MK3 BLOG

MK3|MK3Blog|Nov. 5, 2025

 Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

— Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857

Definitions first:

• Cultural authority = the public’s felt legitimacy of federal direction. People obey because “that’s how we do things here.”

• Actual control = the state’s formal capacity to coerce (laws, budgets, guns, courts).

Empires don’t fail when they run out of cops. They fail when they run out of consent—when ordinary people stop wanting to go along. Coercion can lag years behind that loss. Here’s the sequence.

Phase 1 — Narrative Slippage (Soft, Denied, Measurable)

What happens:
The federal story stops fitting daily life. People still salute the flag; they stop trusting the narrator.

Mechanics

• Competence gaps: Promises vs. delivery (borders, inflation, energy, disasters).

• Double standards: One set of rules for insiders; another for you.

• Expert failure loops: Agencies contradict themselves; guidance whiplash trains citizens to ignore “updates.”

• Information overreach: “For your safety” becomes code for “because we said so.” That burns legitimacy.

Early indicators

• Trust in federal institutions falls below 40% and stays there.

• Voluntary compliance dips: tax gap widens, regulatory self-reporting declines, FOIA litigation climbs.

• Juries soften on federal prosecutions in certain venues (jury nullification-lite).

Result: People comply out of habit, not belief. Habits are brittle.

Phase 2 — Selective Compliance (The Quiet Rebellion)

What happens:
States, cities, agencies, and big actors begin picking which federal mandates to honor—and nothing breaks immediately. That’s the dangerous part.

Mechanics

• Sanctuary governance: Cities nullify federal priorities (immigration, drugs, speech) via policy, not proclamations.

• State preemption vs. fed: Attorneys general sue early and often; nationwide injunctions turn policy into courtroom ping-pong.

• Corporate arbitration: Firms route operations to friendly states; “policy by footprint.”

• Administrative lawfare: The real constitution becomes injunctions and settlement agreements.

Indicators

• Count of multi-state lawsuits vs. federal agencies spikes; preliminary injunctions freeze major rules on day one.

• Federal guidance yields “advisories,” not enforcement—agencies bluff with press releases.

• Compliance becomes regional: same federal rule, opposite behaviors in different circuits.

Result: Federal voice fragments; obedience becomes zip-code dependent.

Phase 3 — Parallel Sovereignties (One Flag, Multiple Operating Systems)

What happens:
“America” is still one country on paper, but daily life is governed by state/metro operating systems. The feds can still raid; they can’t set norms.

Mechanics

• Shield laws & compacts: States protect residents from out-of-state subpoenas/warrants; pass their own speech/health/gun regimes.

• DA sovereignty: Local prosecutors nullify federal priorities by starving cases of cooperation.

• Budget bargaining: Federal carrots/sticks (grants) fail to move noncompliant states; locals forfeit funds and move on.

• Critical infrastructure federalism: Power, ports, pipelines governed by state permits and public-utility commissions more than DC.

Indicators

• Interstate legal conflicts (warrants, subpoenas) increase; states refuse to execute each other’s orders.

• Federal task forces need state MOU buy-in to function; without it, they’re performative.

• National companies maintain policy forks: HR, safety, and compliance differ by region.

Result: Sovereignty becomes negotiated, not assumed. Cultural authority is now local.

Phase 4 — Control Lag (Coercion Without Conviction)

What happens:
The federal government can still enforce some things (taxes on big targets, headline arrests, defense). But without cultural authority, each use of force spends legitimacy instead of earning it.

Mechanics

• Symbolic enforcement: Big cases for TV; little day-to-day shaping of behavior.

• Capacity strain: Courts jammed; agents overworked; juries skeptical; plea bargains dominate.

• Backlash economics: Heavy-handed moves accelerate state resistance and private routing-around (crypto rails, arbitration clauses, interstate entity structuring).

Indicators

• Enforcement gets louder but narrower.

• “One weird trick” governance proliferates (workarounds, exemptions, carve-outs).

• Citizens treat DC guidance like weather: check it, plan around it, ignore it if costly.

Result: Actual control persists, but it no longer organizes the culture. That’s the real loss.

Why Authority Fades Before Control (the physics)

1. Coordination beats force. A population of millions cannot be coerced efficiently; it must be convinced.

2. Complexity punishes central error. The more intricate the economy, the faster competence gaps show.

3. Network federalism. States, counties, DAs, and corporates form coalitions that can nullify DC de facto without saying the word.

Historical Rhymes (not perfect, directionally right)

• Prohibition: Washington had laws and agents; the culture said “nope.” Authority died before control did.

• Desegregation (inverse case): Federal cultural authority was stronger than regional control; moral legitimacy let DC override local resistance.

• Late Rome / British Empire: Peripheral realities outgrew central narratives; the center kept rituals while authority migrated outward.

