The Michigan Militia Corps'

Weekly Update
Internet Edition

Volume 4, Issue 15

Week of April 28, 1997


by Nick Ivanovich (

Phyllis Schlafly wrote, "Did we elect a Republican Senate last November? Find out when the Senate votes on the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)." By now you know, in spite of a deluge of calls from constituents, Senate Republican leader, Trent Lott fortified the ranks of his supposed rival Clinton, handing him another world government empowering, sovereignty stealing, international treaty.

Clinton and Lott, two party leading puppets, bowed at the command of the same string pulling global elites. Able to ignore their smaller government platform requirements, and the obvious corruption in the White House, Republican leaders implement world government against the will of those still loyal in their ranks and the voters who put them in office. But look at the treaties still on tap for this year.

Will Gingrich and Lott continue to support Clinton's globalist agenda of expanding industry and job losing NAFTA, implementing UN command and control of all armies and seas, international gun and parent control, and the ultimate socialist success, government control over the minds of our children?...

Only if we allow it.

The following is from the 4/24/97 Congressional Record, The Chemical Treaty Debate, the statements of: FOR -- LOTT, AGAINST -- HELMS, KYL, HUTCHISON, BOND, THURMOND, INHOFE, SHELBY, ASHCROFT

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER TRENT LOTT ..."There have been important changes in the Chemical Weapons Convention over the past few months. Last September, I worked closely with Senators Helms, Kyl and others in opposition to the treaty . Had we not canceled the vote, I would have voted against it, and I believe that it would have failed. In the aftermath of that debate, some in the White House blamed political motivations. The President said it was partisan politics involving America's security. But, fortunately, calmer heads have prevailed this year. The administration did come to the table and they have negotiated with us. They recognize the legitimate concerns that were ignored last year. So we have engaged in a process of member-and-staff-level discussions that have had a major impact on this convention. But this very morning, I received a letter from President Clinton which I think is significant. The President made specific assurances that the United States would exercise its right to withdraw from the convention if any one of three things occurred: If countries used `article X to justify providing defensive chemical weapons equipment, material, or information to another state party that could result in U.S. chemical protective equipment being compromised. . .'; Through the important and enlightening debate we have had over the past few months, I am convinced the convention will bring new focus and energy to this administration's nonproliferation efforts....Many people in the media have tended to say, well, you know, this is going to determine the fate of various and sundry Senators and tell a lot about leadership. It has been exaggerated...."


SENATOR HELMS "This treaty , it seems to me, must at a minimum affect those countries possessing chemical weapons which pose a threat to the United States. Accordingly, the United States should not become a party to this treaty --many Senators feel--until those countries are also participants.

And no effort has been made to encourage them to come in. We are standing alone, and they are going to go about their little deviltry unmolested. Rogue states--like Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and North Korea--clearly represent a threat to United States security and the security of key United States allies.

And not one of these countries has ratified the CWC, and not one of them is likely to ratify. Now, in boasting that this treaty will make American soldiers free from the threat of chemical weapons , the administration either has forgotten or deliberately ignored the fact that North Korea has neither signed nor ratified the CWC and the threat posed by North Korea and Iraq and others here."

SENATOR KYL "Specifically, 74 countries have ratified the treaty and they are the countries of least concern to the United States. The three countries that have the largest amount of chemical weapons in the world-- Russia and China and the United States--are not parties, nor are any of the so-called rogue countries of the world... I have written to my constituents the names of companies on the list supplied to us by the Government as potentially required to comply with the reporting requirements of the convention. They write back to me saying it would cost them $50,000, $70,000, or more than $100,000 a year, just to fill out the forms...What we are saying is, instead of putting our businesses through the expense and hassle of having to comply with this when nobody in the United States has any intention of violating this treaty --these companies back in Arizona have no intention of producing chemical weapons --instead of submitting ourselves to that intrusive bureaucratic regulation and expense, not to mention the expense to the U.S. taxpayer, let us be involved in this when it means something; that is to say, when the countries we really care about are involved in it."

