Gun Control And The Well-Regulated Militia Update

December 4, 2012

By Russell D. Longcore

(Editor’s note: I wrote this back in May 2009. I’m updating it today. Apparently, sportscaster Bob Costas and other mindless state-worshippers still cannot wrap their brains around the concepts of Natural Law. Of course, they would have had to actually learn the concept in order to forget or ignore it.)

Gun control is today’s subject. The issue has regrettably popped up onto the national radar screen after Jovan Belcher, a nobody NFL player, shot and killed his girlfriend and then did the criminal courts system a favor by killing himself. (In the USA, there are about 221 homicides EACH WEEK in which a gun is used.* But the rest of those people weren’t major or minor celebrities, so they must not count.) Those who would outlaw gun ownership are undaunted and patient. They know that another celebrity shooting, school shooting or mass murder will eventually occur in the United States, and that the event will propel this issue back onto the front pages and lead stories in the news media. So, let us examine the issue of gun control in light of history and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

For today, we will suspend the debate about whether the Constitution has any validity. Let’s just all stipulate that for this argument, it does.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:

“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”.

Any State with a well-regulated Militia would be capable of defending itself from Federal tyranny or foreign invasion. Over the past two hundred years, the individual States have forgotten that their security as a free State relies upon a well regulated Militia. The first two phrases in the Amendment shed light on today’s power structure in the United States. The Federal government now has standing armies, navies and an air force that far outnumbers any state militia. So, state sovereignty has been destroyed. Now states are more like counties…no sovereignty, only slave territories of a cancer-ridden, predatory Federal system. So the very opposite of the Second Amendment has become true, stated thus: “A Well-Regulated Militia, being unnecessary to the security of a Serf State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall indeed be infringed.”

Let’s consider the definition of the word “arms”.

The Second Amendment does not define the word “arms” but leaves it open to definition and expansion in the future. “Arms” were not only firearms, but any weapon that could be used to defend one’s life or property. Why then do the anti-gun advocates only single out firearms as the focus of their desire to disarm Americans? Why not archery equipment, swords, knives, or sharpened sticks?

Next, let’s look at the word “infringe”. The Webster’s Dictionary defines “infringe” in two ways pertinent to this discussion; from the Latin “infrangere”:(1) “to break; to violate or go beyond the limits of: (2) to encroach upon.” In order to further explain the Second Amendment, the definition of the word “right” must also be considered, and is: “something due to one by law, custom or nature.” The “right” is the thing not to be infringed by government. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson writes of mankind being “endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights.” The definitions above speak directly to rights endowed to humans by natural law, and to the nature of man as a created being subject to God’s authority. These rights were among those enumerated as “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Therefore, the Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms is one that is endowed by our Creator under natural law and shall not be broken, violated or encroached upon by the Federal government. It validates the concept of personal property ownership, in this case one’s own person, and the principle of self-defense.

Read What Are Unalienable Rights? to grasp the concept of Natural Law and Unalienable Rights.

Many gun control advocates support, and have been successful in the criminalization of the ownership of certain automatic and semi-automatic weapons, the so-called “assault weapons”. They now seek to restrict the ownership of nearly all firearms by private citizens. Yet the issue of advancing technology was not an issue that the framers of the Constitution even considered worthy of mention. These were learned men, and were well aware of the technological improvements that were made in weaponry just in their lifetimes. They knew world history and knew that guns and gunpowder were relative newcomers to the art of war.

But please consider: at the time of the Revolutionary War, did not the Continental armies possess the same technology of armaments as the Redcoats? Yes.

Hadn’t the Colonial citizens owned and used firearms since the early 1600s? Yes!

Did the English soldiers have cartridges for their rifles while the Colonials had only musket and ball? No. Musket, ball and cannon were the leading technologies of the day.

Did only the King have the ability to build ships, forge cannon and cannonball? No. John Paul Jones was a privateer, which is basically a government-sponsored pirate, preying on English ships. His first wartime command was aboard the ship Providence, owned by New England businessman John Brown. The Providence bristled with cannons.

Both of the combatants in the Revolutionary War had the same technology in armaments. The Continental armies consisted of fighting citizens, taking up their rifles and pistols, forging cannon and going to war against superior numbers in the British army and navy, but not against superior weapons.

Therefore, when it came time for the framers of the Constitution to consider the Amendments, they did not even mention the possibility that the private citizen should be prevented from owning the same weapons as the military. Ladies and Gentlemen, the militias of the Colonies WERE the military!! Could it be that they considered the threat of government tyranny greater than that of citizens owning the latest, most advanced weapons? If the Continentals had the same technology in armaments as the British military, how is it that today’s politician has concluded that (a) semi-auto firearms are not necessary for a citizen to own, (b) full-auto firearms have mostly been outlawed, and that (c) firearms should be OK as long as they are used for hunting or sporting purposes? Where in HELL did this hunting and sporting idea come from?

One of the beauties of the Constitution is its simplicity. The Second Amendment is written with no ambiguity in clear, simple words. Words have meaning. For decades now, those who would subjugate our citizens with Federal and State tyranny have fought to redefine the words of the Second Amendment. They have been successful in passing unconstitutional laws that do in fact infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. The framers understood that with freedom comes responsibility, and that the ideas and acts of men have consequences. Yet they entrusted to future generations this simple Amendment. They possessed the foreknowledge that this newly-formed government would have the same potential as governments throughout history to decline toward tyranny and totalitarianism.

Finally, you might want to take a look at Ammo: Isn’t It Obvious? which is likely the next logical step for Washington to take to disarm America.

Liberty lovers, tyranny is usually not completed in one grand sweep. There is no single foreign enemy that is going to invade America and enslave its people. It is much more effective when the tyrants enslave people a tiny bit at a time. Tyrants are patient, and the people are usually too busy living their lives to care. It’s death by a thousand little cuts. And you still end up dead.

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms is yet another great reason that secession is the ONLY solution for individual liberty and property rights in North America.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

*CDC stats 2009

© Copyright 2012, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


Voting in FRONA

November 6, 2012

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ADVERTISEMENT: Unhappy with your present cell phone provider? Monthly bills out of control? Discover Unlimited Voice, Unlimited Text and Unlimited Data on a Nationwide 4G Network. No Contract! Only $49 a month! Go to: Solavei.com to sign up TODAY!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

By Russell D. Longcore

It’s late in the day on Tuesday November 6th…the day America does its lemming imitation and marches dutifully to the polls.

For those not familiar with the misconceptions about the lemming: they are arctic rodents that migrate in large groups. Lemmings can swim and sometimes choose a body of water to cross to reach a new habitat. So, the old story used to go that lemmings would make a mad dash following one another, run headlong into the sea and drown.

See how my mind works? Scary, isn’t it? Only fools would rush in where angels fear to tread.

My analogy, although based in a misconception about a rodent, is not incorrect as it relates to the American voter. I have written about this topic HERE.

Today, Americans will vote for one of two candidates that have been approved by the oligarchy that runs America. One candidate may hasten the demise of the US through his actions. One may stall that same demise for a short time. But make no mistake. There is NOTHING that Barack Hussein Obama or Willard Romney can do to prevent the collapse of the US Dollar, which will result in the collapse of the US economy and the world economy.

At that point, liberty lovers will congregate in some location and secede from the Union. If they structure it right, it has a chance of surviving. If it is structured like I have structured the The Free Republic Of North America, it will thrive.

What would voting be like in FRONA?

Voting in The Free Republic Of North America…or FRONA… will be entirely different that the miasma that is emanating today from Washington.

The only individuals in FRONA that are eligible to vote are citizens. Nobody that is simply born on FRONA soil automatically becomes a citizen. And in FRONA, a person over age 18 becomes a citizen by executing a copy of the FRONA Charter and paying one ounce of .999 silver for one share of common stock in the national “corporation.”

