Young Alaskan Urges Alternative Government

-Schaeffer Cox, 26, a bright and charismatic gun rights activist, told the Freedom Festival in northern Idaho in December not to be afraid of the word "militia."

"We need to take that word back from the people who demonize it," said Cox.

He emphasizes he's not talking about an "isolated little clique of angry people. It's got to be a group of people brought together by respect and a power to act."

Cox is the organizer of both the "Second Amendment Task Force" (over 7,000 members) and "The Alaska Peacemakers Militia" of Fairbanks, Alaska.

In Montana, Cox said, "Instead of starting a third party, we started a second government," complete with a judicial branch (a common law court run on silver), a defense system (a well-trained militia of over 3,500), and an executive, Cox himself.

He says, "anything beyond these three is just a tool of tyranny. That's all you really need to protect the rights of free people."

In a tightly knit, rural community like Fairbanks, he's probably right. Cox has traveled to various parts of the country informing fellow patriots about his organizations and urging them to sign his declaration and establish similar "second governments" of their own. The U.S. Constitution and self-defense rights in particular are at the heart of this declaration.

Cox carefully adds a disclaimer to his pitch stating, "it cannot be created in order to attack or antagonize the existing government. Let them crap in their own nest and bring themselves down under their own power. We're not there to do that to them. But, as it comes out that they're a freaking joke, here's an alternative."

It is his belief that the U.S. federal government will soon fail, and that "we have a duty to protect some sort of order even if it is just amongst ourselves" against anarchy or the "tyranny of the mob." This proactive approach is admirable, but does he understand the big picture?


Cox defines our enemy as "basically federal government and people who take their money...and the international super-states..." He continues, "we don't need to gun down the beast...the only entity that is strong enough to destroy this beast of tyranny is that beast of tyranny, and they are doing a plenty good job without our help...the system is beyond repair."

Cox operates under the assumption that the government is the enemy of the people, and indicates that he hopes it will collapse. Like so many Americans, he cannot fathom a scenario where a threat to U.S. soil could emerge in the form of a foreign military. Also, I wonder if he has considered that a staged "civil war" may be exactly what is being planned in order to dissolve the United States.

Cox says, "I don't understand all of the ins and outs of this giant monster coming our way and bulldozing over our freedom, but I feel in my gut a resentment, and I think you identify with this...that you shouldn't have to understand all that stuff, and that our rights are rights."

He says, "Let's be characterized by what we love and work towards that, and let what we hate run its own natural course."


For those of us who value the Constitution and the Bill of RIghts, emulating our forefathers by forming a militia may not seem so far fetched. However, to the urban masses and liberal media pundits, what feelings are conjured by groups like Schaeffer Cox's?

Is there a possibility of portraying militias as a threat to the American people? Certainly, and this is already happening. Is there a possibility that some militia or "second government" advocates are really covert agents promoting violence or separation? Absolutely.

Do militias, and 2nd Amendment defenders in general, put a violent face on legitimate concerns of preserving ALL of our Constitutional rights? Some would think so.

Would Americans believe a false-flag attack caused by U.S. citizens that believe their enemy to be "anyone who would take away from us the freedoms that God gave us" as Schaeffer Cox does? Probably.

Cox says, "I am not against spilling blood for freedom. I will kill for liberty. Everybody asks 'would you die for liberty?' That's not really the right question to ask. The right question to ask is 'would you kill for liberty?' because if you would kill for liberty it assumes that you would die for liberty."

And later, he says that he fears on his deathbed "handing my sword to my son - a sword that never saw blood - and saying, 'son, you go do what I was never able to even look at...and it's way worse now son.'"

Noble words but is this the right course of action?
Source: www.henrymakow.com/young_alaskan_leads_populist_r.html

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend

Last updated 20/03/2010

Homepage