SENATOR HUTCHISON. "Mr. President, international treaties extend the full faith and credit of the United States, and they become the law of our land when they are ratified. So the United States cedes a little sovereignty with every treaty the Senate ratifies. That is why the framers of our Constitution wanted to be very careful that two-thirds of the Senate would be needed to ratify any treaty that would become the law of our land. Like no other treaty before it, the Chemical Weapons Convention will make this loss of sovereignty apparent to thousands of Americans at thousands of companies who will be faced with new Government regulations or be subject to searches and seizures of their property by teams of international inspectors. These are the practical effects this treaty will have on ordinary Americans. As many as 670 companies in my home State of Texas will be directly affected by this treaty. Only a handful of these companies are actually in the chemical industry. Many others use small amounts of chemicals for legal, nonmilitary purposes. But according to this treaty , they will be required to submit business information to a new United Nations-style international organization that will monitor this treaty , or they will have to open their property to inspections by teams of international inspectors."

SENATOR. BOND "Mr. President I will vote against ratification of the Chemical Warfare Convention. I came to this decision, not because I am against doing away with chemical weapons , we all are. I will vote against ratification because amendments which I believe were critical to ensuring our safety and security were stricken rendering the convention more dangerous to our well being than one which would include those conditions, even if it means having to renegotiate the convention... The fact that the President suggested we could withdraw from the convention if there were a compelling reason to do so, was a placebo which carried little viable meaning. I believe that it would not only be more difficult to withdraw from the convention once we ratify it, it would be much more dangerous to world stability if we were to withdraw after obligating ourselves to a flawed treaty. And so, I must, in good conscience, vote not to ratify."

SENATOR THURMOND "Mr. President, North Korea has not signed the CWC. As I read the treaty , none of the provisions will apply to nations that have not signed and ratified it. Only trade sanctions will apply to countries that have not signed it. United States ratification of the CWC will not minimize the North Korean chemical weapons threat which face our United States forces. Mr. President, I cannot support the Chemical Weapons Convention.... I remain concerned about the ability of the intelligence community to verify compliance with the treaty . Rogue nations which pose a military and terrorist threat to the United States have not signed the treaty, and most likely will not sign it. I am also concerned about the potential compromise of U.S. defensive capability through potential transfers of chemical defensive protective equipment, material or information under article X and article XI."

SENATOR INHOFE. "Mr. President, in a way I think the other side of this has perhaps used the wrong argument. There is an argument they are overlooking, and that is it does not seem to make a lot of difference whether Russia ratifies this or not because, as we have said several times during the course of this debate, they ratified a lot of treaties , including the 1990 Biological Weapons Destruction treaty , the ABM Treaty --that goes all the way back to the 1970's--the START I, CFE, INF. And while they have ratified these, they have not complied. There are three steps you go through. One is you have to sign them. Second, you ratify them. But, third, you have to comply. And they have been found out of compliance. I cannot imagine why we would expect that they would comply with this one if they ratified it if they have not complied with the previous ones. I happened to run across something here that I am going to read. These are the conditions--I am going to save the best one until last--the conditions under which Ronald Reagan said he would agree to the ratification of a chemical weapons convention.

First, the condition was that strategic defense initiative and theater missile defense systems would be deployed and operational as one safeguard against cheating. As we know, currently we do not have those in place. No. 2, that the Chemical Weapon Convention's international executive council would consist of 15 members, including the United States as one of the five permanent members, just like the U.N. Security Council. The current treaty gives us a 41-member executive council, each with 2-year terms, and no permanent members; hence, no veto. Third, that the United States would have absolute veto power over all CWC decisions. Obviously, in this one there is no veto power. Obviously, the President would not have supported this... It has been stated on this floor many times that Russia has some- where between 60 and 70 percent of all the chemical weapons in the world, so, obviously it would be more than that. What is Russia going to do? Are they going to comply? Let us say they go ahead and ratify. If they ratify it, you know, everyone in this Chamber knows, that they are going to look to the United States to pay for their obligation under the treaty . That is what they are doing on START II. In fact, I have to go back and make that statement also, that we are hearing this same argument all over again right now that we heard 2 years ago. Mr. President, 2 years ago we stood in this Chamber and they said: If we don't ratify this, Russia won't ratify it. Here it is 2 years later and Russia has not ratified it."