FRONA citizens have a contract with their national governmental body. That citizen may remain a citizen until his death, or until he cancels his contract and sells his one share of stock back to the corporation for the one ounce of silver he originally paid. That doesn’t mean the citizen has to leave FRONA, but a cancelled contract makes him a resident alien.

The citizen has one vote. He (or she) can vote on any issue that comes before the Board of Directors. He may vote on the election of the Board of Directors. Any citizen may run for a position as a member of the Board of Directors. The electorate votes on various Vice Presidents.

The Board of Directors chooses a President and Chief Executive Officer from its own membership. There is no term limit imposed upon a President or CEO. The Board cannot go outside its membership to hire a new President or CEO like is done in a traditional corporation.

Voting in FRONA goes on all year long. There are lots of issues that must be decided in FRONA, and everyone has a vote. Citizens may sign proxy letters to allow a representative to cast their ballots for them. But they still have a responsibility to vote. The Charter has a codicil that revokes citizenship for those who do not vote in a certain number of plebiscites in a year.

In FRONA, every issue that requires a vote will require a quorum of voters. The Charter would state the percentage of votes that must be cast for a vote to be legitimate and the outcome acceptable. For example, if there are 1 million citizen members, and the Charter requires a 51% quorum, no less than 510,000 votes would have to be cast for the outcome to be considered legitimate.

Issues in FRONA that require a vote will have a time certain for voting. For instance, when the Board makes a recommendation and schedules a vote, the voting will take place over a certain number of days. This will allow for maximum participation in the voting process by citizens.

FRONA will have an Annual Meeting. The most logical way to conduct this meeting is by a CSPAN sort of broadcast with Internet access. The technology exists to create security procedures that guarantee that a person’s vote cannot be hacked, stolen or fraudulently cast. Even paper ballots would work. Every elected position is subject to challenge at the Annual Meeting. So no more 2-year, 4-year or 6-year terms. Either you produce and perform as an elected official or you are out.

That is all the time I’m willing to commit to this topic today. But just from this, can’t you see that living in FRONA would be an improvement over life in the USA?

Think. Use your brain. Do not let anyone tell you how to think. Question ALL authority. Free Your Mind.

Secession is the only hope for humanity. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Will Change History.

© Copyright 2012, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


Life in FRONA

October 7, 2012

By Russell D. Longcore

In many articles that I have written about secession, I have referred to a state that secedes and becomes a new nation. Many times I’ve called it New Texas for want of a better name. But from this moment forward, when I talk about the perfect example of secession, the new nation will have a new name…The Free Republic of North America. Its acronym will be FRONA.

I imagine that you readers, clever as you are, could come up with a better name. And if you do, I may change the name. After all, this is only a cherished dream at this point.

I chose “Free Republic” to mean that…FIRST…we will be free. That comes before anything else. It is our first principle above all else. The government of FRONA will be organized to protect the individual liberty and property rights of every individual.

The “Republic” form of government in FRONA is not the old republic you know. It is a new form of governance. It is modeled after a corporation. The republic in the USA may have started out well-designed in the Constitution, but was bastardized over time to become unworkable and corrupt. The American republic is now dead. The New Corporate Model of Governance is vastly different than the US Constitution in one major way. Every person who becomes a citizen in FRONA has to sign a contract and pay a fee in pure silver. Every citizen is a shareholder in the national government.

The US Constitution has no legal authority over any individual since it is neither a contract nor a treaty. Further, a legal obligation cannot be passed down from generation to generation without the consent of the recipient. A FRONA citizen has a legal contract with his national government that lasts until he forsakes it or until his death. Yes…a FRONA citizen can give up his citizenship simply by cancelling his citizenship contract.

The “NA” part simply shows the location of the nation on the globe.

Just in case you don’t click on the link above to learn about the Corporate Model, here are some highlights of The Free Republic of North America.

FRONA Money

The money of The Free Republic of North America is the Frona. There will be the gold Frona, the silver Frona and the copper Frona.

The first thing that you must do is to stop thinking of gold and silver coins in terms of their value against other currencies, such as the Dollar. Coinage is a function of weight, not price. The national law regarding money would require any minted coin to display its purity and weight, but no value. And the law would proscribe the penalty of death for anyone minting fraudulent coins or altering coins (clipping or shaving).

In FRONA, goods and services will be priced in WEIGHT, not dollars. A pound of steak might be priced at 0.25 ounce of silver. A gallon of gasoline might be priced at 0.10 ounce.

There will be no national money and no national currency. This prevents FRONA from debasing the money and stealing from the citizens. The free market will decide what the medium of exchange is. Common sense suggests that gold, silver and copper coins will become money, and likely silver and copper coinage will be the most widely accepted medium of exchange for day-to-day transactions. (Actually, in the technological age in which we live, the digital transaction will likely be the most utilized medium of exchange.) The FRONA constitution will prohibit itself from declaring legal tender laws. If the FRONA Treasury wants to issue gold and silver coins it may do so, but enjoys no monopoly or control. It would have to compete in the free market like all other minting operations.

FRONA Banking

The FRONA constitution will prohibit fractional reserve banking, and will require all banks to maintain 100% reserves. This prohibits banks from creating money out of thin air like the present global system does. Anything less than 100% reserves is fraud, and will be prosecuted as a felony.

The Central Bank will not exist in FRONA and will be prohibited by law. But in a practical sense, having a central bank only benefits a nation with its own currency. So why bother?

FRONA Contracts and Law

FRONA’s government will hold contract law sacred. The very constitution of FRONA is a contract. The FRONA government will start out with a clean slate as related to criminal and civil law and will not have libraries full of onerous regulations and silly-assed criminal law like drug laws. This gives FRONA an enormous competitive advantage as it begins its existence.

Strict privacy laws will be enacted to protect the privacy of individuals. There will be no tax treaties with other nations of the globe…certainly not with the US.

FRONA Taxation

FRONA has only one source of revenue…a national sales tax of 10%. No property tax, excise tax, duties, tariffs, ad valorem tax, estate tax, corporate tax, income tax…NOTHING but the sales tax. From that revenue FRONA operates its very limited governmental duties. And, because the FRONA citizens own a share in their government, each citizen could receive a dividend check if FRONA has a surplus at the end of the year. Try to wrap your mind around THAT.

“But what about roads, education, law enforcement, courts and stuff?,” I hear you say. First, why do you think government should be involved in any of that? Cannot the free market satisfy those needs better? There are a lot of government programs that would evaporate if they were forced to find a market who would pay for them. Goods and services that have no market willing to pay for them cease to exist. And, if you are not getting taxed like in the USA, you might have enough money to pay your own way.

The FRONA Military

Every person between age 18 and age 55 becomes a member of the FRONA militia. It’s in their citizenship contract. The militia is a defensive force managed by the FRONA national government and organized at a county level. Every militia member is trained and qualifies as a rifleman, and every member keeps a battle rifle in their residence…a full auto battle rifle with no less than 1000 rounds of ammo. Those militia members who are not physically capable to be a warrior can perform necessary administrative functions. But we all serve our nation in the Swiss militia model.

My friends, do not think me a utopian or one who looks at his world through rose-colored glasses. Every government in world history has eventually oppressed its citizens. Nearly all of them have debauched their currencies. FRONA will have the potential to morph into tyranny over time. But with some of the organizational protections built into the founding documents, FRONA stands an excellent chance to be the best method of governance ever designed by a human mind.

Gentle Readers, in the days to come we will explore the other requirements of a new government in The Free Republic of North America. This will force each of us to stop thinking about a government of fifty states, and begin to embrace concepts worthy of a NATION dedicated to individual liberty and property rights. This is an alien concept to most Americans, since we have all grown up and lived under continuously encroaching tyranny belching out of the DC sewer pipe.

