Secession and the United Nations

In my last article, “Secession, The Second Amendment and Sun Tzu,” I ended by saying that American states that revitalized their militias “may secede knowing that they are capable of defending their decision from all who would attempt to use force to prevent their exit.”

But there may be more players in this drama who would wish to prevent the secession of an American state and ultimately the dissolution of the United States of America. Or, those very players might welcome the sight of the USA going the way of the USSR.

I have also written about the informal group “Oath Keepers,” (www.oathkeepers.org). Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reservists, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath they swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with them, to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.” Their Oath is to the Constitution.

To the degree that the Oath Keepers are successful spreading their message throughout the military and law enforcement communities, there will be less and less soldiers, cops and veterans willing to enforce Federal dictates. That will be a godsend for Liberty, but very bad juju for Washington. American military and law enforcement personnel may not be willing to fire upon American citizens who band together to secede, just wanting to be free of Washington’s tyrannical rule.

So, what could Washington do if it wanted to prevent or reverse a secession, and force a state to stay in the Union? How might they respond to a lack of obedience from their military or from law enforcement?

Holler for help from the United Nations.

Do you think that UN troops would have any such moral conflict? Would they be anything but mercenary troops on our soil? I contend that the blue berets would not hesitate to enforce some future UN resolution enacted in New York City against the secession of an American state.

Conversely, the one-world-government types might welcome the dissolution of the USA. They might think that getting Washington out of the way could grease the skids for a one-world government and a new world economic system.

I don’t think there are any blue hats patrolling in Switzerland. But I could be wrong. Think about it. Armed neutrality is the new old way.

The person who spends some time thinking about every possible scenario will make better plans and will have less chance of being surprised by any event.

For a related UN article, read L. Neil Smith’s article HERE.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2009, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Secession, the Second Amendment and Sun Tzu

In the 6th Century BC, Chinese warrior Sun Tzu wrote “The Art of War.” It has been the definitive treatise on waging war for 26 centuries now. Only thirteen chapters, it was translated first in 1782 when a French Jesuit priest living in China, Joseph Amiot, acquired a copy of it, and translated it into French. Subsequent translations have honed the text into English.

The book is available for free through The Gutenberg Project at: The Art of War I strongly recommend this short read, as the truth can be used in many areas of human interaction.

For this article, I shall concentrate on his writings about waging war by deception. Here are some of his thoughts.

Chapter 1:18 All war is based on deception.
Chapter 2:2 Supreme excellence consists in breaking the
enemy’s resistance without fighting.
Chapter 2:18 If you know the enemy and know
yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If
you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you
will also suffer a defeat.
Chapter 6:8 That general is skillful in attack whose opponent
does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose
opponent does not know what to attack.
Chapter 6:9 O divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we
learn to be invisible, through you inaudible; and hence we can hold the enemy’s fate in our hands.
Chapter 6:12 If we do not wish to fight, we can prevent the enemy
from engaging us even though the lines of our encampment be
merely traced out on the ground. All we need do is to throw
something odd and unaccountable in his way.

The general concept that I want you to take away from these verses is that in order to win many battles, you must keep your enemy off balance, deceived and confused about your strategies and tactics. If you can attack him at many weak points, he will have to respond, and therefore, you control both the location and the tempo of the battle. This will be important in the thoughts and questions below.

I’ve been writing lately about secession and the well-regulated militia, and how they should be inextricably tied to one another. From the reactions I’m receiving from readers, this concept seems to be somewhat new to them.

Specifically, I and other writers have referred to the truest meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states: “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

How many millions of words have been written about the Second Amendment?

Starting with the 1856 Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court, to the National Firearms Act of 1934 and up to this day, Americans have seen infringement upon infringement piled upon them. But, do you remember in your lifetime hearing of ANY of those regulations that dealt with the security of a Free State?

Could it be that the arguments made over the last 150 years about gun control… the laws and regulations passed by states and the Federal government…and any talk about personal safety, crime prevention, hunting and sport shooting…have been a clever diversion away from the clear intention of the words of the Second Amendment?

Think about it from a purely tactical viewpoint. If you and I are in an argument about a certain topic, and I can get you to engage in a related topic that looks important, but completely diverts you from the real issue, I’ve won. I can drag you around by your nose ring for as long as you want to argue about what matters LEAST. Meanwhile, I can do pretty much what I want in regard to the real issue.

It is the same as General Tzu’s admonition to attack the enemy where he is weakest, combined with his recommendations to attack at multiple weak locations simultaneously. The enemy will expend itself defending its weak points while you conquer.

Isn’t this what Washington and most of the states have done? They have enacted gun legislation and regulations that force citizens to challenge them in the very courts that the tyrants control. Meanwhile, the politicians subtly changed our states and our nation.

