Are You Prepared To Be In A Militia?

November 29, 2009

When I was a Boy Scout, I learned the motto…”Be Prepared.” How much more simple a motto could there be? Plan ahead and practice doing things you might need to do.

I’ve written about secession and state militias recently. But it occurred to me that even those who might agree with me might not be up to speed on personal preparations.

It would be so nice to believe that our state governments would handle this like they are supposed to do. Aren’t most state constitutions written to authorize a militia, and then to equip and train it? However, I don’t know of a single state that is fulfilling its Constitutional duty to its citizens as relates to the militia. And make no mistake…the State National Guard is NOT the state militia.

In light of the daily headlines about the economic meltdown that is just over America’s horizon, the need for a militia could occur very quickly. In addition, when there is an economic meltdown, our neighborhoods could become very dangerous very quickly…like in a matter of days. That’s not the time for you to start planning, and it may be too late to start buying stuff you need.

If you were going to be in any state’s militia, you’d need reliable gear. So, here is a short list of the most fundamental things you’d need.


I’m going against groupthink and recommend that you buy an AK-47 or AK-47 variant like Saiga, chambered for the 7.62 x 39 cartridge. Around the world, the AK is the most reliable battle rifle known to man. Children in Africa operate this rifle and keep it clean. It takes enormous punishment and still operates. Mud, sand, water…still shoots. Great for beginners and sharpshooters. Even though the AR-15 is ubiquitous in America, it’s temperamental. But always remember that you need proficiency with your rifle, so practice with it. Also, the rifle you have in your hand is better than the rifle you want.

Here is an alternative for those who like the .223 cartridge. Buy another rifle, the Keltek SU-16. This is a super reliable fold-down rifle that only weighs about 5 pounds. It would fit nicely inside a backpack as a backup weapon. The rifle’s receiver and action are a variant of the AK-47, which makes it much more reliable and much easier to clean. The reason I’m recommending this rifle is a risk management issue. If you are in a combat situation, you may find it easier to find .223 ammo in America in gun stores…and stripping gear from a dead enemy.

Rifle Optics

There are a lot of very cool optics available today. But most of the cool optics require batteries. I vote for low tech optics. Proficiency with iron sights is best and most rifles can be accurate out to 300-400 yards with iron sights. If you must have a scope on your rifle, I recommend one that uses no batteries. Your holographic sight without a battery is just like carrying a small rock.


For the same reasons of ultimate reliability, I recommend the Glock pistol chambered in .45 ACP. My second choice would be the 9mm Glock.


I recommend a pump-action 12-gauge shotgun. The shotgun can be used for harvesting game, self defense or as a rifle.


You should own at least 1,000 rounds of ammo for every weapon you own. It’s easy to go through a couple hundred rounds in one day at the rifle range. Buy the largest bullet in the cartridge that you can find. For example, in .45 ACP, buy a 230 grain bullet rather than a 185-grain bullet. Factory loads are fine, handloads save you money. For a shotgun, buy #6 shot for bird hunting, 00 Gauge buckshot shells, and slugs. A rifled slug sends a one ounce bullet downrange…devastating stopping power.

Firearms cleaning kit

For the obvious reasons. However, I’ve seen video of kids in Mozambique take a shoelace, make a knot in one end, dip the knot in motor oil, and pull it through the barrel to clean an AK-47. Here’s another tip. Cans of spray carburetor cleaner are great for cleaning guns.

Battle Dress Uniforms (BDUs)

Get at least two pairs of pants, two long-sleeved shirts, and two olive drab T-shirts. I recommend green camo, not black or tan. Buy one size larger than you are. Try stuff on and make sure it’s loose.

Broken-in Combat Boots

Buy a pair of high quality combat boots, but then wear them a lot early-on to break them in. Foot problems can take you out of the action in a hurry.

Flak jacket

Buy a flak jacket with removable hood and liner. I recommend green camo, not black or tan.


You need foul weather gear. Get a rain suit or poncho that you can fold up and stow in your pack.

Field gear

A soldier’s pack can weigh 60-80 pounds. If you have field equipment to carry your gear, you’ll suffer less fatigue. MOdular Lightweight Load-carryng Equipment (MOLLE) is the new system that’s now being fielded. Consists of web belts, backpacks and other carrying equipment that fastens to the MOLLE. The Marines love this stuff.


