believe that Lincoln himself is the instigator of some evil decline in Liberty is, to me, shocking.
      Through the civil war and expressly through the actions, humility, and divine understanding of Lincoln, Liberty was actually born for the first time for those who had been oppressed, mocked, beaten, murdered, enslaved etc...
      You can't blame Lincoln for the evil of today but you can thank him for restoring the Constitution to it's original intent. What we have today is the evil of progressivism and that didn't start with Lincoln but with Wilson.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Thank you Dan for being political at such a critical time in our countries history. Thank you for not being afraid to step up in defense of our most fundamental and cherished constitutional rights. While this may fundamentally be a blog about economic issues related to precious metals, none of these will do us any good if we are unarmed and without are basic rights and freedoms. I have noticed that more and more what were once strictly websites devoted to economics are now expanding the commentary to include critical legal and political issues essential to economics and liberty.

  5. "the FORCED UNION of Thomas Jefferson and Karl Marx is doomed to failure. One side will eventually vanquish the other as there is no common ground between them both. It is best to let them both peacefully go their separate ways"

    There is an eyeopening point of view.

  6. This was so good. Please write more of your views (thoughts) on these topics. I am a US History teacher and feel the same. I have just been teaching my class about the Declaration of Independence and pointing out to them that we have the right, even the duty to throw off a tyrannical government. You are right on. I wish more people felt this way, and knew these things. Thanks. More please.

    1. One more thing: What do you mean by "the FORCED UNION of Thomas Jefferson?" In the Declaration when Jefferson states the name of the country he writes: "the united States of America." Please note the use of a lower case "u" in the word "united." He knew (and was a self evident truth until the Civil War), that the States were the ones with the real power (Federalism - see wiki article on this term) and could leave. This was all changed with Lincoln. Thomas Jefferson did not create a FORCED UNION. I would say Jefferson is wondering why we have not thrown off the current tyranny.

    2. The Doctor;

      Thanks for the comments.
      I was not referring to the founding of the original united states. Of course that was not a FORCED UNION. It was completely voluntary and agreed to by the various individual states.

      If there is such a forced UNION, it occurred after the War between the States when Lincoln declared this novel idea of a "PERPETUAL" union. That description is no where found in our original compact especially since it flies in the face of the sentiment expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

      Either way, what I was referring to is the concept that it is somehow possible/preferable to continue to FORCE states that are increasingly at odds with the sentiments of other states to continue a union in which two completely and radically different political ideologies are guiding the majority.

      In one corner are those who subscribe to Jefferson's view and in the other are those who subscribe to Marx.

      There is no common ground between the two. In such a case, where is the GLUE that holds the people together since they no longer have anything in common?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.