The Second Amendment is the effort of the Founders to guarantee that the sovereign states would have a mechanism whereby the states might thwart Federal tyranny through armed resistance, if only as a last resort. Now, there is nothing in the Amendment about any “last resort.” Common sense dictates that all efforts to settle any difference would proceed peaceably first. And, when a well-regulated state militia is a day-to-day reality, it acts as a deterrent merely by its existence. Thugs seldom attack armed people.

Go ask Switzerland if a militia works. They haven’t been invaded in nearly 500 years.

Washington and the state legislatures have bleached out the reality of the well-regulated state militia from the American fabric. Meanwhile, Americans have been hoodwinked into fighting about whether or not they can carry a gun with or without a permit, or packing heat in a bar or restaurant. While those turf wars raged, Washington absorbed the sovereignty of the states, and made the states into serfdoms.

So, can you now see that because “A well-regulated Militia…is…necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?”

States need to reclaim their sovereignty by revitalizing their state militias. Through the militia, states will once again gain their true freedom to regulate the Federal Government that once was their servant. And, in the failure of the exertion of state sovereignty to control the actions of Washington, the unhappy states may secede knowing that they are capable of defending their decision from all who would attempt to use force to prevent their exit.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2009, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Here’s Why No One Ever Invades Switzerland

Switzerland has been a free nation for over 700 years. Sure, the nation is a mountain fortress in Europe. But Hitler’s generals seriously considered the invasion (Operation Tannenbaum, 1940) and then decided that the cost would be too terrible. The reason it would have been too terrible was the long-standing Swiss militia, citizen riflemen both well trained and heavily armed.

This is what Liberty looks like. This young man is toting a fully automatic SIG 550 assault rifle, walking casually in a market. The North America state that steps up and replicates this level of freedom can successfully secede from the Union. All others are “iffy.”

Swiss Militiaman Shopping

Watch this short video about the Swiss militia: Why No One Invades Switzerland.

Ron Paul comments about Switzerland: Ron Paul Comments

Are You An Automatic Teller Machine For Washington?

This week’s news headlines report that President Obama, while at the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, pledged $1 BILLION DOLLARS of American taxpayer money to slow the deforestation of the Amazon rain forest.

In Brazil. Yes, that rain forest.

That is one thousand million dollars. And nobody knows what “slowing deforestation” means, or who will receive the money or what it will finally be spent for. Apparently, Mr. Obama thinks that he may spend American tax money any way he pleases…like a monarch.

I know that one billion is a tiny sum in comparison to the trillions that Washington spends yearly. But it’s indicative of a criminal condition that has been shared by all Washington politicians except Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the last ten years, and you just came back to “civilization,” you’ve probably heard that the government in Washington has been on a spending juggernaut. Since George Bush’s first term as President, Washington has been burning through money like wildfire through the chaparral of Southern California. Obama picked up the book of matches where Dubya dropped them.

When is the last time that you heard a news story about the Federal Government cutting spending? I mean actual spending, not just when DC announces that they deferred an automatic increase built into some spending bill. I mean actually cutting spending, laying off people and cutting back real services. That is what the states have to do (except California, apparently) when they have a budget shortfall. And that is what regular citizens and businesses have to do when their income is exceeded by expenses.

Another story this week showed how Federal jobs paying over $100,000 per year have mushroomed in the last 18 months. DC is on a hiring spree.

But in DC, Congress and the President just keep writing bad checks and they DEMAND that America covers them.

Remember when President Ronald Reagan promised during the 1980 presidential election to eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy? How did that turn out? Now we have even more Cabinet Departments, like Homeland Security.

Washington’s politicians are spending money at a rate heretofore unheard of in human history. And, with the methods that Washington uses to hide their profligate spending, it is nearly impossible for even skilled auditors to see what desperate financial shape America is in. There are estimates that total Federal Debt added to future spending commitments are over $100 Trillion Dollars. That’s way too much for the normal mind to fathom.

But is it America that is desperate financial condition…or just Washington, DC?

This question is one of the most crucial questions facing Washington…and any state that eventually decides to secede from the USA.

Any state that leaves the United States to become its own sovereign nation instantly repudiates any and all American debt forever. Overnight, Washington will have to face the reality that a large amount of taxpayers just disappeared. And it’s not just the immediate revenue that Washington will miss…it’s the future debt that they expect YOU and your grandkids to pay on their behalf.

For example, when Texas secedes to become a new nation, over 24 million people will vanish from the US Federal tax rolls. And, when you consider that Texas traditionally sends Washington more revenue than they get back in Federal pork spending, the pain for Washington will be even more severe.

Washington is treating America like a big Automatic Teller Machine (ATM). The politicians slide in their card, and out comes cash. And when the ATM runs out of money, they just call the Treasury Department and tell them to run the printing presses on overtime. Or, they “slide in their card” and borrow money from the world. All the while, they devise cunning ways to transfer more and more money from your personal and business accounts into theirs.

