Glenn Beck's Current Take on Secession

A great deal of discussion has taken place on conservative message boards today due to the fact that Glenn Beck has referred to those in twenty states who have signed petitions to “secede” from the union. These petitions seemed peculiar to me since it would be the job of their elected state legislators to secede if such an activity were to take place, not individual citizens.

As I elaborated in my video today, on his radio program Glenn has repeatedly urged listeners to move from northern states to Oklahoma and Texas. The inference is obvious.

This to me is a form of hedging that is taking place. Later, depending on what happens, these radio hosts can all say they always said these people were kooks. But when they see it become more inevitable as God fearing, red states defend their citizenry against brazen evil - then - the talking radio heads will go out on a limb and bravely “predict” secession.

I have been predicting secession since Obama was elected for reasons enumerated at TableOfWisdom.com and again today at the video following. However, the way in which the possibility is being handled by signers in these twenty states is unrealistic and will not take place as a result of this apparent endeavor.

If or when it happens it will occur as a result of Obama forcing states to protect their citizens against clear violations against the constitution. The beginning stages where Obama has waged war against states can be seen in the lawsuits launched against Arizona for simply trying to enforce federal law in protecting its borders against outside invasion. One can also point to Obama’s election ploy where he proclaimed that deportation laws against illegals would not be enforced.

It will get much worse once Obamacare fully kicks in over the next few years but with the aforementioned examples, one can see states exhausting all options through the legal system before they have to resort to secession. One can see these state representatives doing what our founding fathers did step by step through every channel before they were left with no other choice. Our founders were mostly “loyalists” to the crown until they had no other choice. Enter the Declaration of Independence where they expatiated in full – why they had no choice.

We have not reached that point yet, but I have no doubt in my objective mind that WE WILL. Obama has had no other intention from day one then to FORCE this upon the states.

There are some on the conservative boards that believe that the federal government will simply implode as the currency dies, thereby preventing this from happening. They are erroneously leaving out one important factor. The Obama administration is rapidly seeking to empower and surrender our sovereignty to the United Nations. This administration is treasonously participating in UN resolutions to take over our rights.

Regardless of whether this encroachment comes to full fruition before or after Bernanke prints our currency to worthlessness, they are coming with the United Nations and nations who hold the gold – like China.

In the days of the confederacy, the states were fighting a federal government that had arrogated power onto itself that was never intended by our founders. Similarly, the final confederacy will be fighting against a UN that was initially sold to us as a symbolic organization with no power or authority over US citizens.

I observed a few posts by some RINO types who will no doubt be similar to the implacable loyalists who refused to see the writing on the wall to the bitter end. One such post castigated a conservative as follows:

“As much as I don’t like the outcome of the election, I’m not ready to give up on America yet.

Anyone who wants states to leave our nation had better take a long look in the mirror. How dare you disrespect the sacrifices of our fallen veterans who gave their lives for America. And you call yourselves Patriots...I would use a different term...Quitters." (end quote)

If you want to leave America, then I suggest you follow in the footsteps of the forefathers you constantly use as an example and go find your own island, move there, and start your own nation. Leave America for the Americans. We may be a flawed nation, but I’d rather live in America than anywhere else in the world...including your new nation.”

We are seeing this type of rhetoric from some of the very people, including talk radio hosts who were the very people who were telling us that this election is for the fate of our nation since it was all coming down to this election since John Roberts left it to the electorate to overturn Obamacare. Now, when push comes to shove, it seems there stance has morphed into the old "well, there's always next election". Presumably they are now in denial and are conning themselves into the notion that once the kids and unmarried women suffer through four more years of Obama - THEN they will finally see the error of their ways and then elect the next Romney, McCain or Dole (as though that would save us).

What would it take to stop these RINOs from deluding themselves? Will they still be telling us "wait until 2016 as they are handcuffed to a pole in Gitmo?

I would agree these people should not be doing this because it is up to their sovereign states to handle this. From that standpoint, they should be petitioning their state legislatures, not the federal government.

Where I disagree with the sentiments is in his perspective about them being unpatriotic. These common assertions sound like sanctimonious platitudes that would fly 10 years ago but not now.

THE UNITED STATES FOR WHICH YOU AND I LONG NO LONGER EXISTS. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEGAN SECEDING FROM THE CONSTITUTION BEGINNING AT LEAST IN 2008.

THE ELECTORATE HAS CHANGED. THE DEGRENERATE CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN OF THE BOOMERS -SHOW UP ON ELECTION DAY!!!

THE “BLUE DOG” DEMOCRATS ARE DEAD AND THEY ARE NOT COMING BACK – SO STOP DELUDING YOURSELF INTO THINKING THEY WILL BE BACK IN 2016.

OVER THE NEXT 2 YEARS YOU ARE GOING TO SEE AN OUTPOURING OF EVIL THAT WILL DEMAND CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE UNLESS YOU ARE EVIL YOURSELF.

THEN - STATE LEGISLATURES (RED) WILL HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE (LIKE OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, THE WAY THEY EXHAUSTED EVERY POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE BEFORE THE DECLARATION).

I LIKE BECK - BUT HE IS WRONG ABOUT THIS BECAUSE HE IS UNDERESTIMATING THE GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION.