SENATOR SHELBY "Mr. President, the treaty before us today is deficient in many respects: both in what it does, and in what it fails to do. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I must therefore conclude that the greatest flaw with the CWC is that, absent a certification of effective verification, we cannot even know if it is doing what it is supposed to be doing, and we cannot know the extent to which it is failing to do what it should do: This treaty is unverifiable. In an open hearing on February 5 of this year, I asked George Tenet, the acting Director of Central Intelligence, about the verifiability of the CWC. Our discussion went, in part, as follows:

Acting Director Tenet said: `We can never guarantee that a power that signs up to this agreement won't cheat. These . . . chemical and biological developments are small, they are easily hidden. They are not like big nuclear developments that have big signatures that everybody understands.' I replied: `In other words, it will be fairly easy to cheat some, wouldn't it?' Acting Director Tenet responded: `It will be easy to cheat, Mr. Chairman.' As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I must therefore conclude that the greatest flaw with the CWC is that, absent a certification of effective verification, we cannot even know if it is doing what it is supposed to be doing, and we cannot know the extent to which it is failing to do what it should do: This treaty is unverifiable."

SENATOR ASHCROFT "But, in spite of all our aspirations, in spite of all of our desires, and in spite of all our hopes, there is one reality which will persist; and that reality is the language of the treaty itself. Long after the assurances have stopped echoing through this Chamber, long after the President has left office, who is trying to assuage the fears of those who have misgivings about this treaty , the black and white letters of the treaty itself will be the controlling components of what happens. And the thing that gives me great pause is that the treaty will remain."

Rollcall Vote No. 51 Ex.

The VICE PRESIDENT. On this vote, the yeas are 74, the nays are 26. Two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative, the resolution of ratification is agreed to.


Abraham, Akaka, Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Boxer, Breaux, Bryan, Bumpers, Byrd, Chafee, Cleland, Coats, Cochran, Collins, Conrad, D'Amato, Daschle, DeWine, Dodd, Domenici, Dorgan, Durbin, Enzi, Feingold, Feinstein, Ford, Frist, Glenn, Gorton, Graham, Gregg, Hagel, Harkin, Hatch, Hollings, Inouye, Jeffords, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lott, Lugar, McCain, McConnell, Mikulski, Moseley-Braun, Moynihan, Murkowski, Murray, Reed, Reid, Robb, Roberts, Rockefeller, Roth, Santorum, Sarbanes, Smith (OR), Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Thomas, Torricelli, Warner, Wellstone, Wyden


Allard, Ashcroft, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Burns, Campbell, Coverdell, Craig, Faircloth, Gramm, Grams, Grassley, Helms, Hutchinson, Hutchison, Inhofe, Kempthorne, Kyl, Mack, Nickles, Sessions, Shelby, Smith (NH), Thompson, Thurmond

The resolution of ratification, as amended, was agreed to, as follows:

Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein),

PO Box 29106 - St. Louis, MO 63126,
Voice 314-843-3457, Fax 314-843-3771,,
NSSC Website

China, Russia issue U.S. superpower challenge

April 24, 1997

Associated Press

MOSCOW -- The presidents of Russia and China agreed Wednesday to work toward a new world order in which regional powers would supplant the United States as the world's lone superpower.

In language that sometimes recalled an earlier era, Boris Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin signed a joint statement that called for the development of a multipolar world that no one country could dominate.