At some point, the American citizenry must decide that they refuse to be treated like an ATM for Washington. My prediction is that this tipping point will occur when the Dollar collapses and rolling bank holidays begin to happen all over the USA. When the credit cards, debit cards and ATM cards for Americans cease to work, and Americans cannot get their own money out of their banks, Americans will begin getting very focused. So will state politicians.

Sadly, I also predict that most of the American states will keep their lips locked onto the Washington nipple, and they will wait for Washington to tell them what to do next. But for those few states that sense this historic moment, they will launch out into the deep waters of liberty and save their own lives. And for the liberty-loving Americans that witness those secessions, it will be their signal to run…not walk…to get themselves relocated to those new islands of freedom.

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty” Thomas Jefferson, 1796.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2009, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

I Just Became a Trillionaire!

About a week ago, I increased my net worth by 160 trillion dollars.

Yes…TRILLION. I’m not kidding. I am now worth 160 TRILLION Dollars.

Here’s the back story.

I was writing an article about monetary policy, the Federal Reserve, hyperinflation and the collapse of the dollar. All of a sudden, I had a flash of a thought arc across my bourbon-sotted mind:

I wonder if I can purchase Zimbabwean paper money?

Quickly, I clicked over to Ebay where joy of joys, I found LOTS of Zimbabwean paper money for sale.

So, I bought three 10 Trillion Dollar notes, three 50 Trillion Dollar Notes, and three 100 Trillion Dollar Notes. That’s 480 Trillion dollars in total. I’m giving away 320 Trillion dollars, and keeping 160 Trillion for myself.

These are not knockoffs that I can detect. They are sequentially numbered bills with security strips manufactured into the bills. They are issued by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, and signed by Dr. Gideon Gono, Governor of the RBZ.

That transaction cost me $6.00 US. That’s right…Six bucks.

I’ve framed the bills and they now hang on the wall of my office as a testament to governmental criminal behavior. Counterfeiting is theft, after all. And ALL CENTRAL BANKS worldwide are counterfeiters.

One of the funniest things to come from this is that I Googled Dr. Gono and found his website at www.gideongono.com. His motto at the top of the home page is “Failure Is Not An Option!” His most recent news update is dated March 6, 2009, so it’s not like I’m reading news from an earlier time. Maybe failure is not an option for the good doctor, but the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe certainly availed itself of that option.

You may wonder why I would be interested in the currency of the African nation of Zimbabwe. Simple answer, really. Zimbabwe is the best and most current example of what happens to a nation when it inflates its currency and runs its printing presses non-stop to monetize its spending.

Prior to the complete collapse of their monetary system, the RBZ finally added TWELVE ZEROES to every denomination of their currency. That gave the greatest benefit to the government of Zimbabwe since it could pay off its national debts with “legal tender”, even though the bills were essentially worthless. The population got the greatest penalties, as the money became less and less acceptable in commercial transactions. It literally took baskets and sacks of currency bills to make the simplest purchases…and the value of the money changed hourly at times.

Dr. Gono stated that “while the whole world was now moving towards bailing out of troubled companies (and nations) through central banks, Zimbabwe has decided to take a different direction and was now leaving everything to market forces.” I am somewhat skeptical of Dr. Gono’s statement because I think that it was the other nations and corporations of the world that made the decision for Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe has now adopted a multi-currency system in which they use a basket of currencies as legal tender…including gold and silver coinage. And, now that Zimbabweans can get their hands on money that actually has some value, reports are that the shelves at stores and shops are full once again.

The Executive and Legislative Branches of the United States Federal Government are doing the EXACT SAME THING to the US Dollar. Through the privately-owned Federal Reserve Bank, and the printing presses at the US Department of Treasury, they have flooded the world with nearly worthless paper script. The dollar of 2009 will only buy what a NICKEL bought in 1950. More value is slipping away every day.

And the world is starting to fight back. Nations of the world are slowly disconnecting from the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The global economic system is on a hair-triggered tripwire. Even though the nations are trying desperately to prevent a world economic collapse as they disconnect from the dollar, they know that it will only take one misstep to bring the entire system crashing down. Every nation on the planet stands to get hurt by the crash.

But no place will suffer the deprivations more than the American people. When the dollar suffers its final collapse, it will be just like the Zimbabwean currency I have on my wall. The population of the USA will retreat into barter and other currencies like the Euro. Could even be the Indian rupee and the Chinese yuan.

And the most popular and widely accepted money will be gold and silver money.

Dear readers, if you have not begun to move your cash holdings into gold and silver coins, you are whistling past the graveyard. I’m not offering investment advice here, since you should not look at the purchase of gold and silver coins as any kind of investment. You should look at gold and silver as a store of value against monetary collapse. Just like you might have a pantry with stored food in it, you should have a “money pantry” with stored gold and silver in it. Make it a goal to have one year’s income in gold and silver. And buy a safe and keep your money at home.

