 |
 |
 |
 |
Ten Principles of
Christian Separatism
10.
Politics is Local
Any observant, informed spectator of the farce that is contemporary politics understands that elections decide nothing. The "Democrats" and the "Republicans" agree on almost everything and pretend to disagree on the remainder.
For example, the Democrats and Republicans both sponsor an omnipotent federal government, high income and payroll taxes, low or non-existent investment and wealth taxes, massive immigration, Federal Reserve control of wages and salaries, military interventionism on behalf of the United Nations, "free trade" and monetary policies that annihilate farmers and manufacturing workers, "affirmative action" and "set-asides," i.e., legalized discrimination against Male Christian European-Americans.
Democrats and Republicans pretend to disagree about issues like abortion, homosexuality, and labor interests. Each party is allowed to voice positions that enable party to attract and co-opt a constituency of voters on that issue. Republicans pretend to be pro-life to get pro-life voters. Democrats pretend to support the labor interests to get union voters. Of course, each party's leaders never allow these "positions" to interfere with actual government policies. Republicans routinely vote to confirm federal judges who support abortion. Democrats routinely vote to subvert labor interests, such as the May 2000 vote on "normal trade relations" for Communist China.
State governments work much the same way. State governments decide relatively little of importance these days. Mostly, they are the custodians of federal tax rebates as long as they cooperate with federal policymakers.
Those in eXile will not concern themselves with national politics or federal policymaking, such as "Supreme Court decisions" or Acts of Congress.
The boundaries of eXile's political concerns are confined to the county government and its apparatus of enforcement. The eXile will seek to elect County Sheriffs, County Judges, County District Attorneys and County Clerks who oppose the federal agenda.
While Christians have become a minority in their own country, they may nonetheless constitute a political majority on the local level by migration to and settlement of specific counties. This "pooling" of our political franchise into certain, select localities will allow us to control county elections, where much of the enforcement power in the United States still resides.
While national and state political policymaking target local populations, it relies on local and county officials to enforce those policies. The reason is that federal and state policymaking is a relatively recent development in American politics. Until 1912 or so, the vast bulk of policymaking occurred on the local level.
As a leftover from that time, the apparatus of enforcement remains at the local level. Criminal courts and Family Courts are presided by Judges elected or appointed at the local level. Juries are drawn from local populations. District Attorneys, County Sheriffs and County Clerks are elected or appointed locally. These officials are responsible for enforcing the edicts made in Washington and your State capital. The degree of enforcement or non-enforcement is largely a matter of their discretion.
The power of citizens to change federal and therefore State policy is nil. The power of citizens to challenge the enforcement of those policies remains, because the enforcement of those policies lies in the hands of officials at the local and county levels of government. And by pooling their political franchise into a few select counties, Christians in exile can politically control the level of enforcement, or non-enforcement, of those policies.
Already, in some Western States, local communities and their leaders are
"just saying no" to federal judges. The flashpoints are predictable: Land
and Water. In Nevada, States' rights activists are squaring off in armed
confrontation with the Bureau of Land Managment. [1] In Spokane, Washington, local irrigation officials say they won't obey a federal judge's order to turn off the water supply. [2] The federal judge, Fred Van Sickle, says that farmers must do
without water to protect the Chinook salmon. The farmers disagree.
Of course, our imperial federal government has its own Schutzstaffen of law enforcement personnel - the infamous "alphabet gangs" FBI, BATF, DEA, IRS, and others. They pledge allegiance to none but their federal overseers, and are in no way democratically accountable to local populations.
Please realize that though their numbers have swelled over the past twenty years, they nonetheless constitute a small proportion of all law enforcement officers in the United States. As of mid-1996, the number of armed federal agents with arrest power was 74,500, [3] about one agent per 3200 United States residents.
More importantly, federal law enforcement agents need the cooperation of local law enforcement agents in order to be effective. While federal agents assert jurisdiction over anything they want, they also usually ask for the consent of County Sheriffs before undertaking major actions. Recently, in Wyoming, county sheriffs demanded that all federal law enforcement officials must clear their activities with a Sheriff's office. [4]
Bighorn County Sheriff Dale Mattis stated:
Remarkably, Sheriff Mattis's position was upheld by a federal district court judge, which held that Mattis and other Sheriffs had the right to inspect BATF records and ensure that the BATF was not engaging in gun registration. In Wyoming, gun registration is against the law.