"It is necessary to put an end to the cold war mentality and oppose the bloc policy," Yeltsin and Jiang said in reference to the NATO alliance. They also spoke of the importance of the nonaligned movement -- a term not often heard since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In their statement and in remarks afterward, both presidents implicitly challenged the United States' status as the world's only superpower -- without ever mentioning it by name.

Yeltsin said afterward that the summit had "a tremendous, perhaps even historic importance, because we're determining the fate of the 21st Century."

China and Russia, once the lumbering giants of world communism, were rivals for decades but in recent years have moved toward warmer relations. Jiang came to Moscow on Tuesday for a five-day visit designed to cement a closer relationship.

In addition to signing the "new world order" statement, Jiang and Yeltsin agreed that Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin would visit China in late June, and Yeltsin would go to China in November.

The new Sino-Russian friendship is grounded in economic self- interest, which may prove stronger than the ideological bond that snapped in the late 1950s. The two countries share a vast border and have increased trade sharply -- by 25 percent last year alone.

After Wednesday's meeting, spokesmen for Jiang and Yeltsin said Russia and China would sign a contract next month for Russia to build a nuclear power plant in China.

So far, China's market reforms have been far more successful than Russia's, and Russia may have more to gain from expanded trade. Also, with NATO expanding on Russia's western flank, Yeltsin may also be looking to lessen the military threat to the east.

Today, Yeltsin and Jiang will be joined by the presidents of the Central Asian nations of Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to sign a pact to reduce troops along the 4,300-mile former Soviet-Chinese border.

You will Not find this story in the news

There is a story behind this story that hardly anyone caught. Some of it will be in the papers tomorrow (I hope).

If you saw the Texas Ranger's press conference on CNN, it was the finest, most diplomatic totally direct put down of federal police agencies I have ever seen! Those "good-old-boy" Texas Rangers must have had that planed for years. And, Mike Cox, the spokesman for the Rangers, repeated it five or six times on world-wide television.

There were two variations used in the press conference.

"We wanted to show the world how it _should_ be done right!" And:

"We showed the world how it _is_ done right!"

Anyone watching the Texas Ranger's testimony during the Congressional hearings on Waco knows exactly what that is all about. The old colonels testifying were totally and completely upset by the conduct of the BATF and FBI at Waco. They tried to express how they felt in a professional way. But, they were honor-bound to not criticize the feds too harshly in public.

Today, on the world stage offered by CNN, they chewed off their pound of flesh as best they could -- and still look like the professional law men they are.

Federal agents are very angry. But, there is not a damn thing they can do about it.

Cox also said that _they_ (the Rangers), will be questioning the men. There is no federal business here. The case with the woman is different. She was indicted by the federal grand jury for something, so the FBI gets her.

Cox also said that the men are to be taken to a Ranger lock-up. They were, in fact, taken to a county jail, and they had a hearing at the jail this afternoon. It appears that the Texas Rangers are keeping the Republic of Texas people just as far away from federal law enforcement agents as possible. And, that is exactly how it should be.

Doug Fiedor

Posted about June, 1996:

The Republic of Texas Movement

a Dream of 'Quick-Fix' Liberty with No Foundation

by Bill Utterback

The Republic of Texas movement (RT) is calling for Texas patriots to join in their dream of 'quick fix' liberty. There is, regrettably, no quick fix for our problems with our state and, especially, federal governments having gone out-of-control. We can regain control of our out-of-control governments - but it will require hard work and dedication. RT's dream is based on the myth that Texas was never annexed as a state in the Union. Many Texas patriots have joined in this dream, almost to the point of becoming a political religion - but the fact is that the dream has no foundation.

I purchased fifty copies of the new RT magazine for sale in my bookstore and asked Laurie Wiglesworth of WOAI Radio to see if she could schedule the publisher, Wes Burnett, on Carl Wiglesworth's talk show. Then I eagerly read the magazine, looking for the proof of RT's claims. When I did not find proof in the magazine I read everything on the RT internet web page. When I did not find proof on the web page I asked for evidence of RT's claims April 30 on the RT computer e-mail mailing list. RT has promised to answer my questions. I'm still waiting for answers.

