First Nail
1913, Amendment Seventeen, and the demise of our Republic
As anyone who loves Liberty already knows, 1913 was a dark year for the Republic of the United States, and its Constitution.
A very dark year.
For those unfamiliar, 1913 first hit us with the Sixteenth Amendment (ratified in February), which saddled us with federal income taxes for the first time in our history. Then the year closed out with the shackles of the Federal Reserve Act (passed in December) being slapped onto us, sending us down the sinister path of usury slavery and soul-crushing thralldom.
While both of these were devastating to our future as a Republic, there was something else which occurred in 1913. Wedged between the aforementioned actions, it was the first time we openly - even eagerly - violated one of our founding father’s most poignant-yet-sobering assertions…
“A republic, if you can keep it.”
- Benjamin Franklin, 1787, when asked about what form of government the recently-completed Constitution would establish.
That violation, which was the first nail in the coffin of the American Republic, was the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment [A17].
Dropping the Hammer
So what made A17 so calamitous? The short answer: It tore down one of the foundational principles of actually being a Republic.
From Brittanica - you know, a legitimate ‘-pedia’…
[The] Seventeenth Amendment... provided for the direct election of U.S. senators by the voters of the states. It altered the electoral mechanism established in Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution, which had provided for the appointment of senators by the state legislatures.
One of the precepts that made our form of government so unique was not only the legal protections of 'inalienable’ civil liberties (The Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, anyone?), but also the delegation of power to the individual states. Up until the Civil War, and to a lesser degree from after the war through 1913, the states were near-independent nations within a larger, federated union.
Think of the EU, but more tightly united.
In that, the states were not beholden to D.C., but instead D.C. was given permission to serve us, by the voluntary consent of those states. As part of that framework the states were guaranteed an equal voice in our nation’s Capitol; two senators from each state, chosen by the state legislatures and not by the popular vote, served in this capacity.
That was why a bicameral congress was established at our founding; the Representatives in the House were to be our voices in D.C., while Senators served their home states directly. However, A17 turned the selection of senators over to us (the ‘people’), and the delicate balance-of-power shifted dramatically, moving it in the direction of the Federally-controlled two-party system and - ironically - against us.
Simply put, it was the first step away from Constitutional Republicanism, and toward a true ‘democracy.’ And what was one of the primary reasons for so doing, you may be asking?
Why, fear of potential ‘corruption’ in regard to senatorial selections, of course, because… well, reasons! Also, the major purveyors of propaganda national newspapers proclaimed it was so, thus it had to be true… amirite?!
Hm. Sound familiar?
And considering how utterly corrupt - and deviant - the system has become under the more ‘democratic’ model, the model which they claimed would prevent said-corruption? Yeah… that ‘reason’ goes right out the window.
There were other reasons, of course… clandestine, much-more ominous reasons.
Pulling You Away From Yourself
I have previously discussed the importance of local elections here and elsewhere, along with the dangers of Globalists attempting to annihilate our focus upon them. In that regard, A17 was a major event for said-Globalists, one of the most destructive victories they have achieved.
Ponder, if you will, what occurs when the individual you send to your state’s capitol to represent you is responsible for choosing your U.S. Senator on your behalf. Surprise - you start to pay attention to that local election, because this person then has real power. Not only does the election itself become relevant, but the person serving in the position suddenly does as well.
In other words, you shift your focus to local concerns… local issues… local, which is the natural way to live. ‘Local’ is where we are more ourselves, more ‘heard,’ more empowered… indeed, more alive, in the truest sense possible.
Diminish local living, however, and you diminish the individual and their strength, burying them - and their voice - under the weight of national focus. This is exactly how they want it to be… how they need it to be.
As I said… ominous.
And do not think for one moment it is merely coincidence; this is an ancient playbook, folks, and they have been working from it for at least 2700 years. (I could argue that it has been for much longer, but for the sake of brevity we will skip over that rabbit-hole for now.)
There is something else to consider: A17 allowed the national party offices to maximize the donations they receive. In order to secure national senate seats in the past they had to fund literally hundreds of local elections every two years, because in order to lock in their preferred national choices they had to make sure their people won the local elections first; as you can imagine, that got expensive.
Now - thanks to A17 - they need only focus on 100 elections, with those being spread out over six years. Much more bang for their buck, much easier to grab and maintain control.
