Conceptual Blueprint for Change-Sustainability-Security

There has been much discussion and debate in our Spokane/ N. Idaho area about the possibility of aligning with the Committees of Safety vs. establishing a separate group to fulfill certain goals and needs outside of our political work. Perhaps this is an opportunity to take a big step back and first consider who we are as a group before trying to define what we hope to accomplish by launching a new organization.

Thus far, we have established ourselves as a group of Constitutionally minded people working toward political change in alignment with Constitutional principles. We have enjoyed some success despite an increasingly hostile political environment.

Let's just consider a few of this group's many worthwhile aspirations and goals (a partial list, in no particular order):

-Return our nation to a constitutionally mandated hard money currency while abolishing the Fed.
-End our counter-productive wars in the Middle East that continue to bleed our nation of blood and treasure.
-Reign in government growth and spending at all levels to establish a balanced budget.
-Maintain a constant vigilance to monitor and respond to the daily onslaught of freedom-crushing legislation at all political levels.
-Enforce and tighten the existing laws governing our borders to end illegal immigration and all of the problems it creates.
-Scrap NAFTA (which we should never forget was initiated by President Bush Sr. and subsequently pushed/ passed by Clinton with Al Gore casting the deciding vote as the V.P./President Pro Tem of the Senate).
-Eliminate computer voting machines to better monitor and insure fair elections.
-Roll back and/or eliminate Socialist programs and wealth redistribution schemes in all of their many manifestations (both corporate and individual).
-Establish targeted voting campaigns to remove elected officials who consistently vote against their constituents (remember the recent Bailout votes?).
- Block Globalist and/or Corporate inspired schemes that limit freedom such as the North American Union, Y2Y, governmental RFID tracking, mandatory vaccinations, anti-home schooling legislation, mandatory water fluoridation, NAIS implementation, etc.
-Fight any and all encroachments upon the 2nd Amendment

So which one of these worthy objectives should become the focus of our new self-preservation/ neighborhood sustainability type group??

To my way of thinking, the answer would be: NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Though our active membership is mostly aligned with the Campaign for Liberty, this recent push to establish a practical working network that can sustain and preserve it's members during hard times reflects a need entirely separate from our political goals. In fact, for the purposes of setting up a new organization that exists primarily to support the members, I would argue that we should de-emphasize the political aspects as much as possible if we truly want to establish an effective support system while still attracting a broad cross-section of people.

As the economy collapses and jobs disappear, there is a groundswell of public interest in a self-sustaining group. We have before us an opportunity to build a cohesive framework that supports people and neighborhoods through their co-operative interactions. However, if we're not careful and deliberate in establishing and sticking to our vision, any single political (or religious) issue could easily supplant that focus and would tend to divide and distract from the original goals.

A non-political vehicle would allow us to concentrate more on building a practical, down to earth, mutual aid society where people, groups and neighborhoods could trade their goods or services with others in a synergistic working relationship within a larger organization. People instinctively know that there is safety in numbers and will gravitate towards organized and effective working groups when confronted with the dangers of the unknown. The information sharing, networking and co-operative mutual assistance that would be possible between various affiliated groups or neighborhoods would offer tremendous benefits for all.

We have already established the CFL as a viable POLITICAL organization and have realized some success. So why duplicate our efforts by aligning with another group with similar political goals?

A quick visit to the Committees of Safety national website (even after the recent changes) suggests that their goals, purpose and vision may be somewhat different than our own (at least relative to what some of us have conceptualized for this particular new group we are discussing). As one of our observant members pointed out, they place a big emphasis on petitioning state legislatures to re-establish a Constitutional militia. And while that may be a worthy goal, it would also involve a tremendous expenditure of political capital to overcome the status quo.

Here is a conceptual blueprint that could enable us to achieve our far-reaching goals of realizing CHANGE, SUSTAINABILITY and SECURITY. All 3 represent valid and necessary functions with decidedly different purposes that would operate as 3 separate organizations:

1) CHANGE: This goal would manifest through our political wing (currently CFL) to initiate, influence and promote Constitutionally aligned legislation

2) SUSTAINABILITY: A networking group with a practical, non-political emphasis that seeks to establish a facilitative framework that will enable its members to educate and sustain themselves during tough times. Perhaps this might be called the "Neighborhood Preservation Network" (though our local group has decided to call itself, “Arm in Arm”).

3) SECURITY: A third path could manifest separately along the lines of what some perceive the Committees of Safety to be about, "Developing a system of security and defense for all Americans and their communities". In a truly worst-case scenario, if governments cease to function and the result is a breakdown in law and order, this function would become critically important. While putting energy into re-establishing Constitutional local/state militias is a worthy goal, it may be far more feasible for a larger group such as the NRA, GOA or others to manifest that magnitude of change as they are the only groups with the budget and political muscle to take on something that big. A grassroots group could organize but would likely be an easy target without the political, legal and financial cover of a larger organization.

All three groups could be loosely affiliated, but why should we consider compartmentalizing into 3 separate legal entities and functions?

A) Some people may be drawn to one function but might not necessarily be interested in (or are completely turned off by) the others. On the other hand, some people might feel drawn to involvement in 2 or even all 3 groups. Time will tell where peoples interests lie.

B) Separate functions contribute toward greater effectiveness and focus for each individual group mission. Blended organizations can work, but only if they are very skillfully managed while smaller, separate organizations have a better track record of achieving their respective goals.

C) The third reason to break it down into separate entities would be to minimize the liability of association that may possibly result if everything was branded under the same umbrella. If the COS group decides to “go big” with their "militia" focus and terminology, they would be free to do so without negatively impacting the hard work of the other two groups.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, everyone saw in living color how badly our National, State and Local governments failed the people of New Orleans. Every American now KNOWS beyond the shadow of a doubt that whatever calamity may befall us, we can't necessarily depend upon our government to help when things go awry.

With the Katrina experience still fresh in our minds, what we are really talking about nurturing is a grass roots inspired vision of what it would take to sustain our local communities should the need ever arise. We’re not a bunch of Pollyanna’s and the very fact that we feel compelled to create these groups speaks volumes about our lack of faith in the current political, monetary and economic structures.

But until a breakdown occurs, or even if by some miracle our nation manages to achieve a soft landing while averting disaster, each of our 3 prospective group functions could still operate independently as thriving and effective organizations during prosperous times (and we should all hope for that!).

-The CFL is already operating and successful (though there is always room for improvement)

-The Neighborhood Preservation Network group could thrive during any economic climate as a gardening, seed exchange, labor resource and barter group.

-The Committees of Safety group could thrive as a target shooting and hunting club with their own special emphasis on promoting legislation that meets their goals.

So in good times or bad, all of these groups have a legitimate purpose and each can make a valuable contribution to our communities. We only need to be mindful of keeping our priorities in focus while avoiding unnecessary squabbles. Small, decentralized organizational structures can make good sense when there is a strong spirit of cooperation. A return to an emphasis on “small and local” can be a beautiful thing as long as we network and communicate with our common interests in mind.