First of all, we are talking about the geographical area known as "Texas" and the people who either were born there or who have lived there long enough to claim Texas citizenship. All legalisms aside, there is only one physical "Texas" and only one physical "people of Texas." The people of Texas have the inalienable right of self determination; which is to say that the current people of Texas have the right to alter, reform, or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient. This means that, notwithstanding constitutions or the so-called "law of nations", it has been in the past and is now up to the people of Texas to choose the government they desire. No outside group (such as the federal government) or no subset of the people of Texas (such as the RT General Council) has the right to impose any form of government upon the people of Texas. No outside group or subset of the people of Texas has the right to claim to be the government of Texas until specific, limited powers of government are delegated to that group or subset by the people of Texas.

RT recently published a document on their internet web page. This document, dated April 21, 1996, is entitled "Diplomatic Notice of Perfection of International Relations Between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the "Republic of Texas."" I would think that RT would want to put forth their strongest arguments in a document of this importance. If this is all that RT has to offer, then RT has no foundation at all. I have moved from being a RT supporter to feeling that RT is a dream of liberty which will vanish when RT supporters awaken to the fact that RT has no foundation. Until this happens, Texas patriot energy and resources are being diverted from useful causes which offer opportunities for effective action.

Paragraph one of the RT document states: That no clause of perpetuity or the right of annexation of a foreign nation ever existed in the Constitution of the united States of America or within the Constitution of the Republic of Texas in 1845 to perfect a permanent union in accord with the law of nations either then or now in effect in accordance with the Foreign Relations Law of the United States with respect to a Joint Resolution dated March 1, 1845.

Even though the paragraph is worded to say that no clause of right of annexation of a foreign nation existed in the federal Constitution to effect a permanent union, what it suggests is that nothing in the federal Constitution allows annexation of a foreign nation. This is untrue. Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states, "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union . . ." This is followed by three specific limitations on this broad power, all three of which are concerned with existing states, and none of which are concerned with foreign nations. Congress has the delegated power to annex Cuba or the moon as a state if that seemed desirable, and the manner of annexation is left up to the discretion of Congress.

Annexation of a foreign nation would need to be accomplished by a treaty with that nation which would require a two-thirds vote of the federal Senate. This was attempted in 1844 in regard to Texas but the federal Senate rejected the proposed treaty by a vote of thirty-five to sixteen. This was a good thing, too, as the treaty - if accepted by Texas - would have given all Texas government lands to the federal government.

The next step was for the federal Congress to suggest to the people of Texas that annexation would be possible if they chose to rescind their status as a foreign nation and become a geographical area with a state constitution (that was not a foreign nation) which desired to be annexed by the federal government as a state on equal footing with the other states. In this scenario there would be no need for a treaty or a two-thirds vote by the federal Senate. In fact, this scenario is very similar to the process whereby most of the other states were formed from territories.

On 2/28/1845 the federal House and Senate voted to approve a Joint Resolution that told the people of the Republic of Texas, in effect, that if they would enact a new constitution to be a state in the Union and that new state constitution was approved by the federal Congress, then Texas could be annexed to the Union as an equal state.

The Texas Congress voted on 6/23/1845 in favor of annexation. A Texas Annexation Convention, called for the purpose (as required by the federal Joint Resolution), accepted the offer in the Joint Resolution on 7/4/1845 by passing an Ordinance of annexation. The Annexation Convention wrote the 1845 Texas Constitution and completed it on 8/28/1845. The preamble states that the 1845 State Constitution was established "in accordance with the provisions of the joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States" and the 7/4/1845 Texas Ordinance of annexation was included as the last section of the 1845 State Constitution. The people of Texas voted on 10/13/1845 to approve annexation and to enact the 1845 Texas State Constitution.