Here is a link to another article I wrote in September 2009 on the Gold Standard. Secession and the Gold Standard Don’t miss the link inside the article that takes you to a scholarly paper written by Murray Rothbard about the Gold Standard. It’s likely the most important paper you’ll read in your lifetime.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2009, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Does Secession Without a State Militia Make Any Sense?

“God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.” Daniel Webster (1834)

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Wendell Phillips (1811-1884)

I’ve just finished reading the book “Constitutional Homeland Security, Volume 1: The Nation in Arms,” by Edwin Vieira, Jr, Ph.D, JD.

This is the definitive book on (1) how every American State has forsaken its DUTY to maintain a Militia, that force that is “necessary to the security of a Free State,” (2) how states can revitalize their Militias, and (3) how Citizen’s Homeland Security Associations (CHSA) may be organized.

This book should be read by every State governor and every State legislator in the USA. But it should be read by every citizen that desires liberty…true liberty in their lifetime.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin

Vieira devotes five of the twelve chapters in the book to the formation and operation of the CHSAs. He contends that a program of public education be instituted to inform the public of the necessity of state militias.

Citizen’s Homeland Security Associations are completely different than the “Committees of Safety” of old. The CHSA is a grass-roots organization that will build awareness in the populace in anticipation of the formation of the Committees of Safety and legislative action on re-forming state Militias.

The original Committees of Safety were composed of actual members of the States’ legislatures, recognized activists and other leaders within the States…who were appointed to the Committees by the legislatures, to serve as the legislatures’ agents and advisors, and to carry on the legislatures’ work during recesses. The Committees were never independent of the legislatures, and never carried out any plans that were not approved by the legislatures.

The chief concern of the Committees was the safety of the public: “to put the territory under their supervision in a state of defense and maintain it there effectively”.¹

The author wrote this book in 2007, and mentions that we don’t have much time to reinstitute militias in the states before societal events begin to occur that will throw America into chaos. It’s now almost three years since publication, and many of the events have taken place, while more events loom just over the horizon.

We can thank the government schools of the entire United States for the dearth of knowledge in the populace about the Constitution and the necessity of the State Militias. But what could we really expect? The very Federal government that benefits from the LACK of militias could hardly be expected to promote a concept that would diminish their power. Still, remember that the Federal Department of Education did not exist before 1980.

“Those who have been once intoxicated with power and have derived any kind of emolument from it can never willingly abandon it.” Edmund Burke

So, what of the states? Education has always been a state issue. Can you think of any reasons that states would shrink from their obligation under their own state Constitutions to maintain a state militia?

How about these?

(1) State legislators and governors view themselves as servants of Washington.
(2) Maintaining a state militia is expensive. The money could be used for other purposes that would make more voters happier.
(3) Nearly 150 years have passed since the War of Northern Aggression, in which Lincoln called up the state militias to invade the Confederate States of America. So generations of state legislators have not seen a need for militias.
(4) Besides, states have a National Guard, don’t they? What’s the difference?

I’m sure there are others, but those reasons should do for now.

“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.” John Adams

Here are some of my own thoughts on secession and state militias.

1. Any individual who has reached the age of majority in the United States who does not own a firearm has accepted the position that they have no duty to be a part of the well-regulated Militia that is NECESSARY for the security of a Free State.

2. Any state of the fifty states that comprise the United States of America that either has enacted or will enact any legislation that infringes on the individual right to keep and bear arms has accepted the position that a well-regulated Militia is NOT NECESSARY for the security of a Free State. That state government is an enemy to liberty and a lackey of Washington.

Patrick Henry did not say “Give me safety and security or give me death.”

3. There is seemingly very little interest in the general populace or the state governments to revitalize state militias. But there is interest coming from a restless citizenry about state secession. We must tie the two together into an inseparable bundle, as one relies upon the other.

4. Here is a forecast of how secession and militias will likely play out.
a. Economic meltdown, bank holidays, hyperinflation
b. Societal chaos, riots, rampant crime
c. Washington declares martial law and tries to clamp down
d. The grave crisis jolts states out of their slumber, and secessions begin
e. States NOW begin reformulating their militias
f. The citizenry, in full panic mode, get very focused on liberty issues
g. The United States goes the way of the Soviet Union and dissolves

This is an extremely exciting time in which to live in America. The people of the nation have been lulled to sleep over generations. The tyranny laid upon them is destructive, and any type of destructive force is based in low energy. Happily, freedom and liberty are creative forces of a very high energy level. Just like light dispels darkness, so too will liberty eventually win over tyranny. People will be drawn to the energy of liberty as a moth to a flame.