Lesson: Legitimacy is the main engine; force is the spare tire.

The Accelerants (what speeds the loss)

• Competence collapses in visible systems (energy blackouts, border chaos, flight control meltdowns).

• Unfairness optics (two-tier justice, insider immunity).

• Overreach in speech/information (perceived censorship = reputational arson).

• Process paralysis (permitting that never ends; rules that contradict).

The Brakes (what restores authority without a crisis)

1. Radical competence: Fix visible basics fast (power reliability, ports, borders, disaster response). People forgive ideology; they don’t forgive failure.

2. Even-handed justice: Equal rules for friends and enemies—publicly measurable.

3. Permitting realism: Time-boxed approvals for housing/energy/industry with default-approve at deadline.

4. Devolution on purpose: Admit federal limits; push execution to states with transparent scoreboards. Owning less but delivering more rebuilds trust.

5. Honest comms: Unvarnished problem statements + dated milestones. Humility beats spin.

Do those, and cultural authority returns before the tanks ever need to roll.

Dashboards You Can Track (no vibes)

• Institutional trust (rolling 4-Q, not one poll).

• Tax gap and voluntary compliance rates.

• Injunction velocity against major federal rules.

• State AG litigation count vs. federal agencies.

• Jury outcomes in marquee federal cases by circuit.

• Permitting cycle times for federally touched projects (energy, transport).

• Grid reliability (SAIDI/SAIFI) and port dwell times—competence at a glance.

When those trend bad, authority is leaking. When they reverse, authority is repairing.

Bottom Line

A federal government can keep control with badges and budgets long after it’s lost cultural authority—but that path is expensive and unstable. The practical fix isn’t grand theory; it’s a boring trinity: equal justice, visible competence, and honest limits. Nail those and the country starts obeying again by choice, which is the only kind that lasts.

MK3|MK3Blog|Oct. 01, 2025

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a landmark case rolling back federal environmental protections, the US Supreme Court issued an opinion for Indiana v. EPA (2024) that ruled the Environmental Protection Agency as unconstitutional, as it didn’t exist in its current state nor did it have a direct precursor at the country’s founding in 1776. The EPA was created under President Nixon during a period of heightened scrutiny for the deleterious effects 20th-century industrial development was having on American waterways and air. Since then, the agency has been tasked with making sure the environmental rights of Americans are protected through the adoption of emissions and contamination standards. 

The case Indiana v. EPA centered on a recent rule proposed by the EPA under President Biden, known as the Good Neighbor Rule, which required states that were upwind of other states to adopt tighter emissions regulations for energy drilling and production to protect downwind states. Several states sued over the legitimacy of the rule, which were all consolidated under Indiana’s case to SCOTUS. Although legal experts largely predicted that the Court, which has been increasingly skeptical of environmental protections in the past decade, would rule against the EPA, few expected the Court to go one step further and disabuse the entire agency altogether. Leading the 6-3 majority on ideological lines, Justice Alito wrote that “it was high time that this Court stop stepping around the EPA with piecemeal rollbacks and address the agency as a whole altogether.” 

The opinion went on to reflect on the historical tradition of the country, pointing out how none of the Federalist Papers made any mention of the Founding Fathers wanting the government “to halt the development of industry with burdensome regulation,” and that therefore, there was no legitimate authority Congress exercised when it created the organization with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. At press time, Chief Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion clarifying that the Indiana v. EPA opinion was “highly specialized to this case…and should not be taken as a binding legal precedent with regards to other federal agencies.” 

Source: Substack

MK3|MK3Blog|Oct. 19, 2025

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 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. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. 

MK3|MK3Blog|Oct. 18, 2025

1. In April 1995, the Omnibus Counter Terrorism Bill was struggling to get through the US Congress. After the OKC Bombing occurred, the tragedy looked as though it had been tailor-made to rally public support for the tyrannical bill.
2. The morning of the bombing, the ATF office located inside the Murrah building was empty, unheard of at 9 AM on a weekday.
3. Oklahoma Congressman Ernest Istook told a victim in a taped conversation in 1995 that the OKC bombing was a failed a national security operation that used an FBI provocateur associated with a militia.
4. The ATF was already putting out a story that the Murrah Building was bombed "because of Waco" only a few hours after the actual blast and before Tim McVeigh was even arrested.
5. An unexploded bomb was found attached to a gas line inside the building, and a FEMA memo reports at least two additional bombs were found in the Murrah Building. Joe Harp, based on his military explosives experience, identified the additional bombs he saw removed from the building as being military in nature.
6. General Benton K. Partin, USAF (Ret.) stated in his OKC Bombing report to US Congress that "The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, was not caused solely by the truck bomb. The major factor in its destruction appears to have been detonation of explosives carefully placed at four critical junctures on supporting columns within the building."
7. Prior to the OKC bombing US Senator Arlan Specter as well as Clinton's NSC director Anthony Lake had been advocating federal national security operations to stop militias in America. Anthony Lake gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the Fall of 1994 in which he said the chief cornerstone of government policy was to "pit our society against militias".

