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.


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.


Ockham’s Razor and Secession

March 21, 2012

By Russell D. Longcore

(This is an update of a 2010 article.)

Ockham’s Razor is the principle that “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). The popular restatement of this principle is that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

William of Ockham was a 14th-century English logician that came up with this principle. The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary theories to get to the simplest explanation.

So today we’re going to look at secession, founding documents and compare them to the other solutions presented by various modern thinkers and writers.

The Articles of Confederation

We should begin this discussion with thirteen new sovereign North American nations in 1781. They decided that they wanted to be a confederacy of thirteen sovereign nations. The Articles of Confederation (AOC) were ratified that year, but had been sent to the various new nations for review as early as 1777. That tells us that the colonies, due to the words of the Declaration of Independence, considered themselves free and independent nations, and were fighting the British prior to ratification of the AOC. The war did not end until 1783.

The Articles of Confederation acknowledged and guarded the sovereignty of each new nation, and created the united States of America as an errand boy…sort of a property management company, designed to do the bidding of the principals. The USA was funded by the several State legislatures. The AOC formed a Congress of only one house, the unicameral legislature. The USA only existed as a Committee of the States when the Congress was in session. And, alteration of the AOC had to be approved “in Congress assembled” and ratified by ALL thirteen States.

The AOC was pretty simple and required no Bill of Rights. After ratification in 1781, the United States was ineffective until 1787. The weakness of the AOC was intended to protect the sovereignty of the States. Consequently there were lots of disputes between States…primarily about commerce between the States…that the United States was unable to settle. Then Shay’s Rebellion occurred in Massachusetts (Massachusetts politicians deserved it), and many made calls for a stronger government. Thomas Jefferson refused to be alarmed by the rebellion, and uttered the famous quote: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

So, for a confederation of thirteen sovereign nations who wanted to solve common problems, the Articles of Confederation were the simplest solution. But malevolent men brushed it aside for a new government with nearly unlimited powers.

The US Constitution

The Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was organized and held under the premise of amending the AOC to settle the ongoing trade disputes between the States. But the more radical leaders like Alexander Hamilton pledged to entirely rewrite the AOC into a new Constitution with overarching power for a new nation, setting the stage to subsume the States under a strong central government. (For a detailed history of the Constitutional Convention, read “Hologram of Liberty,” by Kenneth W. Royce.)

Perhaps you didn’t know that, of the 55 delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, only eight had signed the Declaration of Independence. Men like Sam Adams, Thomas Paine and Christopher Gadsden were not even chosen. Patrick Henry refused to sign the Constitution, saying, ”I smelt a rat.”

As Lysander Spooner wrote in his epic “No Treason,” “The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.”

The US Constitution was a quiet coup d’etat. It established the foundation for an uncontrollable and unaccountable central government. The seeds sown in 1789 are now a maturing crop of crushing taxation, relentless regulation and unchecked tyranny. The US Constitution was designed to be ambiguous, to protect the Federal government from the citizens, and to perpetuate the Federal government into the future. Everything that is touched by the Constitution, and the Federal Government created by it, is part and parcel of its ability to enslave. One cannot be separated from the other. Reform is impossible. The Federal Government that has grown like a cancer on the American population is now so complicated…so ubiquitous…that it cannot be controlled. Ironically, even the Federal Government cannot now control its own growth. And like a cancer, soon the Federal government and its Constitution will consume its host…we Americans…and it will die.

So Ockhams’ Razor cannot be used to shave away the unworkable and unmanageable bureaucracies of the Constitution and its whelp, Washington, DC…any more then a close shave separates one from the pigment of one’s skin. The Constitution created the Federal Government. They have both played their roles exactly as intended by the Framers. The corruption and tyranny is genetically designed into the Constitution.

Nullification

Nullification begins with two preconceptions: (1) that there is a compelling reason and some unknown, unstated benefit for states to remain in the Union; and (2) that states and “we the People” retain power not delegated to the US. But the Tenth Amendment phrase, “nor prohibited by it to the States,” usually goes unmentioned. In order for states to nullify Federal law, states must have the ability to enforce their own will. That is simple human nature. A father who cannot enforce his will has unruly children. A teacher that cannot enforce classroom discipline has bedlam. A law enforcement organization without guns and the authority to use deadly force would be entirely ineffectual. And finally, a nation without its own money and without its own militia cannot enforce its will.