Liberty, however, is like the morning dew…new every day.

Secession is the only hope for mankind to enjoy individual liberty and property rights in North America.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

Copyright 2012 Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly given, provided full credit is given.


Slavery vs. Citizenship: What’s The Difference?

September 10, 2012

What Does It Mean to Be A Slave?

By Eric Peters

Debating the merits of a particular government policy or proposal with authoritarian-minded political opponents is pointless – if you’re hoping to persuade, at any rate. Far better to ask them a few apparently simple questions – and force them to confront the disquieting answers about the authoritarian nature of the political and social system they support.

For instance, you might ask what their view of slavery is. Is it morally wrong to own another human being? Probably, they will say it is wrong. Now ask: What does it mean to be a slave? Usually, they will tell you it means being the property of another. Now ask the killer follow-up: What does it mean to be the property of another?

Point out that it means having control over another person’s life – control of his actual person, his body. His mind, even.

To be in a position – to be entitled – to use violence to enforce compliance.

A slave is not at liberty to act as he wishes to act. He must do as he is told – and if he does not, he can expect physical punishment and that punishment will not be considered assault. The slave must accept his punishment.

There is no appeal, no recourse. He must bow low and submit – or risk the repercussions, which ultimately include death.

His only hope is escape.

The slave, most obviously, owns nothing – because he controls nothing. He may be allowed to use things. But the owner of these things – himself included – is someone else. Someone else gets to say yes – or no. When – and where. How – and how much. The slave has no real say – in that he is never in a position to say no. Not without consequences raining down upon him.

He merely obeys. Because he must obey.

The fact that his hands may hold the scythe does not mean the scythe is his. The fact that the effort of his body cuts the wheat does not mean the wheat is his. He is permitted to keep a portion. In principle, because in fact, the slave owns nothing that may not be taken away from him. At any time, for any reason. And he is powerless to do anything about it.

The slave’s dwelling, the clothes he wears – even his very body – are subject to arbitrary control against his will by another person or persons. This is the essence of what it means to be a slave.

Be sure your opponent accepts these points – which he must accept, because to not accept them is not unlike refusing to accept that 2 + 2 = four.

Now ask him whether he (or anyone else he knows) is free to determine the course of his own life. Or do others set down terms and conditions which he must obey?

Is he free to do business with whomever he chooses to do business? Or is he told exactly with whom he must do business – and under what conditions?

May he travel freely? Or is he required to travel with permission – and only under certain conditions? Must he carry ownership papers with him wherever he goes? And is it not true that if he is caught without these papers, he is subject to arrest and imprisonment for that reason alone?

Is he free to raise his children as he considers best? To teach them as he sees fit? Or must he teach them things others decree he must teach them?

Is he even free to choose whom to marry? Or must he submit to the authority of others in even this most personal of life’s choices?

Is he free to defend himself when accosted by strangers? Or must he submit to these strangers, if they wear a certain type of outfit? (Did not the overseer also wear a certain type of outfit?)

May he own things?

More precisely, is he permitted other than conditional use of things? For instance, that which he may think of as “his” home. If it is in fact “his,” then surely that means no one else has legal claim to it and cannot take it away from him once he has paid the original seller in full. Ask him about the large payments he must make to others every year, forever, in order to be allowed to remain on “his” property. Remind him that plantation slaves also had homes – in the sense that they were allowed conditional use of dwellings. Dwellings ultimately owned by someone else. The slaves were permitted to use these dwellings so long as their labor provided enough return to the true owners of the dwelling. A slave who refused to work – who declined to make payments in the form of his labor then (and tax payments now) would soon discover who the true owner of “his” dwelling really was.

Just as today.

Ask whether he is compelled to give up whatever portion of the fruits of his labors others decide they are entitled to – and how this differs from the slave in the field being forced to pick cotton for the benefit of others . . . .

Ask him what he thinks will happen if he declines to hand over the fruits of his labor… .

Ask whether he is at liberty to do as he wills even with his own poor body. May he freely choose to treat his body’s ailments as he sees fit? Or will he be chained and jailed if he treats himself in other than the “lawful” manner?Ask whether he knows that he may be forcibly taken from his home if he declines to be “treated” in the manner prescribed by others.

Who, then, owns his body? His very person? If I have the power to compel you to do – or not do – then is it not a fact that to some degree at least, I am your owner?And in that case, are you not a slave?

The control need not be vicious or even mean. The owner of a beloved dog is no less the owner of the animal by dint of the fact that he treats it kindly and tends to its needs. The dog is not at liberty to come and go as it pleases. It is allowed to use certain items – an old sofa, for example – and not other things. It does not own anything.

It is owned.

Neither did the plantation slave own anything. And many had benevolent masters – for example, Thomas Jefferson – who tried to treat them with kindness, as they saw it. Who saw themselves as parents of subnormal adult children in need of guidance – and restraint. This benevolent treatment, however, in no way made the slaves other than slaves.

Behind the gentle guiding hand, always the whip.

As it is today – with the exception that today’s slaves are unaware of their condition and imagine themselves to be free. Its subtlety is its genius. Instead of individual plantations, there is one consolidated plantation called “our country.” But we are owned nonetheless.

It is immaterial that we are not normally chained… if the chains may be put on at the first hint of disobedience.

That we are allowed use of more (and nicer) things than the slaves of the past does not in any way change the fact that they are just as owned (because just as controlled) by someone else – and may be taken away at any moment, if the true owners so choose.

Our cotton fields are the cubicles of the modern office; our overseers called by different names. But their job is what it has always been: To make sure we toil, submit and obey. And if we do not…

Well, we all know the answer to that one.

Copyright © 2012 Eric Peters Autos


Why Do We Obey?

August 13, 2012

by Eric Peters
EricPetersAutos.com

Editor’s Note: The same level of mind-numbed obedience found in most people today can be used to the benefit of secessionists. Once the American economy goes in the tank, and people get hungry, the people will be much easier to lead. Cynical? Sure. But pragmatic too.

If some random guy ordered you to submit to his will – or else – most of us would at least consider it assault. Many of us would try to escape – or defend ourselves. Very few would quietly submit. And almost no one would submit willingly.

But when exactly the same thing is done to us by a person wearing a uniform, most of us not only submit and obey – we do so without even questioning the rightness of the thing.

The uniform – and other totems of officialized authority – confer legitimacy upon the illegitimate. It is a startling thing. It reveals that most people are incapable of grasping the concept of a moral principle – that something which is wrong when committed by an unsanctioned individual is just as wrong when committed by a sanctioned individual – or a group of them.

If it is wrong to kill, then it is always wrong to kill. If it is wrong to steal, then it is always wrong to steal. Neither killing no theft nor any other intrinsically wrong act becomes not-wrong because it’s sanctioned, approved or euphemized by the state, or by a politician, or by a bureaucracy. Stalin reportedly once said that a single death is a tragedy, but a million deaths a statistic. Nothing could be further from the truth. A million single deaths is an atrocity – as much as a single individual death is a tragedy. And you are no less the victim of theft if the theft is done by a collective or its purported agent – under color of law, or via the ballot box.

Theft is theft. The essential nature of the thing is not altered by how it is done – or by whom.

There may be shades of grey in many aspects of life – but not when it comes to questions of basic morality. Your life is yours – and it follows that you are entitled by right to be at liberty. Else your life is not yours, but rather the chattel property of someone else – to whatever extent that other person (or persons) exercises control over your life, and against your will.

Similarly, it follows that if you own your life, then you also own the fruits of the labor of your body and mind, of that which is you. To say that random others – what collectivist psychopaths refer to as “society” – have a moral claim to the fruits of your labor is merely another way of saying you are owned, wholly or in part, to the extent you are forced by threat of violence to hand over the fruits of your body and of your mind. You are either free – or you are slightly more (or less) enslaved.

