The other North Carolina government

I realize that poking fun at fringe groups is a weakness of mine; a pointless self-indulgence, as it were. But sometimes I can't help myself:

In 1997, John Ainsworth, along with several others, legally re-established the de jure (lawful) state of North Carolina. The North-Carolina American Republic, or NCAR, has been in operation since that time and convenes monthly. The basis of this re-establishment is rooted in a legal argument that is supported by irrefutable historical evidence which was uncovered by Ainsworth as a result of over 19 years of study. Armed with this knowledge, lawful state citizens have taken the matter to court - demanding that the current state of North Carolina prove its lawfulness.

In my defense, I was lured into this subject by the appearance of a fancy sign at the gun rally Saturday. As we all know, fancy signs (as opposed to hand-scribbled ones) deserve more scrutiny, due to their professionalism and implied forethought. And yes, I'm easily impressed:

Apparently the root of our problem is that we got our asses kicked in the Civil War:

The History
It is a little known fact that through the course of history, two states called 'North Carolina' have entered the American Union. The first state of North-Carolina entered as the 12th state of the union on May 21, 1789 and was established by the freemen (free people) of North Carolina. The second state of North Carolina, the 39th state, entered the American Union on June 25, 1868. This de facto government of North Carolina (the government that many people recognize today) was put into place by the United States Military, as the end result of the Reconstruction Acts (1, 2, 3, 4). These Acts imposed on us a military dictatorship, an election, a method of changing our constitution, and a constitution, all foreign to our organic law. Through the Reconstruction Acts and the forced amending of the Constitution, a military coup occurred and put into place the government of North Carolina which is operating today; no longer a government of consent by the lawfully authorized people, but one of fraud, coercion and force. Our Constitution therefore, has been dormant, but not dead, since that date.

The Solution
We the people of North-Carolina have re-established the state that was taken from us and are breathing new life into our original Constitution. In 1997, on behalf of the inhabitants of North-Carolina which were present, a small body gathered and legally re-established the de jure (lawful) state of North Carolina that was taken on July 1st, 1868. The North-Carolina American Republic, or NCAR, has been in operation since that time and convenes on a regular basis. The basis of this re-establishment is rooted in a legal argument that is supported by irrefutable historical evidence which was uncovered as a result of over 19 years of study. Armed with this knowledge, lawful state citizens have taken the matter to court - demanding that the current state of North Carolina prove its lawfulness.

Okay, you may still be confused. Better let John explain it:

Which brings up another important point: music. If you want to get your message across with the greatest of impact, your promotional video simply must have a zippy, things-are-really-happening-quickly soundtrack.

By the way, if you're thinking of becoming a citizen in this new...or is it old? North Carolina, in order to avoid taxes, think again:

Q. How much are taxes?
A. Taxes are currently $10 silver rounds, or 60 Federal Reserve Notes. Those are due in January 1st and past due December 1st. You may not vote if your taxes are delinquent.

Q. Where do I pay my taxes?
A. You can pay your taxes at any time to the Treasurer.

But...I thought Gold was...*sigh*. Nevermind.


Speaking of Golden Corral, James

This caused me to spit coffee dangerously close to my keyboard:

Q. When & where are NCAR meetings?
A. NCAR meetings are held at 1:00PM on one Saturday each month at the Golden Corral in Mooresville. (Exit 36 on I-77) The date is set at the previous month’s meeting. Check the calendar for the upcoming dates.

I'm having way too much fun with this stuff...

Premise is baseless

First off... it's been an awfully long time since I've stopped in for a comment here at BlueNC. New community members won't have a clue who I am. haha...

Now down to business:

Ainsworth's entire premise is baseless.

On his NC Republic website, Ainsworth discusses several items but focuses on the militarily appointed government of the North Carolina he refuses to recognize. He says that a new governor, William Holden was elected in a fraudulent election which removed the legally elected Jonathan Worth. Unfortunately for Ainsworth, historical facts trump his made-up "reality."

Worth was elected governor on the Conservative Party ticket in a special election 1866, beating out Holden. As the new constitution was being drafted, Worth became unhappy with the results and refused to run in the regularly scheduled election of 1868. Holden ran on the Republican ticket, legally winning election.

Ainsworth's so-called "reality" also fails to take into consideration other historical facts, like the end of Reconstruction in the late 1870s and the subsequent takeover of state government by the North Carolina Democratic Party, which then went on to initiate harsh segregationist and Jim Crow-era laws, took over in one city through violent overthrow of legitimate government and, for most of the latter 19th and early 20th centuries, ruled local and state politics with iron fists.

Ainsworth's revisionist history is just that -- He should be called out for the neo-confederate he is. No amount of distraction can really hide his true intentions.

It has been a while, Matt

Good to see you again.

Public Challenge

To the Negative Commenters Here,

Perhaps you guys should call John and take him up on the $10,000 offer, if you are confident that you can prove him wrong. That's $10,000 in precious metals by the way, which John is putting up from his own collection. John has been fighting with this argument for a long time and I have yet to see anyone come up with something for which his library of documented evidence will not refute (..and yes, this includes the election you spoke of. I believe I've heard someone bring that one up before as well.) The information is covered much better in John's full-length seminars and the argument is quite solid. So with that being said, would one of you be willing to step away from your keyboard and debate John in public?

Not me

Thanks for the ask but sorry. I'm a recluse. He's welcome to write whatever he wants here.

So...who would be the judge

of who wins said debate? I guess we can rule out (conservative) Judge Thomas Moore, since he already dismissed one of your citizen's attempts to challenge the legality of our current government. I know, I know, he has no jurisdiction...