Many local law enforcement agents dislike their federal counterparts, for a variety of reasons. Feds are notorious for grandstanding and profiteering from their "law enforcement" activities. The feds skim the cream - moneyed tax and drug criminals, financial criminals. They leave the dregs - the dirty and difficult tasks of policing violent crime - to local law enforcement Local law enforcement gets to deal with the real criminals - robbers, burglars, and murderers.
Feds often unnecessarily employ heavy-handed militaristic tactics such as those seen at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Many in local law enforcement are unsympathetic to the need to use this type of excessive force against non-violent offenders. Especially when it is the feds who are first to betray and prosecute local law enforcement officers who use excessive force in policing violent street criminals.
To some in state law enforcement, the "federal criminal justice system" seems unfair. The use of wiretaps and informants is routine, and replaces good policework. Suspects are routinely denied bail. Sentences can be draconian, especially if the defendant exercises his right to a trial. Local law enforcement is used to working to get their convictions.
The culture of federal law enforcement is very different from local law enforcement. The local law enforcement officer relies on citizens to assist him in catching real criminals. He routinely works with the public and over time develops personal friendships with the citizens of his community. This seems entirely natural to him - they are the many law abiding citizens he is trying to protect from the few criminals. He is a fellow citizen of his local community.
The federal law enforcement officer is different. His agenda is not democratic or popular. He prosecutes "white collar criminals" for financial and tax crimes. Many are regarded locally as upright hardworking citizens. Gun dealers are ensnared by networks of federal gun regulations. The federal agent enforces them by criminal prosecution. The local law enforcement officer used to be the first to defend the right of legally armed citizens to defend themselves from criminals.
Because the federal law enforcement officer prosecutes people to please the government, and not his fellow citizens, he is often an unpopular fellow, even among other law enforcement officers. Distance from the community and secrecy about his personal life are his hallmarks - secrecy because he can't trust his fellow citizens; distance because one day he might prosecute them. Some apparently upright citizens will be his targets, those who are unsympathetic to the federal government's agenda - his agenda. His overseers often transfer him to bureaus around the country. He is not supposed to develop many friendships in the local community. Someday he may have to prosecute a community leader. Indeed, the feds often target prominent people for prosecution in order to intimidate the citizen-lemmings who follow them. If prominent people are not safe from federal prosecution, how vulnerable must I be, thinks the citizen-lemming. The feds know he thinks that way.
The exploitation of this unpopularity is a chief objective of the eXile.
The eXile will seek to elect local and county law enforcement that is hostile to the federal law enforcement agenda. The two county sheriffs who successfully challenged the Brady Bill in court - Richard Mack of Arizona and Jay Pringle of Montana - are model county sheriffs for every County in the eXile. So is Bighorn County Sheriff Dale Mattis. By electing and aligning ourselves with Sheriffs and other county government officials, members of the eXile will render local enforcement of federal policymaking a nullity.
In the Counties of the eXile, courts will no longer encourage wives to stray from their husbands. Confiscatory child support will not be ordered. Private, church-supervised arbitration of family disputes will be allowed. Taxes may not be collected. Social security numbers may not be recorded. Drivers' licenses may be granted upon passing a driving test. Public school funding, and its propaganda curriculum, may falter and even disappear. The government's initiatives against the family, clan and church shall not be moved.
Soon, on this website, you may be able to register anonymously as a citizen of the eXile in selected counties. Registrations will allow the community to gauge its numbers and strength. Winning elections comes after that.
Then, we shall proceed to govern ourselves, county by county.
If a Sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional power and right to keep then out or ask them to leave or retain them in custody.
Footnotes:
[1] Las Vegas Sun, 12/27/01.
[3] Associated Press, 1999, citing U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
[4] V.N.S. and Sierra Times, July 24 2000.