Get a backpack that fits you when you’re fully clothed like winter. Get a backpack that’s about as long as your torso from neck to butt in a green camo color.

Bugout bag

A Bugout Bag is basically a big survival kit that contains all of the items you would require to survive after a disaster. A bugout bag allows you to grab what you need quickly and evacuate should a disaster happen.

Most experts suggest that your bugout bag should contain enough supplies to last for at least seventy two hours. For a checklist, go to: CHECKLIST

Edge weapons

Buy a Swiss army knife with a bunch of attachments or a multi-tool.

Buy a tactical folding knife with locking blade. But make sure that the blade doesn’t unlock when you’re gripping the handle tightly. Huge design flaw in most folding knives.

Buy a hunting knife or combat knife with a full-tang, carbon steel blade. “Full tang” means the handle and blade are formed of one piece of steel. Then the grips are affixed to the handle. Anything else is a toy knife. Carbon steel holds an edge best.

I bought a 14” battle axe that only weighs about 2 pounds. Carbon steel blade, carbon fiber handle. Nice piece of work. Think about it.

First aid kit

A field medical kit would be good.


Get a camo Kevlar helmet if you like. But you will need head protection. A camo Boonie (cloth hat, wide brim) can be further camouflaged if necessary.

Ghillie suit

A Ghillie suit is a camouflage suit for heavy cover. Usually made of burlap or canvas strips of camo colors. Snipers use Ghillies. This is optional.


Get a good camper’s compass.


Get tactical flashlights. Usually made of black aluminum, and now lit by LED bulbs. LED are extremely bright, low power use. Many will attach to your guns.

Sleeping bag

You gotta sleep. Get a sleeping bag that fits you. Climb inside it before you buy. Don’t go cheap.

Cooking gear

The simplest Boy Scout cooking kit will work. Remember that this will be in your backpack so weight counts. You really only need one cooking pan.


You could buy a tent, but remember that you have to carry it. You could opt for a heavy plastic tarp about 8’ x 8’ with brass grommets at the corners. It folds up small and can be stowed in your pack. With a tarp, you can create a simple shelter under which you can sleep dry. Buy a spool of parachute cord…light, strong and cheap.

Water supply

You need a canteen or a water backpack like the CamelBak system. You wear this like a backpack under the big backpack. Can hold 70 oz. or 100 oz. or more.


Meals Ready To Eat (MREs) store indefinitely. Buy a 30-day supply.

I’m sure I’ve forgotten some things, and many of you may have other preferences. But if you have all of these supplies and equipment, you would be ready for most eventualities. This is just the minimum needed. If you have the time and money, secure these minimums and build on them.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

The United States Is Not a Nation!

November 26, 2009

by Brion McClanahan, Ph. D.

I have often required my students on the first day or two of class to use the Oxford English Dictionary and define the following words: nation and state. Most do not follow my directions and submit a modern Webster’s or online distortion of the word, and those who use the Oxford often fail to provide the etymology of either word. I can’t fault them for that, because they have probably been taught since first grade in the public “school” system to submit the first definition they find. Thus, the common results of the activity are similar to the following:

Nation – noun: a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own. (from

State – noun: the territory, or one of the territories, of a government. (from

How profound, statist…and completely absurd! If both are true, than the United States should simply be the “United State.” A state is simply a “territory…of a government”? A nation is simply a large body of people that occupy a territory? That would be news to the founding generation. Of course, a careful reading of the history of both words could correct this mess and place the Union of the States within its proper historical context.

The word “nation” found its way into the English language around the 14th century. Under the old definition, a nation was a group of people who shared a similar racial, cultural, or religious background that often included elements such as a common language. A State was a sovereign political entity, not simply a “territory…of a government.” By viewing the United States through that lens it becomes clear that modern definitions of nation and state are the product of centralization and the mischaracterization of the federal government as a “national government.”

Certainly no one in the founding generation would have argued that Virginia and Massachusetts possessed the same cultural heritage. Virginia, with its strong Cavalier tradition, and Massachusetts, with its Puritan or roundhead foundations, were clearly at odds during the seventeenth century and beyond. The two colonies may have been populated by white, English Christians and who shared a common language, “English,” but as David Hackett Fischer beautifully explained in his Albion’s Seed, the two cultures were diametrically opposed in almost every conceivable way. From dress to food to speech, Virginia Cavaliers and Massachusetts Yankees were in many ways two separate nations, not simply separate cultures. The “shining city upon a hill” Puritans and their decedents never let Southerners forget their differences, nor did Southerners want to be lumped together with self-righteous Yankees. William Berkeley, the dominant figure in Virginia during the seventeenth century, despised Puritans and fought against them in the English Civil War. Later American sectionalism was little more than an explicit recognition of cultural differences and the existence of separate nations in North America dating to the early days of English settlement.