There is no in-between. It is impossible – a contradiction in terms.

A free man is beholden to none – except those he freely chooses to be beholden to. An enslaved man has no such free choice. He is beholden to whomever “society” – that is, to whomever wields political power over him – decrees. At best, he may plead to be slightly less enslaved, or to have the fruits of the labor of his body and mind forcibly distributed against his will to random strangers or groups of them, or projects or causes, he finds somewhat less disagreeable. But he cannot refuse; he is not permitted to say no. He is bound by a “social contract” he never signed, by consent he never gave. By debts and obligations assumed on his behalf by people he has never met, much less entrusted with proxy power.

In a word, he is a slave. The question is merely of the degree to which he is enslaved – and to what extent he is aware of his condition.

The system we have – that we suffer daily – cannot permit people to think along such lines, of course – because it would be its undoing.

Instead, people are conditioned – from infancy and not just by the state, but by everything all around them – to accept that the immoral can be transmuted into the moral via the miracle of group assent, or the fiction thereof. That murder and theft are not merely permissible but acceptable when they are performed by people wearing special outfits, who have been anointed in some way by a group.

In this way, the outrageous becomes all right. Most men worthy of the title would tell another man to go pound sand if he told them to “buckle up for safety.” And they’d punch him in the nose if he pursued the issue. But when the order-barker is wearing a uniform, most men’s testicles seem to shrivel – and they submit and obey. They quail before The Law. They do as they are told. But that is understandable. When one is facing an armed opponent – one armed with an army – it is foolish bravado to do other than submit and obey.

What is troubling is their acceptance of servility – of the implicit rightness (alleged) of what is done to them. And – much worse – of what they often do to one another. Rather than see the thing clearly, for what it is – and rebel in mind and spirit at least – the representative specimen will not only agree that it is all right – he will often insist the same (and worse) things be done to his fellow man. He is told what to do, therefore he will tell others what to do. His life is not his own, therefore, he will make damn sure no one else’s life is their own, either. He is forced to hand over his property, the fruit of the labor of his body and mind? Damn straight others will, too.

The great tragedy of our time is not that human liberty is dying. It is that so many of us are willing accomplices in its murder. All too many fail to chafe at what is being to others because they fail to grasp that it is thereby done to them as well. Or will be, in time. That it is our mutual interest as human beings to defend human liberty, everywhere and always.

Freedom is in fact free. It is collectivism – authoritarianism – whose costs are incalculable.

Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities and Road Hogs (2011). Visit his website.

Copyright © 2012 Eric Peters


We Are Not Powerless: Resisting Financial Feudalism

May 3, 2012

By Charles Hugh Smith
www.OfTwoMinds.com

It’s comforting to think “I can’t do anything to resist the Central State and its financial Plutocracy,” but it’s not true. There are many of acts of resistance you can pursue in your daily life; here are 12 perfectly legal ones.

That we are powerless is one of the key social control myths constantly promoted by the Status Quo. What better way to keep the serfs passive than to reinforce a belief in their powerlessness against the expansive Central State and its financial feudalism?

But we are not powerless. Our complicity gives the aristocracy its power. Remove our complicity and the aristocracy falls.

The pathway of dissent is to resist financial feudalism and its enforcer, the expansive Central State. Here are twelve paths of resistance any adult can legally pursue in the course of their daily lives:

1. Support the decentralized, non-market economy. The core ideology of consumerism and financialization is that non-market assets and experiences have no status or financial value. This includes social capital, meals with friends, projects done cooperatively with friends, home gardens and thousands of other decentralized activities that cannot be financialized into centralized market transactions. Identity and social status are established in the non-market economy by collaboration, sharing, conviviality and generosity. Decentralized generally means localized; farmers markets are examples of local market economies where the transactions are in cash (so banks can’t skim transactions fees) and the money stays in the local economy rather than flowing to some distant concentration of capital.

If you start valuing non-market assets and experiences as the most important markers of high status, you are resisting both financialization and consumerism.

Top-down centralized “solutions” imposed by the Central State are the problem, not the solution, as they further the concentration of wealth and power into unstable monocultures. Stop looking to overly complex “reforms” and centralized solutions to unsustainable systems and start exploring decentralized, localized solutions that bypass both the Central State and its financial aristocracy.

2. Stop participating in financialization. Financialization is the insidious imperative of the financial aristocracy that seeks to turn every interaction into a financial transaction that can be charged a fee and all assets into financialized instruments that can be sold for immensely profitable transaction fees.

As the finances of local governments implode under the weight of their protected fiefdoms, many are heeding the siren song of financialization as a temporary (and inevitably disastrous) “fix” to their structural insolvency. For example, the revenue stream from parking meters is financialized into an asset that is sold to a private corporation. When parking fees double, the residents of the city have no recourse via democracy or petition, as the meters in their city are now “owned” by a distant concentration of capital that can double late fees, charge outrageous transaction costs, etc., at will.

This is how financialization inevitably transitions into financial tyranny.

The erosion of America’s middle class financial security has several structural causes, but chief among them was the financialization of the housing market. This led to a bubble of credit and housing valuations and the widespread extraction of equity for consumption—the classic “windfall” that financialization always produces in its first toxic blush. Mortgage debt doubled from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the bubble, and now America’s indentured homeowners “own” negative equity of $4 trillion. That is, the difference between the market value of the homes they ostensibly “own” and the mortgages they took on to buy the homes is negative $4 trillion.

3. Redefine self-interest to exclude debt-servitude and dependence on consumerism and the Central State. Unless you are long retired and have no other option, minimize reliance on the State. Reliance on the State weakens the correlation between sustained effort and gain, so the work ethic and entrepreneurism both atrophy as they no longer offer competitive advantages in a system where bread and circuses are guaranteed by the State.

4. Act on your awareness that the nature of prosperity and financial security is changing. Dependence on centralized concentrations of power (Wall Street and the Central State) is now an extremely risky wager that what is demonstrably unsustainable will magically become sustainable at some distant point in time via pixie dust or the intervention of aliens from Alpha Centuri. Security flows from resilience, self-reliance, decentralized, diversified sources of income and abundant social capital.

5. Stop supporting distant concentrations of capital that subvert democracy by using their gargantuan profits to buy the machinery of State governance and regulation. For example, stop watching broadcast programming owned by the six global media corporations that control the vast majority of the media/marketing complex.

Stop eroding your health and sending your money to corporate headquarters for distribution to the financial aristocracy—stop frequenting corporate fast-food restaurants and stop buying unhealthy packaged foods from corporate agribusiness.

Close your accounts with Wall Street investment firms and the five “too big to fail” banks that dominate the mortgage, credit and debt markets in the U.S. If you need such an account to transact your business, then maintain low balances so the banks cannot “sweep” your capital for their own use every day.

6. Stop supporting the debt-and-leverage based financial aristocracy. Liquidate all debt as soon as possible, take on no new debt except for short periods of time, explore localized or “crowd-sourced” private-capital loans that exclude the banks and limit the number of financial transactions that enrich the banks and Wall Street.

7. Transfer your assets out of Wall Street and into local enterprises or assets that do not enrich and empower Wall Street.

8. Refuse to participate in consumerist status identifiers and the social defeat they create. Stop admiring and respecting those displaying status signifiers; start thinking of them as pathetic prisoners of a pathological mindset. Stop judging people as “lower value” based on their lack of status signifiers. Free your own mind from the toxic sociopathology of consumerism and social defeat. Stop watching commercial television and minimize your exposure to marketing and consumerist propaganda.

9. Vote in every election with an eye on rewarding honesty and truth and punishing empty promises. Unless the incumbent has renounced corporate contributions, unsustainable debt, financial tyranny and Central State encroachment of civil liberties, then vote against the incumbent, for they are just another lackey of the State-plutocracy partnership. Avoid voting for either the Demopublican or Republicrat branches of the plutocracy; vote for an independent or third party candidate.