MARK MY WORDS, A YEAR OR TWO FROM NOW HE WILL BE TELLING US HOW HE PREDICTED SECESSION EARLY ON – BECAUSE HE WILL PREDICT IT ONCE OBAMACARE KICKS IN AND HE SEES HOW WICKED IT TRULY IS.

IT IS INEVITABLE - BUT NOT NOW AND NOT BY PEOPLE WHOSE JOB IS NOT TO DO THE WORK OF THEIR ELECTED STATE LEGISLATORS.

To the RINOs like the loyalists to the crown who cannot part with the gravy train from which they make their fortunes, I offer this favorite quote of mine by Samuel Adams written to the loyalists who put their status quo first - rather then the principles enumerated by our founding fathers:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

As for me I stand for the constitution, which is the true America that our founders created 236 years ago. America is NOT a government that murders babies, the handicapped and the elderly. America is NOT a government that sees its citizens as mere resources to be disposed of the moment they deen them a burden.

Even though it’s not about seceding, below is something a friend sent me on Facebook, that I found interesting...

______________________________________________________________
Self-defense, against tyranny...

by Bo Perrin

Let me try to answer your question in three parts.

First, I want to deal with the author’s (see related article-The Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense By Pastor Ricky Kurth/bereanbiblesociety.org-ed.) contention that the government is to be obeyed even if it disobeys
the laws. The example he uses is when Paul was standing before the Jewish Sanhedrin and Ananias had Paul struck.

There are five things to keep in mind here. First, the Jewish Council was NOT the national government, Rome was. The extent of the Council’s authority was religious as Rome was considered the governing authority. Second, the law was the Jews’ religious law found in the Old Testament, NOT the law of the land. Third, in his retort Paul does not say that it was written that he must obey the High Priest when he does something unlawful rather he must not speak evil of such because in the Old Testament the High Priest was chosen by God through Levi to Aaron’s lineage. Additionally, there are many and I am one who believes that Paul was caving to the Ananias’ authority rather making a subtle religious point. In the Old Testament the High Priest had to be of the tribe of Levi and a descendent of Aaron. When a High Priest died he was replaced by one of his sons. There is a lot of evidence that Ananias was not of that lineage. In fact, during the early days of the church we know that the Romans maintained control over the High Priest position by giving it to the highest bidder. Additionally, if you study the Old Testament you will find that when Israel, God’s government, did not obey the laws of the land he destroyed the nation.

In fact, he permitted his people to actually overthrow the government when the Queen decided Israel was to worship a false god. Finally, there is a serious tension between the author’s conclusion and Scripture. Peter says we ought to obey God rather than man. Since Peter used the generic use of man rather than speaking directly to the Council his statement applies in all areas of life including the political. If I am to obey the government if it acts contrary to the law then that puts me in the position of possibly disobeying God. The proper governing authorities are endorsed by God (Romans 13). They are his servants to follow what is good and avenge what evil as God sees good and evil. God’s view of good and evil (virtue) is found in Scripture. Therefore, if I obey the government when it disobeys the laws then I end up disobeying God. So, for all it is worth I do not believe that this passage proves we are to obey the government when the government acts contrary to the law.

There are two other issues here as well. First, the author does provide a good overview of the passages which allow believers self-defense. He could have added Exodus 22:2 as well. The issues are (1) a believer is to obey the laws of the land if they are not contrary to God’s and (2) the laws of the land demand we protect the Republic.

I will begin with the second issue. Jesus argued we are to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Paul writes that God ordains the governing authorities as described in Romans 13. Peter argues that we are to honor the King. Notice that each title refers to the highest law in that area. In these cases the titles refers to individuals and this is where we must be careful in our interpretation. The highest law in the land was Caesar not the Senate at this time in Rome’s history. The Caesar was deity.

In America though the President nor Congress is the highest law of the land. The Declaration and the Constitution are the highest laws of the land and everything the President and Congress does must be accord with these legal documents. If they are not they are ruled unconstitutional and cast out. The President and Congress are not above these legal documents. This is important. A citizen of the Republic is under no Constitutional obligation to obey any law which a lawmaker creates that is contrary to the Declaration or Constitution. Our Caesar, governing authority and King is not a person but the Declaration and Constitution.

So, if a believer in America is going to fulfill God’s word then he must obey the Declaration and Constitution. Here is why this is important. The Declaration which is our national moral compass tells us, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. “ This includes not only the people in our present government but anyone they might aline with who wants to overthrow the law of this land. So, politically we are obligated by the law of the land to overthrow a tyrannical government.

The first issue is rather easy after understanding the second. The Declaration is not contrary to God’s word because if the need arose and it was necessary to overthrow the people who are acting contrary to the Declaration and Constitution we are in fact obeying God’s commands to obey our Caesar, governing authorities and King.

This is where so many fail in exegesis. Most writers apply the terms Caesar, governing authorities and King to the President or Congress in America. Now keep in mind that our American situation is different from other countries. So, they argue a believer cannot overthrow the President because he is our Caesar, governing authority or King. Constitutionally this flawed for the President is not “the head” of our nation and in fact, Congress has far more authority if they would only use it and properly. But in America the highest law of the land is the Declaration and Constitution and our allegiance is not to those we elect but to these legal documents. We can throw our allegiance behind our elected officials as long as they govern according to the Declaration and Constitution but the moment they fail to do so, we must remove our allegiance, remove them from office and elect those who have virtue.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.