As you can see, A17 was cataclysmic for anyone who cherishes Liberty, and over time it has only gotten worse. Covertly - manipulatively - they have been targeting the very idea of ‘living local,’ driving the populous toward 15-minute cities and digital currencies and fried insect vittles.
There have been direct actions as well, from a variety of Authority apparatuses. From murderous violations of Natural Rights to recent attacks on ‘living local’ (be it rural existence, local sources of information, or by pushing a science-less EV agenda), we have ample evidence they are doing this deliberately, and are in it for the long-game.
However, there is hope. People are waking up, and the tide is slowly - so very slowly - turning.
Clawing Our Way Out
The Tea Party movement, which got its start in part due to Ron Paul and his 2008 presidential campaign, was the beginning of a cultural shift in America. Paul’s earnest yet passionate pleas for adherence to our founding principles sparked (both directly and indirectly) a yearning for constitutional renewal in millions of his countrymen and women, and that spark has turned into a smoldering fire.
Everything from the immorality of income taxes and the Federal Reserve, to endless foreign wars and the insane prohibition of cannabis (with special focus on the criminality of lab-induced ‘health’)… all of these were rallying cries for change. The vile nature of A17 - and the need to repeal it - was also an (albeit small) aspect of those rallies.
To be fair, making any change to our Constitution is a draconian task; the amendment process is laborious even in the best of circumstances, thus repealing a previous amendment takes time and education. There are steps we can take in-the-moment to preserve what is left, however, so that we have something for which to fight.
What We Can Do
Here are four of those steps…
-- Defend the second amendment: This is absolute, for far too many reasons to enumerate in a small space. Join organizations which take a no-compromise stance (my personal choice is Gun Owners of America), and pester your elected officials - national AND local - anytime infringements appear on the horizon.
-- Protect the Electoral College: This, combined with the point above, is the last legal vestige of the Republic remaining. It is the only thing keeping those of us in more constitutionally-minded states from being buried by Globalist-driven, high-population regions like NYC, Chicagoland, and southern California.
-- Strengthen the Tenth Amendment: This has the potential to be a serious bane to the WEF agenda, for - if practiced as it was intended - it renders any kind of Globalism impotent. Education yourself through groups which fight for this separation-of-powers (such as the Tenth Amendment Center), and chat up those who are willing to listen about its vitality.
-- Pay attention to local concerns: The entire point of this article. Know who your governor, state senators, and representatives are (contacting them frequently about your concerns), and keep yourself looped in on legislative moves in your state. Oh, and (I think I have mentioned this point before) know your county sheriff.
As I noted above, our adversaries play the long game; as such, we must do the same. That means taking the steps necessary to live more ‘local’ (i.e. natural), acting (through advocacy and assembling) where we are able, and defending what we still have.
If you can do these, while keeping your spirit light, your mind sharp, and your resolve dauntless? We will reach a point where A17 can finally be cast aside, and we shall be back on the path to reclaiming our Republic.
Stay in the loop, and fight social-media suppression! Subscribe to The Stone Age today!
And I thought I was alone in beating this drum.
It's also worth noting that the Reynolds v. Sims decision did this concept in on the state level, giving the big cities control - for example, I believe Maryland once had 24 Senators (one for each county plus Baltimore City, which is governed like a county). Delaware still has 21 Senators, but now they are by district instead of seven per county as the Delaware Constitution once prescribed.
So instead of what would probably be a 17-7 or so GOP majority in Maryland, it's a 34-13 Democrat majority (and pretty much has been since 1972, when the Senate was expanded to 47.) In Delaware perhaps a 12-9 or 13-8 GOP lean is 15-6 the other way, with most of the districts crammed into true-blue New Castle County.
This amendment did more damage to state's rights and rural America than you know.
I agree. The Declaration has no legal force however. Rand Paul, Lee, Cruz, Cotton and any other GOP Senators who claim to be constitutionalists should be called on to pledge their vote on ending the 17th. The same pledge should be demanded during the primaries for new Senators. As to the 16th. Rob Natelson makes a good argument for why it was contemplated and indeed countenanced in the Constitution. That usually gets an angry response but read his work first. It should be a 1% flat tax if anything to service the interest on the debt going forward.