By ratifying a Constitution authorizing the Federal government to collect taxes directly from the people, and power to control the state militias, and by giving the Federal government the power to coin money, the states willingly sold themselves into slavery to the United States.

It is common for slaves to groan under the weight of the oppression of their masters. But slaves who have no money of their own and no weapons to defend themselves can only balefully sing “Nobody Knows The Trouble I’ve Seen”…while they continue to obey the Master.

Applying Ockham’s Razor to nullification shows the simplest explanation: Nullification is only possible if the slavemaster allows it. (Remember the Federal REAL ID Act?) Any time that the slavemaster resists nullification and moves to punish the slave for resistance, he will lay the lash to the back of the slave without mercy.

The Constitutional Convention

Many today call for a “ConCon.” They optimistically propose that if we can only rewrite the Constitution, “We The People” can bring the Federal Government under control once again. Those hopeful folks must not have read that old Constitution and the method whereby a ConCon can occur. The deck is stacked in favor of “the house.” In Article V, it states that two-thirds of the state legislatures (34 states) must apply for a ConCon, or that both houses of Congress must approve of the ConCon by a two-thirds majority. A ConCon opens the Constitution to any amendment or to be entirely rewritten. Then, whatever is produced by the ConCon must be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures (38 states).

Why would two-thirds of the ruling class in Congress voluntarily open themselves to being fired? They already have all the power. There is no benefit to Congress to participate in a ConCon. And to think that 34 states would agree to a ConCon, and then that 38 states would ratify a new Constitution, is naivete writ large. So, Ockham’s Razor, applied to the ConCon, leads us to the conclusion that the states are too inured to the US Constitution to change it.

Election Victories and the Two-Party System

Most Americans still believe in elections. Most Americans still believe in the two-party system; roughly 40% are Republicans, 40% are Democrats. They faithfully trot to the polls whenever they are told to. But there is no quorum…no minimum number at which an election is made null and void. So if only three votes are counted, someone will win. And now, in the age of electronic voting machines that are reprogrammed to commit fraud in nearly every election, the integrity of the voting process cannot be guaranteed. As if it ever was. Ockhams’ Razor applied to elections tells us that elections are intrinsic to the Constitution and the Federal Government’s system. To continue voting is to perpetuate the system, but voting cannot abolish or amend it.

Secession and Sovereignty

Any entity subject to the US Constitution must play by its rules. That includes the US Federal Government and the serf states. But in 2012, Washington completely ignores the Constitution and does exactly what it desires. There are absolutely no control mechanisms on the Federal Government. Ockham’s Razor will indicate that any effort to reform the United States cannot succeed, since remaining a part of the system requires slavish obedience to it. Voting in Federal elections only mollifies the voter and makes him believe his vote matters. Nullification cannot be successful since the States cannot enforce it.

The only solution…the simplest solution…is Secession. Secession makes nullification, Constitutional Conventions and Federal election victories irrelevant. It removes a State from the dictates and tyranny of the Constitution and the United States Federal Government. It seeks no overthrow, desires no further amendment, begs no permission. It is the embodiment of the natural law of freedom of association.

The only solution to the darkness of tyranny is the sunlight of secession. Who will be first?

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.


Bravery Hurts

September 15, 2011

Never Trust Anyone Who Hasn’t Been Punched in the Face

by Scott Locklin

(Editor’s note: A state that secedes from the Union must build its militia as one of its first acts. That means that every able-bodied man or woman age 18 to age 55 is a rifleman and trained as a soldier. Non-able bodied persons can do desk work or cook meals. Militia training is exactly the sort of training this featured author is speaking about. I guarantee you that a new nation with a citizen militia trained to kill and fight would be a formidable nation. Ask Switzerland. We hope that one day soon the secession and independence movements will begin having serious public discussions about the very real possibility of armed resistance in the process of secession.)

Conservatives like to talk about the causes of Western Civilization’s downfall: feminism, loose morality, drug abuse, Christianity’s decline, reality TV. Blaming civilization’s downfall on lardy hagfish such as Andrea Dworkin is like a doctor diagnosing senility by an old person’s wrinkles. The fact that anyone listened to such a numskull is a symptom, not the cause, of a culture in decline. The cause of civilizational decline is dirt-simple: lack of contact with objective reality. The great banker-journalist (and founder of the original National Review) Walter Bagehot said it well almost 150 years ago:

History is strewn with the wrecks of nations which have gained a little progressiveness at the cost of a great deal of hard manliness, and have thus prepared themselves for destruction as soon as the movements of the world gave a chance for it.