You can find Dr. Vieira’s book at Amazon.com HERE.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. … God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” Thomas Jefferson, 1787

¹Agnes Hunt, The Provincial Committees of Safety of the American Revolution (Cleveland, Ohio: Western Reserve University, 1904), at 161.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2009, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

He is There and He Is Silent

The 20th Century religious philosopher Francis Schaeffer wrote a book entitled “He Is There And He Is Not Silent.” It was a follow up to his earlier books “The God Who Is There” and “Escape From Reason.”

His premise is that God has revealed Himself to man through creation, the Bible and Jesus Christ. He compares Christian world views with existentialism. He states that the impersonal plus time plus chance does not explain creation or the “mannishness” of man. He contends that Christianity does answer all of the questions of origins in a God who is both personal and infinite.

On God’s personal side, Schaeffer submits that man is made in the image of God, and therefore meant to have a personal relationship with man. So the chasm is placed below God and man, and below the chasm are animals, plants and the machine (physics).

Schaeffer also asserts that God is infinite, and that all else is the creation. That includes man, the animal kingdom, the plant kingdom and the machine. On the side of God’s infinity, there is a chasm affixed between God and his creation.

In a diagram, it would look like this:

The Personal God	The Infinite God
man	CHASM
CHASM	Man
Animal kingdom	Animal kingdom
Plant Kingdom	Plant Kingdom
The Machine (physics)	The Machine (physics)

Jean Paul Sartre stated that the greatest philosophical question is that something exists rather than nothing exists. Eastern philosophy leans toward the “nothing exists” side. Hebraic/Christian thought affirms that God created a true universe outside of Himself, and that the universe is not an extension of the essence of God…not just one of God’s dreams.

Early science dealt with natural things. It agreed with Christianity in that both hold to the theory of the uniformity of natural causes. For the Christian that means that God’s universe can be known, but that God can interject Himself into His creation in substantive ways. But this belief relies upon acceptance that the Bible is God’s revealed truth to man. Early scientists believed that there is a reasonable God who created a reasonable universe, and that man, using his reason, could gain knowledge about the universe and about God.

The early scientists believed in the uniformity of natural causes. What they didn’t believe was the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. They believed in the rational, in which is found the concept of thesis and antithesis. The basis of classical logic is that A is not non-A. If a certain thing is true, then its opposite is not true. They also searched for a philosophy that was a unified field of knowledge…an answer that would explain all of thought, all of creation and all of life. God is…and He created.

That position is not the dominant philosophy among modern scientists. Today’s scientists as a group reject the existence of God. Modern science is characterized by the belief in the impersonal plus time plus chance to explain origins. Yet until recently in scientific history (the early 1900s) they still searched for that unified field of knowledge that could explain everything.

Modern science starts with rationalism (not rationality), an autonomous man as the center of the universe, without the need for God. They do not believe in the rational in terms of thesis and antithesis. They embraced the philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel, the 18th Century Enlightenment philosopher who first advanced the concept of synthesis.

Hegel changed the way the game is played in two areas: (1) epistemology, the theory of knowledge and the limits and validity of knowledge; and (2) methodology, by which we evaluate questions of truth.

He asserted that man should no longer think in terms of thesis (truth) and antithesis (not true). Rather, that we should seek an answer that is synthesis. This kicked the door wide open to relativism, in which there is no truth.

So, one worldview holds that God is the center of the universe, while the other holds that man is the center of the universe. The secular, non-Diety viewpoint has now seeped into every field of human endeavor, including art, music, general culture, and theology. The more that autonomous man has learned about nature, the more rebellious he has had to become to explain away the existence of the Creator God. Without a Creator, rationalism degenerates into determinism…that everything is a part of the machine and nothing else.

In a rational, God-based worldview, meaning can be found for creation and human existence. However, in a secular worldview, meaning dissolves into determinism, as all of the universe is swallowed up in physics and conjecture.

In order to avoid despair, and living a life without meaning, the Christian must make a leap of faith in the veracity of a Bible that is 100% written by men, and not subject to verification.

In order to avoid despair, and living a life without meaning, the secularist must make a leap of faith…even though it is a leap into the darkness. He manufactures meaning without any evidence whatsoever.

So, both worldviews end up being a religious activity since they both require faith. Secularism requires much more faith than rationality.

The human emotion and act of love is also meaningless in a determinist, secular, rationalist, existential world view. When there is no meaning in human existence, and people’s lives are only cogs in a machine, love becomes absurd. This cheapens the value of all life, not just human life.

What the secularist ends up with are groups of connotation words…words that used to have objective meaning, but are now used with no meaning left. Words such as love, morals, republican, democrat, constitution, law, justice, science, ethics and truth. The connotation words are useful in manipulating the hearers, since there remains a societal memory of what they used to mean. But they really only mean what the speaker wants them to mean.