Adding to this American cultural cornucopia were the Celts, the Quakers, American Indian tribes, and African slaves, groups that had interesting and culturally significant contributions to the fabric of their respective regions as well. Thus, America in the colonial period was “multicultural” in a way that extended beyond race or religion. Western civilization and the English tradition dominated, but separate nations blotted the North American landscape. One of the most respected American historians on slavery, Eugene Genovese, wrote this about American culture in his Roll, Jordan, Roll: “Blacks and whites in America may be viewed as one nation or two, or as a nation within a nation, but their common history guarantees that, one way or another, they are both American.” This statement accentuates the point that the phrase “American nation” is a rhetorical fabrication of the last 150 years of American history.

This was not lost on the founding generation. John Adams once wrote that, “I expressly say that Congress is not a representative body but a diplomatic body, a collection of ambassadors from thirteen sovereign States….” Each state had its own political and cultural life and each was “sovereign.” Robert Yates, writing as Brutus in 1787, observed that “In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this not be the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other.” If applied to the United States, Yates concluded that:

The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests of consequence, diverse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care of decision, but would be composed of such heterogeneous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other.

Of course, there were “nationalists” in the early federal period, but even they often understood that if the United States contained several nations rather than one, it would be better to separate than to consolidate. Gouverneur Morris, one of the most important “nationalists” (and womanizers) of this era, made the following statement during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, “But, to come more to the point – either this distinction [between the Northern and Southern States] is fictitious or real; if fictitious, let it be dismissed, and let us proceed with due confidence. If it be real, instead of attempting to blend incompatible things, let us at once take a friendly leave of each other. There can be no end of demands for security, if every particular interest is to be entitled to it.” And George Washington, often showcased as a fine example of the early “nationalists” and the glue that held the States together, said this about the people of Massachusetts in the early days of the War for Independence, “There is no nation under the sun that pays more adoration to money than they do.”

States’ rights and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution were intended to protect this cultural distinctiveness, and secession was often seen as the only hedge against aggression from other States or sections. This is why the three most powerful States in 1788, Virginia in the South, New York in the mid-Atlantic, and Massachusetts in the North, considered an explicit recognition of States’ rights an essential condition for ratification of the Constitution. Of course, those who champion States’ rights and decentralization are often accused of preferring “Balkanization” over the blessings and security of “one nation.” If the federal government followed its limited, constituted authority, such “Balkanization” would not be necessary, but hardly anyone in the founding generation would have agreed to a system of central government that currently exists in the United States. As Morris said in 1787, it would be better to separate than to subject one nation to the cultural imperialism of another State, section, or nation. Modern Americans have never been taught that lesson.

November 26, 2009

Brion McClanahan, Ph.D. is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers and a history professor at Chattahoochee Valley Community College in Phenix City, AL.

Copyright © 2009 by

Secession from Obama’s America

November 22, 2009

by Zach Jones

Is it a Field of Dreams or a Plea for Return to a Constitutional Republic?

Last night I stumbled upon an article, A Case For Secession-Introduction, (first of a series) on (Editor’s Note: We ran this article here at DumpDC on November 19th) and it struck me that the time may soon be approaching when one or two states will be called to step up for the rest of us in hopes of saving the Republic. I’m not advocating for secession now; I’m just looking at the possibility with a little more interest. How such a move might shift our ‘government’ back to position where Representatives actually have to listen to and respect their constituents is a question that interests me. What is clear is that with Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in control, Democratic Members of Congress are currently being effectively bribed with earmarks, promises or threats to pass legislation America does not want. They are not listening.