Every great civilization reaches a point of prosperity where it is possible to live your entire life as a pacifist without any serious consequences. Many civilizations have come to the state of devolution represented by modern Berkeley folkways, from wife-swapping to vegetarianism. These ideas don’t come from a hardscrabble existence in contact with nature’s elemental forces; they are the inevitable consequence of being an effete urban twit removed from meaningful contact with reality. The over-civilized will try to portray their decadence as something “highly evolved” and worthy of emulation because it can only exist in the hothouse of highly civilized urban centers, much like influenza epidemics. Somehow these twittering blockheads missed out on what the word “evolution” means. Evolution involves brutal and often violent natural selection, and these people have not been exposed to brutal evolutionary forces any more than a typical urban poodle.

Through human history, vigorous civilizations had various ways of dealing with the unfortunate human tendency toward being a weak ninny. The South Koreans (for my money, the hardest men in Asia today) have brutally tough military training as a rite of passage. I’ve been told that the Soviet system had students picking potatoes during national holidays. The ancient Greeks used competitive sports and constant warfare. The Anglo-American working classes, the last large virtuous group of people left in these countries, use bullying, violent sports, fisticuffs, and hard living.

I think there is a certain worldview that comes from violent experience. It’s something like…manhood. You don’t have to be the world’s greatest badass to be a man, but you have to be willing to throw down when the time is right.

A man who has been in a fight or played violent sports has experienced more of life and manhood than a man who hasn’t. Fisticuffs, wrestling matches, knife fights, violent sport, duels with baseball bats, facing down guns, or getting crushed in the football field—men who have had these experiences are different from men who have not. Men who have trained for or experienced such encounters know about bravery and mental fortitude from firsthand experience. Men who have been tested physically know that inequality is a physical fact. Men who know how to deal out violence know that radical feminism’s tenets—that women and men are equal—are a lie. We know that women are not the same as men: not physically, mentally, or in terms of moral character.

Men who have fought know how difficult it is to stand against the crowd and that civilization is fragile and important. A man who has experienced violence knows that, at its core, civilization is an agreement between men to behave well. That agreement can be broken at any moment; it’s part of manhood to be ready when it is. Men who have been in fights know about something that is rarely spoken of without snickering these days: honor. Men who have been in fights know that, on some level, words are just words: At some point, words must be backed up by deeds.

Above all, men who have been in fights know that there is nothing good or noble about being a victim. This is a concept the modern “conservative movement,” mostly run by wimps, has lost, probably irrevocably. They’re forever tugging at my heartstrings, from No Child Left Behind to Israel’s plight to MLK’s wonders to whining that the media doesn’t play fair to the overwrought emotional appeals they use to justify dropping bombs on Muslims. The Republicans are even taking seriously a pure victim-candidate: Michelle Bachman. As far as can be told, she’s a middle-American Barack Obama with boobs and a slightly loopier world view.

Modern “civilized” males don’t get in fistfights. They don’t play violent sports. They play video games and, at best, watch TV sports. Modern males are physical and emotional weaklings. The ideal male isn’t John Wayne or James Bond or Jimmy Stewart anymore. It’s some crying tit that goes to a therapist, a sort of agreeable lesbian with a dick who calls the police (whom he hates in theory) when there is trouble. The ideal modern male is the British shrimp who handed his pants over to the looter in south London.

How did we get here? Estrogens in the food supply? Cultural Marxism’s corrosive influence? Small families? Some of the greatest badasses I’ve known had many brothers to fight with growing up. When good men who will fight are all extinct, there is no more civilization. No lantern-jawed viragos are going to save you from the barbarian hordes. No mincing nancy boys with Harvard diplomas will stand up for the common decencies: They’re a social construct, dontcha know. The conservative movement won’t save you: They’re chicken-hearted careerists petrified of offending a victim group.