Remember that resistance isn’t just about refusing to participate in pathological plutocracy; it’s about establishing a sustainable alternative to the unsustainable State-plutocracy partnership. When people say that voting for a third-party candidate is “wasting your vote,” reply that voting for either of the plutocrat parties is the real waste of a vote because their “leadership” is dooming the nation to destabilization and insolvency. As independents pick up more and more “wasted” votes, they shift from being “marginalized” to becoming powerful voices of honesty and transparency.

10. Stop supporting inflationary policies such as “money creation” by the Federal Reserve and Federal deficit borrowing. Act on your knowledge that inflation is theft and that the Federal Reserve is a private consortium of banks that is the enabler and protector of the parasitic financial aristocracy.

11. Become healthy, active and fit. Refuse to consume unhealthy junk and packaged food, refuse to squander much of your time in sedentary “consumption” of corporate entertainment and digital distraction, and devote your energy and time to mastery, new skills, developing social capital and friendships, projects you “own” and enterprises that benefit your true self-interest. Refuse to follow the marketing/media siren song into chronic ill-health, addiction and social defeat.

12. Embrace self-directed coherent plans and construct a resilient, diverse ecology of identity and meaning. Build a social ecology of positive, active, collaborative, non-pathological people of like minds and spirits. Be powerful via resistance, not powerless via complicity.

It’s easy to confuse faith and political ideology. We resist changing our understanding, as we experience this transition as instability and insecurity. But changing our minds does not require changing our faith; rather, the firmness of our faith—in our Creator, in truth, in prayer, in our ability to help others and prevail—is the bedrock that gives us the discipline and resolve to confront the brutal and unwelcome facts of our circumstances and make coherent plans accordingly.

This was drawn from my new book Resistance, Revolution, Liberation: A Model for Positive Change (print $25) (Kindle eBook $9.95)

copyright © 2012 Charles Hugh Smith, All rights reserved.


The Shot Heard Round The World

April 23, 2012

By Chuck Baldwin

(Editor’s Note: This is a great article about the role of religion in the early days of the colonies. A good companion article is Who Should Be The State’s Mortal Enemy?)

April 19, 1775, should be regarded as important a date to Americans
as July 4, 1776. It’s a shame that we don’t celebrate it as
enthusiastically as we do Independence Day. It’s even more shameful
that many Americans don’t even remember what happened on this day
back in 1775. For the record, historians call this day, “Patriot’s
Day.” More specifically, it was the day that the shot was fired that
was heard ’round the world. It was the day America’s War for
Independence began.

Being warned of approaching British troops by Dr. Joseph Warren,
Pastor Jonas Clark and his male congregants of the Church of Lexington (numbering 60-70) were the ones that stood with their muskets in front of the Crown’s troops (numbering over 800), who were on orders to seize a cache of arms which were stored at Concord and to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock (who were known to be in the area, and who had actually taken refuge in Pastor Clark’s home).

According to eyewitnesses, the king’s troops opened fire on the
militiamen almost without warning, immediately killing eight of Pastor Clark’s parishioners. In self defense, the Minutemen returned fire.

These were the first shots of the Revolutionary War. This took place
on Lexington Green, which was located directly beside the church-house where those men worshipped each Sunday. Adams and Hancock were not taken. They owed their lives to Pastor Clark and his brave Minutemen–albeit eight of those men gave their lives protecting Adams and Hancock.

According to Pastor Clark, these are the names of the eight men who
died on Lexington Green: Robert Munroe, Jonas Parker, Samuel Hadley,
Jonathan Harrington, Jr., Isaac Muzzy, Caleb Harrington, and John
Brown, all of Lexington, and one Mr. Porter of Woburn.

By the time the British troops arrived at the Concord Bridge,
hundreds of colonists had amassed a defense of the bridge. A horrific
battle took place, and the British troops were routed and soon
retreated back to Boston. America’s War for Independence had begun!

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, these two elements of American history are
lost to the vast majority of historians today: 1) it was attempted gun confiscation by the British troops that ignited America’s War for
Independence, and 2) it was a pastor and his flock that mostly
comprised the “Minutemen” who fired the shots that started our
great Revolution.

With that thought in mind, I want to devote today’s column to
honoring the brave preachers of Colonial America–these “children of
the Pilgrims,” as one Colonial pastor’s descendent put it.

It really wasn’t that long ago. However, with the way America’s
clergymen act today, one would think that preachers such as James
Caldwell, John Peter Muhlenberg, Joab Houghton, and Jonas Clark never existed. But they did exist; and without them, this country we call the United States of America that would not exist.

Caldwell was a Presbyterian; Muhlenberg was a Lutheran; Houghton was a Baptist; and no one really seems to know what denomination (if any) Jonas Clark claimed, although one historian referred to Clark as a Trinitarian and a Calvinist. But these men had one thing in common (besides their faith in Jesus Christ): they were all ardent patriots who participated in America’s War for Independence, and in the case of Jonas Clark, actually ignited it.

James Caldwell

James Caldwell was called “The Rebel High Priest” or “The
Fighting Chaplain.” Caldwell is most famous for the “Give ’em
Watts!” story.

During the Springfield (New Jersey) engagement, the colonial militia
ran out of wadding for their muskets. Quickly, Caldwell galloped to
the Presbyterian church, and returning with an armload of hymnals,
threw them to the ground, and hollered, “Now, boys, give ’em
Watts!” He was referring to the famous hymn writer, Isaac Watts, of
course.

The British hated Caldwell so much, they murdered his wife, Hannah,
in her own home, as she sat with her children on her bed. Later, a
fellow American was bribed by the British to assassinate Pastor
Caldwell–which is exactly what he did. Americans loyal to the Crown
burned both his house and church. No less than three cities and two
public schools in the State of New Jersey bear his name.

John Peter Muhlenberg

John Peter Muhlenberg was pastor of a Lutheran church in Woodstock,
Virginia, when hostilities erupted between Great Britain and the
American colonies. When news of Bunker Hill reached Virginia,
Muhlenberg preached a sermon from Ecclesiastes 3 to his congregation
He reminded his parishioners that there was a time to preach and a
time to fight. He said that, for him, the time to preach was past and
it was time to fight. He then threw off his vestments and stood before his congregants in the uniform of a Virginia colonel.

Muhlenberg later was promoted to brigadier-general in the Continental
Army, and later, major general. He participated in the battles of
Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, and Yorktown. He went on to serve in both the US House of Representatives and US Senate.

Joab Houghton

Joab Houghton was in the Hopewell (New Jersey) Baptist Meeting House
at worship when he received the first information regarding the
battles at Lexington and Concord. His great-grandson gives the
following eloquent description of the way he treated the tidings:

“Mounting the great stone block in front of the meeting-house, he
beckoned the people to stop. Men and women paused to hear, curious to
know what so unusual a sequel to the service of the day could mean. At the first, words a silence, stern as death, fell over all. The Sabbath quiet of the hour and of the place was deepened into a terrible solemnity. He told them all the story of the cowardly murder at Lexington by the royal troops; the heroic vengeance following hard upon it; the retreat of Percy; the gathering of the children of the Pilgrims round the beleaguered hills of Boston; then pausing, and looking over the silent throng, he said slowly, ‘Men of New Jersey, the red coats are murdering our brethren of New England! Who follows me to Boston?’ And every man in that audience stepped out of line, and answered, ‘I!’ There was not a coward or a traitor in old Hopewell Baptist Meeting-House that day.” (Cathcart, William.
Baptists and the American Revolution. Philadelphia: S.A. George, 1876,
rev. 1976)

Jonas Clark

As I said at the beginning of this column, Jonas Clark was pastor of
the Church of Lexington, Massachusetts, on April 19, 1775, the day
that British troops marched on Concord with orders to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock, and to seize a cache of firearms. It was Pastor Clark’s male congregants who were the first ones to face-off against the British troops as they marched through Lexington. When you hear the story of the Minutemen at the Battle of Lexington, remember those Minutemen were Pastor Jonas Clark and the men of his congregation.