There is a link between the Murrah bombing and the events of 9-11.

The glaring questions of OKC are now a distant faded memory. And because they got away with this, and 9-11 (so far), your government continues to lie, falsely, accuse and kill in order to maintain the balance of power. And because we are saddled with an electorate that is more concerned with watching the next episode of "Cops" instead of standing up for their constitutional rights, these abuses of power continue to grow. 

MK3|MK3Blog| Oct. 18, 2025

“An Act Against the Constitution is Void”

The American Revolution kicked off in 1761 with a single principle from James Otis Jr.: an unconstitutional law is NO LAW AT ALL.

Any government act exceeding its legitimate authority is void the moment it is passed. It has no more legal power than a law passed by a foreign government.

Call it what it is: usurpation, a theft of power. And stolen power is not to be obeyed, it is to be resisted.

HIERARCHY OF POWER

Government possesses no inherent power. It is a created agent, and as George Mason explained, any authority it holds comes from its boss: the people.

“All power was originally lodged in, and consequently is derived from, the people.”

The people didn’t just hand government a blank check. As John Jay made clear, they gave it the Constitution: a strict, enumerated list of what it is authorized to do.

“The proposed government is to be the government of the people; all its officers are to be their officers, and to exercise no rights but such as the people commit to them.”

This was so essential to the structure of the constitution they made it explicit with the Tenth Amendment, which Thomas Jefferson called the foundation of the entire system.

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’”

James Wilson then locked in this hierarchy of power: the people at the top, the Constitution as their instructions, and the government at the bottom.

“As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures; so the people are superior to our constitutions.”

USURPATION

That hierarchy reveals the crime. Thomas Paine distinguished legitimate, delegated authority from theft.

“All delegated power is trust. All assumed power is usurpation.”

Usurpation, by definition, is an exercise of unauthorized power. In essence, stealing power from those who rightly hold it, the people. A common dictionary definition of the era came from Thomas Sheridan’s 1789 A Complete Dictionary of the English Language:

“Forcible, unjust, illegal seizure or possession.” 

A usurper is “One who seizes or possesses that to which he has no right.”

The Declaration of Independence demonstrates this view. Most people today refer to the list of charges against the king as “grievances.” But that word isn’t even in the document.

Instead, the founders used phrases like “A long train of abuses and usurpations” and “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations” to define their opposition to unconstitutional powers like the Stamp Act, the Declaratory Act, the Coercive Acts and so much more.

VOID

Usurpation justified a revolution, secession, and a long war for Independence. But the Founders knew any government could be just as dangerous. James Iredell issued the same warning against their own.

“Any law not warranted by the Constitution is a barefaced usurpation.”

St. George Tucker broadened it beyond just legislation to any exercise of power beyond constitutional limits.

“Every extension of the administrative authority beyond its just constitutional limits, is absolutely an act of usurpation.”

This is the legal doctrine of void ab initio. It’s a legal nullity from the beginning, and never rises to the level of law, and 3rd Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth applied that principle to the constitution.

“If they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void.”

As James Wilson made clear, this means government has no legal authority to enforce such acts.

“That a void act can confer no authority upon those, who proceed under colour of it, is a self evident proposition.”

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson took no prisoners. A usurpation of power – an unconstitutional law – is no law at all.

“Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

Even Alexander Hamilton took this position on the supremacy clause. Only acts in pursuance of delegated constitutional powers are supreme.

“But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land.”

PUTTING IT INTO PRACTICE

The obvious objection to all this: government doesn’t care about theory or constitutional principles. They’ll do what they want anyway.

Hamilton continued with the practical application – acts beyond the limits of the constitution don’t stop themselves.

“These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”

Complying with stolen power just encourages more theft. That’s why James Iredell explained that a free people would resist any such acts.

“The people will resist if government usurps power not delegated to it.”

Roger Sherman explained how that works in a union of states under the Constitution.

When the people refuse to comply, and the states back them up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called “laws,” regulations and orders down our throats.

“All acts of the Congress not warranted by the constitution would be void. Nor could they be enforced contrary to the sense of a majority of the States.”

That’s constitutional enforcement in action: people refuse, states end enforcement, federal overreach fails.

James Otis helped launch the Revolution on one foundational principle: unconstitutional acts do not rise to the level of “law.” The fiery Anti-Federalist Luther Martin tied it all together: When government steals unauthorized power, resistance is duty.

“By the principles of the American revolution, arbitrary power may and ought to be resisted.”