Who knows, I might show up at the Golden Corral. We can debate whether the cheesecake is really cheesecake, or just some sort of pudding concoction.

There is a 10,000 dollar

There is a 10,000 dollar challenge if you want to try and disprove what John is saying! It's OK if your would rather just talk on a website about someone else though.

You can also come out and

You can also come out and watch the court cases of the state citizens getting tossed out as well if you want further proof. It's all in what you choose to do. Fight behind a keyboard or fight in the courtroom.

So, the court cases being tossed out

is proof of...what, actually? A conspiracy to keep an illegal government in place? In a normal world, that would be proof their claims were not legally sound.

Trust me, fighting behind a keyboard can be entertaining as hell. ;)

If a government was illegal...

If a government was illegal, wouldn't the courtrooms be a logical place to start shutting out the truth? So because one man who sits in a tall wooden box in a very expensive building (ie. the judge) throws someone in jail for appealing his decision, that is proof enough for you that a claim is not legally sound? You don't think there could be any possibility at all that the judge (and/or the court system as a whole) could be misinformed, uneducated or ignorant?

Perhaps in a PERFECT world (not a normal one), we would be able to trust all judges, politicians, district attorneys and everyone else the masses decide to elect. But this world is far from perfect and sometimes people are dishonest. Furthermore, sometimes people are honest within the defined parameters of their own convictions; but even this can result in dishonesty or injustice because they may have been mislead into believing something was true when it was not. If these people are incorrect, as masters of these government servants, it is our duty to correct them.

It was stated in the original post here that this "group" is fringe. Another word for fringe is "extreme." But I would state that it is not this group or person or goal which is extreme, but that it APPEARS extreme to those who are so EXTREMELY far removed from the truth that the truth has become fiction to them. 1867 was a long time ago. If something happened at that time which was so totally unlawful as the overthrow/annulment of state governments and if generations of us have unknowingly been living under that lie for such an extended period of time, of course the uncovering of such information would look 'extreme' or 'fringe' to us. It will probably LOOK like total insanity. But that doesn't change the underlying truth.

It takes a lot of courage to put your time, money and potentially your life on the line for something which many people such as yourselves refer to as "fringe." Some of the seemingly most "crazy" things that have been sought after or attempted in the history of the world have resulted in the most beautiful of ideas, inventions and way of life. Would it not be total ignorance to reject an idea based solely or even partly on its divergence from the norm?

Concerning Golden Corral. I can see how government officers meeting in a restaurant would be funny. Hey, I don't enjoy having to "belly up" every time I go to the meetings I can laugh at it too. But honestly, to pick on where people decide to meet? Really. Hey, we would love nothing more than to move into a nice building. But alas, money doesn't grow on trees and the NCAR doesn't print money out of thin air (unlike some governments). And hey, you've said it yourself, we are so "fringe," who would want us in their building? Until participation is to a point at which we can afford more, unfortunately for now, this will have to do. We will work with it the best that we can. If one of you might know of a more suitable place located centrally in the state, I'm sure those meeting at the Golden Corral would be all ears. I will say this much, the state was re-established in 1997, but activity and participation in recent months has increased. People are upset at what is going on and it doesn't seem to matter if people are Democrats, Republicans, or Libertarians -- everyone seems to be looking for answers. And interest in this "extreme" idea has increased. Maybe soon we'll be able to afford an actual building. I know we would all enjoy meeting somewhere much quieter and professional looking.

As for the judging of the debate, this is yet to be decided. And no, Judge Moore would not be a good choice, obviously. We would prefer for the loser of this debate not to be cuffed and sent to Hopefully this will be decided at some point. Of course, to my knowledge there are no challengers yet at this time. It seems everyone just wants to bash John behind the scenes or argue with him in private.

To include BlueNC

Thank you James. I was reading over that last portion and had the thought that someone would probably scrutinize it. People do indeed bash John behind the scenes and argue with him in private. The only problem here is that in order to include this blog and articles like it I simply didn't make the list long enough. Perhaps I should reword it as such:

"It seems everyone just wants to bash John behind the scenes, argue with him in private, or write negative articles, comments, blogs, etc. about him."

Perhaps this is more accurate.

The thing about blogging

is this: you and he can respond or not. The original post set forth an opinion, it's being debated (sort of). What else is there to do?

I'd take him up on the offer...

I'd take John up on the offer. God knows I could use $10,000. Who couldn't? I'd fail at the debate though... too busy trying to hold back the incessant laughter.

I've always wondered: What is it like constantly living inside a conspiracy theory? Seems a person would get tired of always looking over their shoulder. You know: it seems white folks are the ones who are always coming up with these crazy things. Perhaps that some secret, sadomasochistic dream of being the oppressed instead of the oppressor. Any psychologists reading and want to weigh in?


Well, if you ever stop laughing and would like to take him up on it, I would encourage you to do so. If he is wrong, then people need to know. Heck, you'd save all of us a lot of time! Otherwise, a fairly judged debate (if that is possible) would probably answer a lot of questions for people. $10,000 plus the benefit of knowing you've helped others not to waste their time with something so silly and humorous as lawful, provable government. What could be better?


$10,000 to anyone that can prove that Curly was not the best of the Three Stooges. Everyone is invited to try but only I get to judge if you prove me wrong.

Red Pill Please!

Ahh, I love seeing Citizens opening up their eyes and realizing that they're living in a matrix. As for me, I choose the "red pill". Nothing against those of you that prefer the "blue pill". With realization and the knowledge of truth, comes great responsibility and a loss of the so-important social safety net. Freedom is not for everyone! Most prefer the security and safety of indentured slavery.