On the One Year Anniversary of the Battle of Lexington, Clark
preached a sermon based upon his eyewitness testimony of the event. He called his sermon, “The Fate of Blood-Thirsty Oppressors and God’s
Tender Care of His Distressed People.” His sermon has been
republished by Nordskog Publishing under the title, “The Battle of
Lexington, A Sermon and Eyewitness Narrative, Jonas Clark, Pastor,
Church of Lexington.”

Order the book containing Clark’s sermon at:

http://www.NordskogPublishing.com

Of course, these four brave preachers were not the only ones to
participate in America’s fight for independence. There were
Episcopalian ministers such as Dr. Samuel Provost of New York, Dr.
John Croes of New Jersey, and Robert Smith of South Carolina.
Presbyterian ministers such as Adam Boyd of North Carolina and James
Armstrong of Maryland, along with many others, also took part.

So many Baptist preachers participated in America’s War for
Independence that, at the conclusion of the war, President George
Washington wrote a personal letter to the Baptist people saying, “I
recollect with satisfaction that the religious societies of which you
are a member have been, throughout America, uniformly and almost
unanimously, the firm friends to civil liberty, and the preserving
promoters of our glorious Revolution.” It also explains how Thomas
Jefferson could write to a Baptist congregation and say, “We have
acted together from the origin to the end of a memorable
Revolution.” (McDaniel, George White. The People Called Baptists.
The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1918)

And although not every pastor was able to actively participate in our
fight for independence, so many pastors throughout colonial America
preached the principles of liberty and independence from their pulpits that the Crown created a moniker for them: The Black Regiment
(referring to the long, black robes that so many colonial clergymen
wore in the pulpit). Without question, the courageous preaching and
example of colonial America’s patriot-pastors provided the colonists
with the inspiration and resolve to resist the tyranny of the Crown
and win America’s freedom and independence.

I invite readers to visit my Black Regiment web page to learn more
about my attempt to resurrect America’s Black-Robed Regiment. Go to:

Black Regiment

This is the fighting heritage of America’s pastors and preachers.
So, what has happened? What has happened to that fighting spirit that
once existed, almost universally, throughout America’s Christian
denominations? How have preachers become so timid, so shy, and so
cowardly that they will stand apathetic and mute as America faces the
destruction of its liberties? Where are the preachers to explain,
expound, and extrapolate the principles of liberty from Holy Writ?
Where are the pastors to preach the truth about Romans chapter 13?

I am absolutely convinced that one of the biggest reasons America is
in the sad condition that it is in today is because the sermons
Americans frequently hear from modern pulpits deal mostly with
prosperity theology, entertainment evangelism, feelgoodism,
emotionalism, and Aren’t-I-Wonderful ear tickling! This milquetoast
preaching, along with a totally false “obey-the-government-no-matter-what” interpretation of Romans 13, have made it next to impossible to find Christian men with the courage and resolve to stand against the onslaught of socialism, corporatism, and, yes, fascism that is swallowing America whole.

America cut its spiritual teeth on the powerful preaching and
exemplary examples of men such as James Caldwell, John Peter
Muhlenberg, Joab Houghton, and, yes, Jonas Clark. We need them as much today as we did then–maybe more!

>i>Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren.

Please visit Chuck’s web site at http://chuckbaldwinlive.com


Constitutional Quizzery

March 12, 2012

by Tom Baugh
StarvingTheMonkeys.com

(Edtitor’s Note: Tom shows the path to secession. Attaboy, Tom!!)

Despite a continual degradation of liberty in these united States, the patriot blogosphere continues to be energized with sentiments such as “keep your hands off my Constitution”, “let’s restore the Constitution”, “if you don’t like my Constitution then you should get the hell out”, or “I can’t wait to kill all the people who don’t like my Constitution”. Or variations of this same theme.

While such emotional reactions probably feel good to the reactionary spouting them (who is, by the way, trying to articulate perfectly legitimate concerns about something having gone terribly wrong in this country), they ignore some simple facts about the Constitution itself. Without going into all the details about the facts which support a Hamiltonian power grab (Boston T. Party does a fine job of this all by himself in his Hologram of Liberty”), splitting hairs about “of” or “for”, or devolving into yet another academic Spooner tug-fest, we can let the Constitution speak for itself.

First, however, I would like to slice and dice some of the founding documents so that we can see Constitutional reality. For our purposes here, the founding documents can be divided as follows:

a. The Declaration of Independence (DoI).
b. The seven articles of Constitutional power.
c. The Bill of Rights (BoR).
d. The remainder of the amendments to the Constitution.

Pop Quiz (which should be a breeze for those Constitutional scholars so confident of their patriotism that they would easily exile or execute those with whom they disagree, freedom of speech notwithstanding):

Question 1: Of these four divisions, two are about liberty, one is about centralized government control, and the remainder patches holes discovered in that power over time. Can you name which is which?

Question 2: Of these four divisions, which is the one that most patriot types have in mind when considering ideas such as “oathkeeping” versus “oathbreaking”?

Question 3: For the division given as the answer to the previous question, what enforcement provisions exist to ensure the rights described therein are protected?

Question 4: Other than individual cases which don’t amount to a hill of stacked crap, when throughout the entire history of the nation have those rights been protected in any crisis of any magnitude (hint: Katrina), crises being the only time in which preservation of rights is essential?

OK, I could go on and on, but I run the risk of losing some of those who are starting to get a nagging, uncomfortable feeling. Let’s get rid of the nagging and make sure it is a full-bore deliberate uncomfortable feeling instead, and grade those papers. Get out your red pens, gang.

Answer 1: This first question should be easy. Only the DoI and BoR are about liberty. I think we can all agree that the concepts in those two documents are essential to a free people. In contrast, the seven articles of Constitutional power delineate the power structure established by, and powers granted to, the central government. The other amendments primarily patch holes in that framework when too much actual liberty threatens to squirt out at the seams.

Answer 2: Again, an easy question. Most patriots, especially military veterans, have in mind the BoR when thinking warm fuzzy thoughts about Constitutional oaths. But you can be sure that high office holders are instead only thinking about all that power vested in their offices when they take an oath. Both groups are correct, but only one of them carries the day in any meaningful way, which brings us to…

Answer 3: There is no enforcement language whatsoever for the Bill of Rights. Any prohibition without enforcement is merely a suggestion. Or propaganda, depending on your point of view. And so …

Answer 4: Whenever your rights bump up against the power of the high office holders or their mid- to low-office minions, you lose. Every time. Wherever or whenever you think Americans have been free in the past, it is just because the feds (read as “enforcers for the elites”) hadn’t gotten around to walling that place off yet. The tyranny has always been lying there dormant, waiting to be used, and leaks through the cracks in times of crisis. But now, it’s all crisis, isn’t it?

Now, the usual patriot answer is that “wee the people” have somehow let down “wee the people” by not marching on DC with our NRA-sanctioned sporting arms and straightening out “thee the people” in those high offices. Again, this sounds good, but the fact it has NEVER happened, and NEVER will, is due to one simple provision in all of that power stuff we usually skip over while paging one-handed over to the good stuff in that Bill of Suggested Rights If They Aren’t Too Inconvenient When They Matter Most.

Bonus Question:

Care to guess which one provision totally pulls the rug out from under any patriot movement based on purely Constitutional principles? For additional credit, what other provisions support this view?