At this point the Republic of Texas ceased to exist and the State of Texas came into being (subject to the approval of the federal Congress).

On 12/16/1845 the federal House, on 12/22/1845 the federal Senate, and on 12/29/1845 the federal President recognized Texas as a state in the Union.

A closer examination of the authority delegated to Congress to admit new states to the Union reveals that the ultimate source of confirmation on the Constitution is the Constitution itself.] There is nothing written by man of higher authority (and a good case can be made that the Constitution itself is a spiritually inspired document). Fortunately, it is written in plain, simple language. A Section of an Article in the Constitution deals with either a single topic (such as Article IV, Section 1) or a group of related topics (such as Article IV, Section 2). In Section 1 there is only one topic so there is only one paragraph. In Section 2 there are three different related topics: (1) all citizens have equal privileges and immunities; (2) extradition requirements; and (3) slavery or indentured servitude. These are all related because they come under the general category of individual citizens and persons, but they are put in different paragraphs because they are different topics within the same greater category.

The reason to have paragraphs is to separate topics or ideas. The very fact that two different topics are in two different paragraphs indicates that they are not directly connected. In order to establish a connection between topics in two different paragraphs there would have to be language in one or both paragraphs to indicate that connection. This is just basic english grammar structure.

In the case of the Section in question, Article IV, Section 3, the first paragraph is on the topic of new states and the second paragraph is on the topic of federal territory or other property. These are the three different types of real estate that can be owned or governed by the federal government. Since there is not much practical difference between the way that the federal government deals with territories (Guam, Virgin Islands) and property (District of Columbia, arsenals, navy yards - by cession to the federal government by a state) both territory and other property are put in the same paragraph. Since there is a difference in how the federal government deals with territory/other property and new states, new states are put in a separate paragraph.

The first paragraph delegates power to Congress to admit new states into the union with three limitations. The second paragraph delegates power to Congress to dispose of and make rules/regulations concerning territory/property with two limitations. Both paragraphs are self-contained. There is absolutely no language in either paragraph to indicate that there is any connection between the two, other than the fact that both paragraphs come under the general category of real estate.

There is, however, language in the second paragraph to indicate that both paragraphs are entirely separate. That is the wording that places both territory and other property in the second paragraph. If the language about territory was supposed to apply to new states, then new states would be in the same paragraph with territory and other property.

The Constitution is like a filing cabinet, Articles are like file drawers, Sections are like file folders, and paragraphs are like documents. Say that you have a file folder (section) on real estate and in that folder are two documents (paragraphs). One document is a list of real estate you received from a family estate (new states) and the other document is a list of property you purchased from Mr. Smith (territory/other property). Saying that a new state must first be a federal territory is like telling you that you can not own any of the estate property that had not been purchased by your family from the same Mr. Smith. There is simply no connection between the two.

Even if both paragraphs were run together and written as one paragraph, the wording is still so clear that no additional limitation would be added to the Congressional power to admit new states. The Constitution means what it says and it says what it means. The wording about territory and other property does not even begin to hint that there is any requirement for a new state to first be a federal territory. This to me is so crystal clear that I have difficulty in understanding how anyone can have any other interpretation. You don't have to interpret the Constitution; you simply read each word carefully and derive the only meaning. That meaning is just what the Constitution says. Possibly some other portions of the Constitution are more open to interpretation, but I can not see that there is any question whatsoever about Article IV, Section 3.

On the question of "Must a state first be a federal territory?", The key of understanding is the word "new" in front of the word "states". A new state is a "state" that did not previously exist in the condition of being a "state". If it did not exist in the condition of being a "state", then it had to exist in some other condition: such as a federal territory, a foreign nation, or in the case of Texas "a geographical area with a U.S. federal system State Constitution that had rescinded their foreign nation government by voting to enact a new State Constitution which replaced the previous Republic Constitution, expecting to be recognized as a state in the Union by the federal Congress and President under the terms of the Congressional legislation known as the U.S. Joint Resolution for the Admission of Texas as one of the states of the Union."