Teddy Roosevelt, my ideal President, kept a lion and a bear as pets in the White House and took his daily exercise doing jiu-jitsu and boxing. He even lost vision in an eye in a friendly boxing match while he was president. Our last three glorious leaders are men who kept fluffy dogs and went jogging. I don’t trust squirrelly girly-men in any context. When confronted with difficult decisions, they don’t do what’s right or tell the truth—they’ll do what’s easy or politically expedient. Unlike the last three, Teddy Roosevelt never sent men to die in pointless wars, though he was more than happy to go himself or risk his neck wrestling with bears.

I’m no great shakes: I’m a shrimpy egghead in a suit who thinks about math all day. I don’t train for fighting anymore, and my experiences with violence are fairly limited. Nonetheless, I judge people on these sorts of things. When I first meet a man, I don’t care what kind of sheepskins or awards he has on his walls. I don’t care if he is liberal or conservative. I want to know if they have my back in a fight. That’s really the only thing that matters.

Copyright 2011 TakiMag.com All Right Reserved


What is a “Three Percenter”?

October 2, 2010

by Mike Vanderboegh

(Editor’s Note: The author speaks of saving the Republic in armed resistance. But Three Percenters will comprise a large percentage of militias as secession moves forward.)

During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King’s tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came.

Three Percenters today do not claim that we represent 3% of the American people, although we might. That theory has not yet been tested. We DO claim that we represent at least 3% of American gun owners, which is still a healthy number somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million people. History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. We are one such minority. So too are the current enemies of the Founders’ Republic. What remains, then, is the test of will and skill to determine who shall shape the future of our nation.

The Three Percent today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any further circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders’ Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic.

We are the people that the collectivists who now control the government should leave alone if they wish to continue unfettered oxygen consumption. We are the Three Percent. Attempt to further oppress us at your peril. To put it bluntly, leave us the hell alone. Or, if you feel froggy, go ahead AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.

The Doctrine of the Three Percent

The Three Percent are the folks the Founders counted on to save the Republic when everyone else abandoned it.

And we will.

There will be no more free Wacos and no more free Katrinas.

For we are the Three Percent.

We will not disarm.

You cannot convince us.

You cannot intimidate us.

You can try to kill us, if you think you can.

But remember, we’ll shoot back .

We are not going away.

We are not backing up another inch.

And there are THREE MILLION OF US.

Your move, Mr. Wannabe Tyrant.

Your move.

Copyright 2010 Mike Vanderboegh

Sipsey Street Regulars


Patrick Henry and Frederick Douglass Speak

September 22, 2010

Patrick Henry was the Governor of Virginia from 1776 to 1779 and again from 1784 to 1786. He was one of the most radical patriots of his day. During the war he was a Colonel in the Continental Army. He was a delegate to the 1788 Constitutional Convention and argued as an anti-federalist, as he saw that the New Constitution which replaced the Articles of Confederation endangered the individual freedoms and violated state’s rights as sovereign nations. When the Constitution was finally completed, Henry refused to sign it, saying “I smelt a rat in Philadelphia.”

In 1775, Patriot Patrick Henry gave this speech at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia. We offer it today to remind our readers that the issues that compelled him to give this speech have come full circle to 2010. Remember as you read his stirring words that the colonials were British citizens who were being treated as slaves by the Crown. Every right they enjoyed as British citizens was being trampled, and the King’s army was enforcing King George’s edicts all over the colonies. And most of the early skirmishes of the war happened as a result of the Redcoats attempting to confiscate the private ammunition and firearms owned by colonials.

“Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is coming on. We have petitioned…we have remonstrated…we have supplicated. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with comtempt… In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free…if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have so long contended…if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object to our contest shall be obtained…we must fight!! I repeat it Sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and the God of Hosts is all that is left to us!

They tell us Sir that we are weak…unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be next week or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we require the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power…Besides Sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends…The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave…There is no retreat, but in submission and slavery. Our chains are forged; their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable…let it come! Gentlemen may cry peace, peace…but there is no peace. The war is actually begun…Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.”

Frederick Douglass was a self-freed black slave who became one of the most important abolitionists of his day. Here are his words from a speech in 1857.

“Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without demand.

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

The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

DumpDC brings you these two voices from history today to attempt to awaken the slumbering, and to warn the naive. The Texas Nationalist Movement goes out of its way to state that they are not a militia…and rightly so. They state that they are promoting the peaceful, legislative process for Texas independence. That’s fine, too. But at some point, any secessionist group must admit to itself and its state citizens that Federal resistance to secession COULD be armed resistance. And any state that has not regained the Power of the Purse (its own money) and the Power of the Sword (its own militia) has not a snowball’s chance in hell of successfully seceding from the Union.