(tick tock tick tock)

Don’t feel bad, it took me years to get this one, too…

(tick tock tick tock)

Hint: It’s in Article II…

(tick tock tick tock)

Another hint: Look in Section 2 of that Article.

(tick tock tick tock)

Let’s read it together:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…”

Catch that?

Oh, you know, that little part where it says that if you want to have a militia, that the President owns it? And, by extension, the only valid militia is that of your State, which the President owns, too (check history, the real one, not what you learned in public school, for numerous examples before you argue the feel-good patriot-fantasy to the contrary). So, in effect, my patriot friends, by swearing to the sanctity of the Constitution, you have handed over your one means of enforcing compliance with that Bill of Rights fantasy. See also that militia stuff buried within the Article I, Section 8 laundry list, as well as in Article IV, Section 4.

These provisions of centralized Constitutional power are why there has never been, and will never be, any meaningful resistance to increasing national control and encroachment of every issue of life for each one of us. We are on a one-way path to oblivion, since our best means to resist has been carefully crafted to be meaningless from the start. Sure, form a militia, which, by the way, is the absolutely and ethically correct (albeit unlawful) reaction to our circumstances. But, after doing so, then all of your oathkeeping Constitutionalist buddies, you know, the ones in the officially sanctioned police and military militias, will demand that said local and/or private militia then answer to the President, and by extension to the elites who actually run this country. Said powers, will of course, demand that said militia disband and go home.

Despite Second Amendment propaganda, you have no Constitutional recourse of last resort to oppose with force the laws of the (capital letter) United States, including laws such as NDAA. Which means, of course, that any local militia opposition fantasies are strictly un-Constitutional, by definition.

Checkmate on the first move. Well, actually, before you even get to move.

My friends, despite what you want to believe about this nation, no form of government which criminalizes the right of any person to band together with his neighbors for armed mutual defense, against enemies foreign or domestic, can hold any validity in the mind of a free man.

Forget arguments about anarchist this, or Constitutionalist that, or any other ist you choose, this prohibition is the central nugget. By placing militias under the control of the Chief Executive, and providing for the use of that force to enforce compliance with laws, even, or especially, those laws which blatantly violate the Bill of Rights, we all lose.

Within two years of taking office, the first President showed exactly what central power was all about, by raising an army of 12,000 men to put down tax resisters in the Whiskey Rebellion. Review that little bit of history at your leisure. Note that the same founders who were aghast at a tea tax, and threw that famous Tea Party, didn’t take too kindly to the same behavior being applied to their tax against Appalachian corn tea out in the sticks (Yeah, I know, there’s that whole “no taxation without representation” slogan. But, who do you think gets more representation? You out in the sticks, or the elites with their checkbooks? If you think your vote actually means anything, or lets you make a meaningful or informed decision, you haven’t been paying attention to reality lately).

As you may recall, the private militias which had formed in the hinterland for mutual defense against that first major national tax were labeled as treasonous and enemies of the state. And the rest of the nation just lapped that rationale up. Just as the North lapped up a similar labeling of the breakaway South. And just as contemporary citizens lap up the idea that militia types are somehow dangerous to law and order as more than half of them wait for their government checks. See the pattern?

Your absolutely correct and noble desire to form a local militia to protect yourself against unconstitutional behavior is itself unconstitutional. Embrace that fact. The first step to recovery is to admit that you have a problem, and we, my friends, have a big problem right there in black and white.

This is the document to which the Constitutionalists swear, and then wonder about the results in endless frustration. Lacking a constant brimming threat of imminent militia action, the national government has run amok, and will continue to run increasingly amok, all within Constitutional bounds.

As it was designed to do from the start for reasons you’ll discover once you open your eyes to see reality for what it really is.

Sadly, we are taught, and many of our Constitutionalist brethren believe, that the only alternative is anarchy and chaos. Anarchy and chaos is, of course, the natural end result of the path we are on. And sadly, there is no way back the way we’ve come, for a variety of reasons too numerous to list here. It is going to go all the way down, like it or not. Eventually, the US will run out of blood (regardless of even an inevitable draft someday) and treasure (regardless of how many nations from which we “democratize” valuable natural resources) necessary to pay the bondholders who own this country. Eventually, that little thing known as “the full faith and credit” runs completely dry no matter how many drag themselves up to wearily salute the tattered flag of the banksters’ state.

The question is, what then? What do we put in place to make sure the same juggernaut won’t be revived the next time around?

We’ve learned from this little quarter-millennial experiment that only a system in which universal local militia service is codified can protect you in any meaningful way or preserve civilization in any recognizable form. Only the Constitutional prohibition of the universal local militia renders immune from the consequences of their misbehavior tyrants at all levels, from the greenest cop to the highest office holders, including the generals who will one day come to crush your own private Whiskey Rebellion. It is for this reason that the proponents of the Bill of Rights struggled to check what they saw back then as a Hamiltonian juggernaut aimed at the throats of the individual citizen. A struggle which has now proven to be in vain.

As I said before, no form of government which criminalizes the right to band together with his neighbors for armed mutual defense, against enemies foreign or domestic, can hold any validity in the mind of a free man.

But that freedom comes with a price. And one facet of that price is that the individual citizen would have to participate, to man and woman up, to not delegate their responsibilities to unknown, faceless others. In a world in which even an invalid grandmother can spot targets out her farmhouse window and call for fire, the typical sandal-wearing 911-dialing man-mouse would become an endangered species. And civilization would thus lurch forward for the better as it crunches over the bones of those who gladly trade liberty for insecurity. Including those bones of those nobly misguided patriots who fear the prospect of local or regional warlords (read as “militia leaders”) so much that they eagerly not only accept, but actively promote, the yoke of the greatest warlord class in history in exchange for protection from those lesser shadows.

Does this mean our situation is hopeless? No, our situation is hopeless only so long as self-defined patriots think that restoring the Constitution, as written, is a viable path. As I have said many times, there is nothing broken with the Constitution that needs restoring; it is working fine and dandy, just as it was designed to do, which is to protect the elites from the rabble, foreign and domestic, who might otherwise take exception to unremitting theft and corruption under the color of twisted law.

The only valid path for us now is to stand aside while it all crumbles away. Let those who continue to fantasize about a republic which never was throw themselves into that self-defeating breach. Save them if they are willing to learn, but let them go if they won’t. Eventually, evolution will do what it always does, which is to correct error and reward, in its painful way, reality and truth.

A day will arrive when the last gasping pure Constitutionalist, bewildered to the end while defending his oppressors, has been crushed in the gears of the machine designed to feed the elites. Only then will those elites be stripped of the power to protect themselves from their victims. Stripped how? By local militias who refuse to yield more blood or treasure to their service. Universal service in militias under local control, my friends, is the only way forward. We’ve seen where the road leads without those local militias.

So, plan for that inevitable outcome. Organize your patriot militias, not to vainly restore the perfectly intact Constitution, nor to defend it for the benefits of the elite who have owned this country from inception, but to replace it when this house of cards finally collapses under its weight, preserving yourselves and your neighbors within that storm. Then, on the other side, let’s work together to restore the principles of liberty and put teeth into the rights of man with meaningful consequences enforced by local militias, unfettered by those who rightly fear them.

© 2009-2012 Starve Monkey Press, Inc. All rights reserved.


John F. Kennedy and Energy Independence

March 9, 2012

By Russell D. Longcore

On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy made a speech before a joint session of Congress. In that speech, he challenged America with the goal of sending an American astronaut to the moon before the end of that decade.

That speech took the American “can-do” spirit by storm. Over the next eight years, rocket after rocket blasted off from Cape Canaveral… ironically later named Cape Kennedy…with crews of astronauts on board. American technology soared ever higher with every space flight. Our leaps forward were breath-taking. Remember, Orville and Wilbur Wright flew at Kitty Hawk only 58 years earlier.