So, where does one go for a unified field of knowledge and meaning of life if you do not accept the Bible as the Word of God, yet you still believe in a Creator God?

I would like to offer a Third Way…a Deist worldview that differs from the Christian and secular positions.

That is, that God is an impersonal-infinite God.

This simply deviates from the view that God is personal. It does not hold that God is unknowable. It affirms that God created everything but himself. Many characteristics of his nature are discoverable by observing His creation. The Deist worldview simply rejects the idea that God wishes to have a personal relationship with man beyond what He reveals about Himself in nature and the cosmos.

The Deist position calls into question the accuracy and veracity of the 66-book Bible that has existed since the 4th century Council of Nicea, and as such, finds that most of that Bible, while filled with good stories, fables, and moral lessons, is not the revealed truth directly from the creator God.

The only truths that can be determined about God are the truths that can be gleaned from studying His creation. That is the only revelation from God that can be verified. Further, God’s character can be known through study of creation from the microcosm to the macrocosm. But it must be stated that while God’s personality and character can be know truly, it cannot be known exhaustively since we are finite beings.

All other writings about God, no matter where on earth they are found, are man’s attempt to explain his understanding of God. Divine revelation directly from God to man as never been documented and cannot be duplicated within or without a laboratory. However the order of God’s universe, from the microcosm to the macrocosm, can be documented, replicated, studied and known.

Holy writ is only deemed holy by its adherents. To wit, Bible-believing Christians reject the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita and the Book of Mormon as heresies and vice versa.

This Creator of all but Himself has the power to manifest Himself to every human being that has ever lived upon this planet. If God truly wanted a relationship with mankind, or any man individually, he could simply reveal Himself. If and when God does reveal Himself to man, all “religion” will of necessity cease, as man will no longer need to reach out to God or try to explain a being he cannot experience with his five senses. Belief will be unnecessary, since mankind will KNOW God. The most jaded, cynical scientist and atheist, faced with a real God, could no longer hold onto their worldviews.

All of the rules and regulations found in the Bible, and the silly games attributed to the Creator, are an insult to the character of an infinite Being. God does not need to sneak around and play complicated faith games with humans if he desires human relationships. Accepting Him at the level of his universal revelation is a more honest way to believe in God.

I believe that God has revealed these seven attributes about Himself in creation:

1. Creativity
2. Order
3. Love
4. Beauty
5. Intention
6. Abundance
7. Receptivity

I most heartily recommend the Deist worldview to seekers of truth. It is the worldview that requires the least amount of faith and manufactured guilt, reveals the most truth about God and the cosmos, retains meaning for human existence, and makes the most sense for those who aspire to maximum individual liberty.

There is another writer that I recommend for a supplemental perspective on the veracity of the Bible. Lysander Spooner was a Deist and attorney who wrote extensively about religion and politics in the mid-1800s. He has written “The Deist’s Reply to the Alleged Supernatural Evidences of Christianity.” In this five-chapter work, he delivers a withering argument against the very foundations of Christianity. I challenge you to read his work and refute it.

You can find the work and read it for free at: http://LysanderSpooner.org/node/11

Also, read “The Deist’s Immortality, and an essay on man’s accountability for his belief” at: http://LysanderSpooner.org/node/18

© Copyright 2009, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Ron Paul For First President of New Texas!

When Texas inevitably secedes from the United States, it will need a President. I nominate favorite son Ron Paul, of Lake Jackson, Texas as the first President of the new nation.

There is no other person that has the credentials of Dr. Ron Paul. Doctor Paul ran a successful ob/gyn medical practice before entering politics, so he knows small business. He served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He has been a US Congressman for Texas’ 14th District since 1997, returning to Congress after previously serving in the same capacity in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s. He knows the Washington culture and the Washington games from the inside. His record of voting against pork-barrel spending has gotten him the nickname “Dr. No.” Congressman Paul has often been the lone voice on Capitol Hill for compliance with the Constitution of the United States. Paul enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency.

Recently, Paul sponsored HR 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, designed to regulate and audit the Federal Reserve. On December 9, 2009, he introduced the Free Competition in Currency Act in Congress, which if enacted, would get the government out of the money business.

He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

No other person in Texas can show a lifelong commitment to liberty like Ron Paul can proffer. No governor, Senator or other Congressman can compare their voting records and legislative records with Congressman Paul. All others would be proven to be big-government spenders and friends to tyrants…or tyrants themselves.

I heartily encourage Ron Paul to voice his support for Nullification and eventual Secession in a prepared statement delivered in an open session of the United States House of Representatives. That would throw an ideological hand grenade into the Washington political culture that would reverberate from that moment forward into the history books. That one speech would mesmerize and captivate the Main Stream Media. Paul, his speech and Texas would be the Number One headline for weeks. The line of media interview requests for Rep. Paul would be as long as the Rio Grande…and just about as shallow.