There is no, repeat no, constitutional limitation on the previously existing political status of a new state before it becomes a state and there is no limitation on the manner in which a new state can be admitted to the Union, that decision being left up to the discretion of Congress. There are other limitations to this broad power delegated to Congress by the people, but they do not, repeat not, apply to the previous political status of a state as long as it was not part of an existing state, nor do those other limitations apply to the manner in which a new state can be admitted.

The U.S. Constitution says:

Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

Paragraph 3 of the RT document states: That in February of 1861 the People and their agents of delegation of Texas declared the invalid treaty of 1845, styled as a joint Resolution of March 1, 1845, to be invalid in accordance with the law of nations, and dissolved the union with the United States of America, joined with the lawful states of the Union known as the Confederate States of America, and made war on the remaining members of the UNITED STATES.

This is untrue. In February of 1861 the people of Texas and their state government did not declare the Joint Resolution (which was not a treaty) to be invalid. Instead they confirmed the validity of Texas' status as a state in the Union and acted to repeal and annul the 7/4/1845 Texas Ordinance of annexation so as to dissolve the union they recognized as proper and lawful.

Paragraph 4 of the RT document states: That the Republic of Texas after the Civil War became a captured nation of war under reconstruction and war powers, and thus remained until by acts of the Sovereign aggregate body of Citizens as described in the preamble to the Texas Constitution of December 29, 1845, in a political subdivision so declared and operational, by acts in convention under the law of nations, the People and Citizens of the Republic of Texas did lawfully dissolve the war powers acts, and did so by reconstituting the common law for remedy under a provisional government and developing a foundational court system and full national character of government for the nation of Texas;

All of this legalese apparently means that the Republic of Texas after the Civil War became a captured nation of war under reconstruction and war powers, and thus remained until Rick McLaren and friends recently started generating pseudo-legal paperwork. The fact is that Texas was a captured nation of war from 1865 until 1869 (or 1876 - see following), when the people of Texas chose to rejoin the Union by voting to enact the 1869 Texas State Constitution.

It is true that the 1869 vote was taken while Texas was occupied by the Union Army and it could be said that the vote was invalid because it was made under duress. For the purpose of this discussion, that really does not matter, as the people of Texas freely voted in 1876 to enact another (the current) Texas State Constitution. The federal view is that Texas has been a state in the Union continuously since 1845, based on the Articles of Confederation declaring the Union to "be perpetual". My view is that the U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation as the supreme law of the land, that Texas was a state in the Union from 1845 to 1861, and that Texas has been a state in the Union from 1876 until the present.

The people of Texas have the right to again secede at any time and, as a matter of fact, there is a plank in the Libertarian Party of Texas platform calling for a binding referendum on Texas secession. If elected to the Texas Legislature, I plan to introduce legislation calling for a binding referendum held automatically at each election of the Governor. I will, however, cast my personal vote in the referendum against secession as long as there is any hope of returning the Union to limited, constitutional government.

As if it were not enough for the so-called "General Council of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Texas" to claim to be the government of Texas and of the people of Texas, this self-styled "government" has also taken it upon themselves to enact "amendments" to the Texas Constitution. Strangely, instead of the 1836 Republic Constitution, they selected the 1845 State Constitution to amend. Someone needs to tell RT that the people of Texas enacted the Texas Constitution in 1876 and only the people of Texas can enact a Texas Constitution - or amend a Texas Constitution - or elect a Texas government; and there is only one "people of Texas." The RT internet web page currently shows the 1836 constitution being amended by amendments to the 1845 constitution, which is confusing. The amendments to the 1845 constitution do not even attempt to change the sections of that constitution which make Texas a state.

It is unfortunate that no one until now has publicly questioned RT's claims that Texas was never a state in the Union. "Question authority" is always a good idea, even when the authority being questioned is that of a pseudo-government. The actual Texas government seems to have decided to ignore RT, giving rise to more claims from RT that RT is legitimate because it is being ignored. What is even more unfortunate is that many of the cream-of-the-crop of Texas patriots are accepting RT's claims at face value without taking the time to investigate.