Little boys used to dream of going into space. Science fiction TV shows, movies and books all allowed us to walk among the stars.

Now, whether a moon landing actually happened on July 20, 1969 is debatable. But the technological advances that were spawned by the space race are not debatable.

My point is that an American president called the nation to commit to a technological goal that eventually set the USA apart as the world leader in space technology. After a few years, the Space Shuttle program began and completed 135 missions over 20 years. It became so mundane that shuttle launches and landings only got a 20-second mention on the nightly news.

In 2012, America is faced with another technological challenge that remains unmet. That challenge is energy independence.

There are myriad reasons that the USA imports so much oil. And this article is not written to explore all the conspiracies that keep America strung out on Middle East crude. But there is an alternative that even the greenies cannot criticize.

Natural Gas.

The United States is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. We have hundreds of years of proven reserves, and more that lies untapped beneath American soil and sea. Sure, America will always need crude oil. But most crude is refined into fuels that power our vehicles. Electric cars are not practical yet because the storage battery technology has not advanced far enough yet to allow automakers to create 100% electric cars with the range of a petroleum-fed vehicle. Chasing the ethanol butterfly won’t work. Ethanol-based fuels create mechanical problems in modern cars. And forget solar applications… they’re too unreliable. Automakers face the CAFE requirements of overall fuel economy, and meeting those un-meetable standards will be monstrously expensive. And that STILL doesn’t get America off foreign oil.

But ALL internal combustion engines will run perfectly well on compressed natural gas (CNG). In fact, engines run cleaner, last longer and pollute less on CNG. There are tens of thousands of vehicles already operating daily on CNG, like buses, big trucks, and fleet vehicles. And the price of CNG for transportation fuel is only about $1.40 per gallon!!! So, why isn’t there a big push in America for CNG vehicles and CNG fueling stations? Honda already makes a Civic model that uses CNG. And when a diesel engine is converted to CNG, it becomes a hybrid, burning both fuels. There is absolutely no downside to CNG as transportation fuel and the more popular it became, the more the price would drop.

I dream of an American president standing in the well of Congress and announcing that his only goal as president is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. But that is not going to happen. So, wouldn’t it be exciting to have an American president stand in the well of Congress and announce that his only goal as president was to make America energy independent in his term in office? Here is what that president could do:

1. Create the demand among Americans by showing the benefits of CNG fuel and CNG vehicles.
2. Show Americans how much money they would save by operating CNG autos and trucks.
3. Work with Congress to rewrite current laws and regulations regarding fuels and the manufacture of CNG vehicles.
4. Cancel many regulations already on the books that impede our goal.
5. Create tax incentives for gas producers and oil companies to build hundreds of thousands of CNG filling stations. One incentive could be to allow the cost of a CNG filling station to be 100% expensed in the year it is built.
6. Refrain from loading on Federal sales and excise taxes into the price of CNG.

The more we use CNG, the less will would need supertankers to deliver foreign oil. Perhaps it would even be possible to use CNG so efficiently and effectively for transportation that America could supply its crude oil needs from its own production. I don’t know if that is a likely scenario. But common sense tells me that if 98% of our vehicles now use petroleum products, and we changed over to even 75% CNG, vast amounts of crude oil would not have to be imported to America. And if America stopped importing so much crude oil, the world spot price of crude would plummet, since demand determines the supply and the price.

And if we made such a commitment, do you think that it would effect job creation? The jobs created would be in manufacturing and other tech fields, which are the very jobs that have been going offshore for decades.

For those of you that read my work here at DumpDC on a regular basis, you may shudder to read that I am promoting tax incentives. My writings about taxation are primarily directed toward a post-secession new nation. What I am trying to do here is to look at where we are as a nation and deal with it constructively.

There is no reason whatsoever that our nation could not become entirely energy independent by the year 2020. Look what America did in the space race. We can do it again to make ourselves energy independent. The spirit of independence is what created this American experiment. We can re-capture that independence once again.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2012, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


Remember The Alamo

March 6, 2012

by Chuck Baldwin

(Editor’s Note: Texas was seceding from Mexico when the Battle of the Alamo occurred. The Texians had been fighting to secede for ten YEARS. Ten. Years. And the Alamo patriots were wiped out at this battle. But this was not the last battle. General Santa Ana was defeated and captured at San Jacinto on April 21st, and Texas gained its independence and became a sovereign nation.

But could Texas do it again? Clearly, it could not happen with the current crop of politicians in Austin. But secession does not come from the statehouse. Secession wells up from among the people and overwhelms the statehouse. I believe there are enough men and women who love liberty…even though it is an unrequited love, a longing for something they have never actually experienced…that could band together and establish a New Texas. From my lips to God’s ears.)

March 6 marks the anniversary of the fall of the Alamo back in 1836. For more than 13 days, 186 brave and determined patriots withstood Santa Anna’s seasoned army of over 4,000 troops. To a man, the defenders of that mission fort knew they would never leave those ramparts alive. They had several opportunities to leave and live. Yet, they chose to fight and die. How foolish they must look to this generation of spoiled Americans.

It is difficult to recall that stouthearted men such as Davy Crockett (a nationally known frontiersman and former congressman), Will Travis (only 23 years old with a little baby at home), and Jim Bowie (a wealthy landowner with properties on both sides of the Rio Grande) really existed. These were real men with real dreams and real desires. Real blood flowed through their veins. They loved their families and enjoyed life as much as any of us do. There was something different about them, however. They possessed a commitment to liberty that transcended personal safety and comfort.

Liberty is an easy word to say, but it is a hard word to live up to. Freedom has little to do with financial gain or personal pleasure. Accompanying Freedom is her constant and unattractive companion, Responsibility. Neither is she an only child. Patriotism and Morality are her sisters. They are inseparable: destroy one and all will die.

Early in the siege, Travis wrote these words to the people of Texas: “Fellow Citizens & Compatriots: I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. . . . The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison are to be put to the sword . . . I have answered the demand with a cannon shot & our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. . . . VICTORY OR DEATH! P.S. The Lord is on our side. . . .”

As you read those words, remember that Travis and the others did not have the A.C.L.U., P.E.T.A., the National Education Association, and the Southern Poverty Law Center telling them how intolerant and narrow-minded their notions of honor and patriotism were. A hostile media did not constantly castigate them as a bunch of wild-eyed extremists. As schoolchildren, they were not taught that their forefathers were nothing more than racist jerks. Neither did they have pastors constantly filling their hearts and minds with this imbecilic “Obey-the-government-no-matter-what” misinterpretation of Romans chapter 13.

The brave men at the Alamo labored under the belief that America (and Texas) really was “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” They believed God was on their side and the freedom of future generations depended on their courage and resolve. They further believed their posterity would remember their sacrifice as an act of love and devotion. It all looks pale now.

By today’s standards, the gallant men of the Alamo appear rather foolish. After all, they had no chance of winning–none. Yet, the call for pragmatism and practicality was never sounded. Instead, they answered the clarion call, “Victory or death!”

Please try to remember the heroes of the Alamo as you watch our gutless political and religious leaders surrender to globalism, corporatism, socialism, and political correctness. Try to recall the time in this country when ordinary men and women had the courage of their convictions and were willing to sacrifice their lives for freedom and independence.

One thing is certain: those courageous champions at the Alamo did not die for a political party or for some “lesser of two evils” mantra. They fought and died for a principle, and that principle was liberty and independence. So did the men at Lexington and Concord. That is our heritage.

Today, however, our national leaders are in the process of turning the United States over to the very forces that the Alamo defenders (and America’s Founding Fathers) gave their lives resisting. On second thought, do they look foolish, or do we?

© Copyright 1996 – 2012, Chuck Baldwin Live. All rights reserved.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 17,446 other followers