Few events could bolster the cause of nationhood for Texas as the unflagging support of Ron Paul. I dare to say that few events could galvanize the support of Texas citizens as much as Ron Paul’s support of the concepts of Nullification and Secession.

Not since John C. Calhoun’s advocacy of Nullification in the 1830s, and the formal secession of South Carolina in 1860, would Washington’s applecart be up-ended like a simple statement of support of Nullification and Secession from Ron Paul.

But please note: I am not recommending that ANY ACTION toward secession be taken any time soon. The national political events that will precipitate secession have yet to occur. And Timing Is Everything.

Just as George Washington was swept into the Presidency after the 1776 secession, so too would Ron Paul be the logical and emotional choice for Texas.

Perhaps Dr. Paul could convince Judge Andrew Napolitano to relocate to Texas and become the first Vice President or Chief Justice of the New Texas Supreme Court?

The Texas Nationalist Movement is the current driving force for the secession of Texas from the United States. The TNM is presently reaching out to Texans across the state and telling the story of the many reasons that nationhood is best for Texas…and Texans.

The TNM is currently spearheading a petition drive to collect signatures from Texans who support the concept of secession. TNM leaders want to be able to present thousands of signatures to the Governor on January 11, 2011, the opening day of the next Texas legislative session. The petition requests that a straight up or down referendum be scheduled so that the people of Texas may vote themselves whether or not to secede from the Union.

Fore more information about the Texas Nationalist Movement, go to: www.TexasNationalist.com A basic membership is a mere $20.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2009, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Ron Paul Introducing the Free Competition in Currency Act

The Modern-Day “Man of LaMancha” Before the US House of Representatives, December 9, 2009

Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2009. Currency, or money, is what allows civilization to flourish. In the absence of money, barter is the name of the game; if the farmer needs shoes, he must trade his eggs and milk to the cobbler and hope that the cobbler needs eggs and milk. Money makes the transaction process far easier. Rather than having to search for someone with reciprocal wants, the farmer can exchange his milk and eggs for an agreed-upon medium of exchange with which he can then purchase shoes.

This medium of exchange should satisfy certain properties: it should be durable, that is to say, it does not wear out easily; it should be portable, that is, easily carried; it should be divisible into units usable for every-day transactions; it should be recognizable and uniform, so that one unit of money has the same properties as every other unit; it should be scarce, in the economic sense, so that the extant supply does not satisfy the wants of everyone demanding it; it should be stable, so that the value of its purchasing power does not fluctuate wildly; and it should be reproducible, so that enough units of money can be created to satisfy the needs of exchange.

Over millennia of human history, gold and silver have been the two metals that have most often satisfied these conditions, survived the market process, and gained the trust of billions of people. Gold and silver are difficult to counterfeit, a property which ensures they will always be accepted in commerce. It is precisely for this reason that gold and silver are anathema to governments. A supply of gold and silver that is limited in supply by nature cannot be inflated, and thus serves as a check on the growth of government. Without the ability to inflate the currency, governments find themselves constrained in their actions, unable to carry on wars of aggression or to appease their overtaxed citizens with bread and circuses.

At this country’s founding, there was no government-controlled national currency. While the Constitution established the Congressional power of minting coins, it was not until 1792 that the US Mint was formally established. In the meantime, Americans made do with foreign silver and gold coins. Even after the Mint’s operations got underway, foreign coins continued to circulate within the United States, and did so for several decades.

On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: “Don’t steal – the government hates competition.” Indeed, any power a government arrogates to itself, it is loathe to give back to the people. Just as we have gone from a constitutionally-instituted national defense consisting of a limited army and navy bolstered by militias and letters of marque and reprisal, we have moved from a system of competing currencies to a government-instituted banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency. In order to reintroduce a system of competing currencies, there are three steps that must be taken to produce a legal climate favorable to competition.

The first step consists of eliminating legal tender laws. Article I Section 10 of the Constitution forbids the States from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts. States are not required to enact legal tender laws, but should they choose to, the only acceptable legal tender is gold and silver, the two precious metals that individuals throughout history and across cultures have used as currency. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Congress the power to enact legal tender laws. We, the Congress, have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender. Yet, there is a section of US Code, 31 USC 5103, that purports to establish US coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender.

Historically, legal tender laws have been used by governments to force their citizens to accept debased and devalued currency. Gresham’s Law describes this phenomenon, which can be summed up in one phrase: bad money drives out good money. An emperor, a king, or a dictator might mint coins with half an ounce of gold and force merchants, under pain of death, to accept them as though they contained one ounce of gold. Each ounce of the king’s gold could now be minted into two coins instead of one, so the king now had twice as much “money” to spend on building castles and raising armies. As these legally overvalued coins circulated, the coins containing the full ounce of gold would be pulled out of circulation and hoarded. We saw this same phenomenon happen in the mid-1960s when the US government began to mint subsidiary coinage out of copper and nickel rather than silver. The copper and nickel coins were legally overvalued, the silver coins undervalued in relation, and silver coins vanished from circulation.

