Edwin Vieira on His New Book, The Sword and Sovereignty,
and Where the US Went Wrong
by Anthony Wile
The Daily Bell
by Anthony Wile: Peter
Schiff on Politics, Precious Metals and President Obama's Second
Dr. Vieira holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard
College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences)
and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For over 36 years he has been a practicing
attorney, specializing in cases that raise issues of constitutional
law. He has presented numerous cases of import before the Supreme
Court and written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly
journals. His latest scholarly work is The
Sword and Sovereignty (2012). Previous works include
"Homeland Security" (2007), a proposal to begin
the revitalization of the constitutional Militia of the several
of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States
Constitution (2d rev. ed. 2002), a comprehensive study of
American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective;
to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary (2004), an analysis of
the problems of irresponsible "judicial supremacy" and
how to deal with them. With well known libertarian trader Victor
Sperandeo, he is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the
political novel CRA$HMAKER:
A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an
engineered "crash" of the Federal Reserve System, and
the political revolution it causes.
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?
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.
What's the response been?
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."
What was the most interesting thing you discovered while researching
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.
What are some of the fundamental conclusions?
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.
From your perspective, a free people is an armed people?
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).
How can people with guns hold off the tanks (or "non-lethal"
weapons) of a repressive government?
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.
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
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.
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.
Do people need to form their own militias?
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
What's your take on the current gun control controversy?
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
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.
What's the most critical problem facing America right now? Previously
you claimed it was authoritarianism and a growing police state.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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
What is a nation? Are they necessary?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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.
The power elite uses false flags to promote global control. Is one
of their goals gun control?
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.
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
Was Barack Obama re-elected legitimately or was there a lot of voter
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
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?
What was your feeling regarding Ron Paul's campaign? Were you surprised
at the way it ended?
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.
Will there be a successful states' rights movement – or even secession?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
What's going on with Afghanistan? It doesn't appear that the war
is going well for the elites.
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.
Any news on the martial law front as regards the US? Does Obama
have it in mind? Would law enforcement cooperate?
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.
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
What do you think of Chief Justice Roberts's decision regarding
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!
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.
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?
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
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
What can one do on an individual level to combat the elite matrix
that has been built around is?
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.
Finally, are you more or less worried because of Obama's re-election?
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,"
Congratulations on your new book. Thanks!
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
we believe we have the kind of audience that shall appreciate what
we'd characterize as a kind of tour de force.
launching a huge ship, we can do no more than hang back open-mouthed
as Dr. Vierra 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.
is like yesterday's newspapers, useful only unto the day. It is
forgotten by tomorrow, as we all shall be. But perhaps Dr. Vierra
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.
and a few others like him are its scribes.
globalist episode will pass one day and a New Time will arrive.
People will turn to Dr. Vierra among others to understand what went
wrong and how and why.
We have listened
to Dr. Vierra and thus have the melancholy privilege of knowing
with permission from The
Wile is an author, columnist, media commentator and entrepreneur
focused on developing projects that promote the general advancement
of free-market thinking concepts. He is the chief editor of the
popular free-market oriented news site, TheDailyBell.com.
Mr. Wile is the Executive Director of The Foundation for the Advancement
of Free-Market Thinking – a non-profit Liechtenstein-based foundation.
His most popular book, High
Alert, is now in its third edition and available in several
languages. Other notable books written by Mr. Wile include The
Liberation of Flockhead (2002) and The Value of Gold (2002).
© 2013 The
Best of Anthony Wile