Secession is the Hope For Mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


The Georgia Governor’s Race: Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss

August 12, 2010

Tuesday August 10th was the Republican primary runoff. The two finalists were former Congressman Nathan Deal and former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel. Deal squeaked out a victory by only about 2,400 votes.

The primary vote tells me that the citizens of Georgia like politicians who are part of the System, rather than political outsiders. And that means that the citizens of the State of Georgia have no stomach for secession on any level.

At the beginning of the year, Georgia Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine was the odds-on favorite. Polls showed him ahead of all other Republican candidates by at least 20 points. One of his campaign “planks” was to eliminate the Georgia state income tax, which should have been wildly popular. The nomination was his to lose.

And he lost it. Or perhaps it is better said that it was stolen from him.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution must have not wanted Oxendine to be Governor. They trotted out stories of old ethics investigations, some over 14 years old, that besmirched Oxendine’s reputation. The headlines were huge, but the findings that there was no breach of ethics were hard to find. Naturally, the lazy TV stations’ news staffs used the newspaper’s stories as their sources and ran the stories over and over. Oxendine was unable to overcome this attack, and in the first primary, he came in fourth.

Karen Handel ran a great campaign, and she has an impeccable record of service in Georgia. She was current Governor Sonny Perdue’s choice to succeed him. But that was not enough to take the primary from Nathan Deal.

Consider Nathan Deal. Deal went to Congress in 1992 as a Democrat. He switched to the Republican Party in 1995 after the Gingrich windstorm swept a bunch of Republicans into Georgia congressional seats in the Fall 1994 elections. On March 29, 2010, the Office of Congressional Ethics released a report concluding that Mr. Deal improperly used his office staff to pressure Georgia officials to continue the state vehicle inspection program that generated hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for his family’s auto salvage business. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) lists Deal as one of the 15 most corrupt members of Congress, for trying to influence officials for personal gain.¹

Curiously, that story never got traction in Georgia. Here is a guy that has been proven to have violated his ethical responsibilities, and he’s Teflon. Karen Handel beat this drum in nearly every one of her TV campaign ads. But Oxendine gets investigated and found not guilty of ethics violations, and he’s given the bum’s rush. And Handel ends up in second place.

No one has to tell me that politics is a blood sport. I get that. I’m just telling you gentle readers that this article is much more about the mindset of Georgia voters than about the qualifications of the candidates.

Georgia Republican voters have sent a message. They have said…with their votes…that a guy who has 18 years’ experience as a Congressional insider is more desirable to them as the Republican candidate for Governor. They want a Governor who knows how to get things done in Washington…even if his hands are dirty. And how can you blame them? When DC is the heart that pumps Federal blood to Georgia, why would you want someone unfamiliar with the congressional circulatory system?

Now here comes the other shoe dropping…the Democratic candidate.

Roy Barnes is the former Georgia Governor and the Dem’s candidate. He clubbed all the other candidates in the Democratic primary. Roy was Governor from 1999 to 2003. He was a country lawyer and spent many years in the Georgia Legislature before becoming Governor. His term was marked by mild controversy over the old “stars-and-bars” Georgia flag, and educational changes he made that angered union school teachers. He was replaced by Republican Sonny Purdue in November 2002 in a Republican mid-term sweep. In Roy’s campaign ads, he said that other states are “making fun” of Georgia over discussions about secession in the Georgia Senate.

So, the choice for Georgia in November is a corrupt Republican former Congressman and a do-nothing Democrat former Governor.

No one is talking about how broken Washington is. No one is talking about the collapse of the dollar. No one is talking about the Georgia militia, or even thinking about establishing their own money. Georgia is safely tucked into the vest pocket of the DC criminal class.

The Georgia citizens continue to validate the hopelessly broken and irreparable Federal system by their willing participation in meaningless elections. Voters are willing to hold their noses and vote. They are happy to choose party apparachiks over principled candidates. They would rather be Americans than Georgians.

Is it any wonder that I wrote the article Stop Voting?

Secession is the hope for mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

¹ http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/summaries/deal.php


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 17,447 other followers