These actions also give rise to the most pernicious effects of inflation. Most of the merchants and peasants who received this devalued currency felt the full effects of inflation, the rise in prices and the lowered standard of living, before they received any of the new currency. By the time they received the new currency, prices had long since doubled, and the new currency they received would give them no benefit.

In the absence of legal tender laws, Gresham’s Law no longer holds. If people are free to reject debased currency, and instead demand sound money, sound money will gradually return to use in society. Merchants would have been free to reject the king’s coin and accept only coins containing full metal weight.

The second step to reestablishing competing currencies is to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints. One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar. Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service in November of 2007. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, which hates competition. The responsibility to protect contracts is of no interest to the government.

The sections of US Code which Liberty Services is accused of violating are erroneously considered to be anti-counterfeiting statutes, when in fact their purpose was to shut down private mints that had been operating in California. California was awash in gold in the aftermath of the 1849 gold rush, yet had no US Mint to mint coinage. There was not enough foreign coinage circulating in California either, so private mints stepped into the breech to provide their own coins. As was to become the case in other industries during the Progressive era, the private mints were eventually accused of circulating debased (substandard) coinage, and with the supposed aim of providing government-sanctioned regulation and a government guarantee of purity, the 1864 Coinage Act was passed, which banned private mints from producing their own coins for circulation as currency.

The final step to ensuring competing currencies is to eliminate capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coins. Under current federal law, coins are considered collectibles, and are liable for capital gains taxes. Short-term capital gains rates are at income tax levels, up to 35 percent, while long-term capital gains taxes are assessed at the collectibles rate of 28 percent. Furthermore, these taxes actually tax monetary debasement. As the dollar weakens, the nominal dollar value of gold increases. The purchasing power of gold may remain relatively constant, but as the nominal dollar value increases, the federal government considers this an increase in wealth, and taxes accordingly. Thus, the more the dollar is debased, the more capital gains taxes must be paid on holdings of gold and other precious metals.

Just as pernicious are the sales and use taxes which are assessed on gold and silver at the state level in many states. Imagine having to pay sales tax at the bank every time you change a $10 bill for a roll of quarters to do laundry. Inflation is a pernicious tax on the value of money, but even the official numbers, which are massaged downwards, are only on the order of 4% per year. Sales taxes in many states can take away 8% or more on every single transaction in which consumers wish to convert their Federal Reserve Notes into gold or silver.

In conclusion, Madame Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the US government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral. Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government’s ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system. I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies and cosponsor the Free Competition in Currency Act.

Obama, Secessionist Movements and the Nobel Prize

OSLO, December 10, 2009: Today, President Barack Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in a ceremony in which his speech was like a long commercial message promoting continued war. Obama gestured politely toward advocates of non-violence like Albert Schweitzer, Dr. Martin Luther King and Ghandi, but clearly stated that his intention for America is to be the policeman for the globe.

Here is an excerpt that should enlighten all Americans about what the President is thinking.

“Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”

It is not any secessionist movements anywhere on this globe that have trapped civilians in unending chaos. That is entirely the purview of the nation-state. Confiscatory taxation, unending regulation of every facet of human life, and the destruction of our economic system and currency through central planning is the source of unending chaos, both at home and abroad.

And the “Just War theory?” The only just war I know of is the war in which you are defending your own borders against invasion. Invading another country is unjust, and used to be unlawful.

Obama praised pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar, Zimbabweans who voted despite election violence, and pro-democracy protesters in Iran.

“It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any nation,” Obama said.

I wonder if Obama and the Mobocracy Looter Minions of Washington will still feel the same way when one of the United States serves him with a Secession Document.

President Obama, with his own words, shows the world that he is not familiar with the job description for President clearly stated in the US Constitution. He said:

“I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago – “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak -nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.”

What a shameful statement of ignorance.

A president is required by the Constitution (Article II, Section 1) to take the following oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

That oath says NOTHING about swearing to “protect and defend my nation.”

Most of the things Obama has done since taking office have been grossly, criminally unconstitutional. Mr. Obama would have a full plate of activities if he would just protect and defend our Constitution. If past presidents had stayed within the strictures of the Constitution, the USA would not have any threats today.

If America ever finds and elects a man or woman who will simply be true to the oath of office they take, America may have a chance of survival. However, no President since before Lincoln has been serious about the Oath. If history is any guide for our future, there is no Oath Keeper on our national horizon.

© Copyright 2009, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.