Fellow Texan patriots, be careful what you are swallowing. RT has published in the RT Magazine, ". . . anyone, citizens, businesses, governments, or banks, holding money or credit for the STATE OF TEXAS has legal authority to pay those funds directly to the Republic of Texas . . ." and "Citizens have option to send sales tax to Republic." The $1,000 worth of sales tax you send to RT today will almost equal the $1,000+ worth of money from your pocket which you will later be required to pay to the actual government of Texas for sales tax plus penalty and interest.

I sincerely understand the intense desire on the part of Texas patriots for a 'quick fix' to get the federal government out of Texas. It is an unhappy fact that RT has no 'quick fix' to offer. The only option that RT can truly offer is the option for Texas to again secede from the Union. This option is always available but I, for one, am not at this time desiring to accept the consequences which would follow such an action.

The best answer I can perceive is to elect patriots to the Texas Legislature who will pass a Tenth Amendment Act and tell the feds, in effect, "If you can't show Constitutional authority for your attempted actions - then get the hell out of Texas!" It is for this primary reason that I am a candidate for District 45 of the Texas House of Representatives.

The RT General Council has been desiring to be recognized by other governments; well, it has finally been "recognized" by the government of the State of Texas.

The following is an excerpt from a letter dated May 20, 1996, sent by Dan Morales, Texas Attorney General, to 55 people believed to be associated with the General Council of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Texas:

. . . My office has further reason to believe that you and those acting with you under the purported auspices of the "Republic of Texas" have been engaged in a common scheme and design to violate and undermine the laws of this state to the detriment, damage and prejudice of the functions of state and local government, the functions of the governments of the state's political subdivisions, and the property rights of the citizens and residents of the state.

Accordingly, I hereby direct that you and all persons acting in concert with you, including but not limited to all purported members of the "Republic of Texas", as well as the organization itself, immediately cease and desist engaging in any and all unlawful or illegal activity under the purported authority of the "Republic of Texas", involving, without limitation:

(1) representing the "Republic of Texas" to be an "official government,"

(2) representing members of the "Republic of Texas" to be "official government" personnel,

(3) unlawfully and without license using the official Texas state seal (including any close approximation thereof) and gaining benefits from such unauthorized use,

(4) improperly filing with district or county clerks, the Texas Secretary of State, or any other official, "Republic of Texas" documents which purport to encumber any property,

(5) representing "Republic of Texas" "courts" to be duly commissioned, officially sanctioned courts of law,

(6) representing that the "Republic of Texas" possesses any right to authorize the arrest, prosecution, or sanctioning of any persons,

(7) taking any action to arrest, prosecute, try or sanction any person under the purported authority of the "Republic of Texas", and

(8) violating the judgement.

Your failure, and that of the "Republic of Texas", to adhere to the laws of the State of Texas and the United States, may subject you to civil liability to the state and to others, contempt of court by reason of the judgement, and criminal prosecution by this office and/or local prosecutors. My office cannot and will not condone deliberate and willful violations of state and federal law. I am duty-bound to enforce the law of the land and can make no exceptions for those who profess political or philosophical disagreement with our government. You, the "Republic of Texas", and those acting in concert with you, have every right to protest our government, but no right to violate its laws. . .

The General Council of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Texas is now history. It will be another footnote in Texas history books, not unlike the 1869 "State of West Texas."


If you would like to submit an editorial, commentary, or news story from your perspective on something you have been keeping an eye on, please e-mail it to xxx and it will be evaluated for entrance. Thanks.

To subscribe to the Weekly Update, put out weekly by Michigan Militia Corps 5th Division command, simply send a message to with the phrase "subscribe militia" in the BODY of the message. The Weekly Update is archived at the Michigan Militia Corps web page at: