I embrace the fantastic hypothesis that the federal government has created a second, alternative set of “states” that are, in fact, administrative districts of a “territory” rather than States of the Union. In essence, this “State-vs-territory” hypothesis argues that “TX” is a territory while “The State of Texas” is a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”. Whichever of these venues (territory or State of the Union) that you inhabit will determine your rights, your duties, your taxes, your liabilities to arbitrary, unlimited government or your liberty within a limited government.
The idea of two, alternative “venues” (the States of the Union and territories) is at least fifteen years old. So far as I know, the first person to advocate this concept was Paul Andrew Mitchell (writing under the pen name of “Mitch Modeleski”) in his book The Federal Zone. The concept was picked up and amplified by Richard Kegley, TJ Henderson, Ed Wahler and Dennis Craig Bynum in A.D. 2006 in a book entitled USA v US. I’ve studied and explored this concept for at least 10 years and, fantastic as it seems, I believe this hypothesis to be true.
I realize that the idea that our own federal government would intentionally “overthrow” the governments of the States of the Union, supplant those State governments with territorial administrative agencies seems too fantastic to believe. I’ve spent at least 10 years looking for evidence to disprove this incredible hypothesis. But after ten years of looking all I can tell you for sure is that: 1) It looks like a duck; 2) it walks like a duck; 3) it quacks like a duck; and 4) it goes good with orange sauce. I still can’t prove that it’s a duck, but I’ve seen nothing in 10 years to suggest that it’s not.