Polling demonstrates over and over the majority of Americans are against government run healthcare, are against unreasonable infringement of our Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, are against illegal immigration, are against socialism, are against tax dollar funding of organizations like ACORN and SEIU, are against politicians creating unsustainable debt that will cripple their children’s futures, are against government manipulate of the news, are against government creating more unsustainable entitlements, are against Congress not adhering to the Constitution, are against Congress exceeding their power, are against Congress trampling on the rights reserved to the states under the Constitution, and are against unreasonable infringement of rights of privacy and free speech. In many states, the majorities are huge. They generally reflect states with populations that realize that government handouts do nothing other than create dependence to government/politicians and harm the recipients.

Today Congress is acting like a mule; and like a mule, sometimes the only way to get its attention is to hit it between the eyes. As we (a majority) all know, the Obama Congress is running America’s balance sheet, value of her dollar, and entire economy over the cliff. Most of us also know that it’s only drastic action can get the attention of this Congress that appears hell bent on ushering in a new socialist nation. Ordinary Americans are trying with massive Tea Parties, but one certain way to get Washington’s attention and possibly prevent the coming economic and social disaster (annihilation) is for one state or two to say ENOUGH! The preverbal two by four between the eyes may be what is called for to save the futures of all Americans.

Logistically there are only a few states that have strong enough economies and sufficient resources to tell the Federal Government to go screw itself, we are going our own way.

Alaska has sufficient resources (energy, etc.), access to trade with other countries (Canada and Russia), self-sufficient people, leaders who have a minimal concept of a balanced budget, and natural independence from the contiguous United States.

Texas has many of the same attributes as Alaska (a notion of being somehow independent of the rest of the country, trade with Mexico, Latin America and an independent/self-sufficient people).

N. Dakota, Nebraska a few other boarder/coastal states may be able to manage independence for themselves, but not without a lot of determination. Other central states like Oklahoma would probably need prearranged trade compacts with neighboring states to be successful. They would go along as they have been; except they would not pay federal taxes, nor receive federal tax dollars nor serve in the U. S. military. That would certainly get people’s attention.

Most of the states that might reasonably consider secession as an option are the ones that ARE NOT like California, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, or New Jersey, etc. where politicians have intentionally created large dependent populations of people and groups with their hands out for “other peoples’ money” (dependent voting blocks tied to money- not principle).

To have a shot at successfully seceding, it is likely that a state must first have a large majority of its population that is interested in independence, who are self-reliant, who as a group have not been used to taking more than their fair share of federal tax dollars, who are not looking for ways to avoid fair taxes but who don’t want to be carrying the load for the above named states, who have reasonable expectations of government; and most importantly, who care about freedom, equality and the principles of the United States Constitution more than the “Federal Government”. America is its people; it is not the buildings, institutions, and politicians in Washington, D. C.

If a state did have the courage to choose secession, many of their residents would likely flee. However, millions of independent/self-sufficient Americans, small businesses, and numerous large businesses would be just as quick to try to come to live and thrive in freedom. Like the movie ‘Field of Dreams’ – build it and they will come. I believe that is true. Especially, if the state is built/rebuilt upon the principles that founded the once great U.S.A., it would ensure a diverse, hardy, can do citizenry that encourages one another. You know, a citizenry like America once had. Not the one that sues every time their coffee is too hot or they have their feeling hurt slightly.

Such a state’s own tax dollars, collected in a fair and reasonable manner from its citizens, would go twice as far as those they had been paying the federal government. Tax systems could be simplified so everyone has a stake in the services provided by government because they too are paying taxes. Those in times of need would be given a helping hand up to reach their potential instead of under the government’s foot!

If fact, upon secession, such a state could made one big but simple change in the system that would go far to encourage individuals to strive for success. What if the state recognized that it would be more likely that voters would choose the best candidate to represent all the people if voters did not have a big conflict of interest present? What if the state said that if you are currently receiving monetary benefits from the state/tax-payers (worker’s compensation, welfare, etc., excluding total disability) you cannot vote in any state election until you stop receiving government assistance? If one wants to participate in elections, one would need to try to get better if injured, try earnestly to find work, or find a way to stop receiving benefits from the state.

Education, environmental protection, etc. could all happen because it would not be in people’s self-interest to scam the state. Spending for the public good would likely be a lot more reasonable and not tied to corrupt special interest groups like ACORN.

If one or two states did choose to succeed from the Union, it would not necessarily have to be on a permanent basis. It might be done with the understanding that when the federal government starts respecting the rights of the individual and the states, balances its budget or at least seriously starts down that path, respects and again follows the Constitution; and stops supporting enterprises with a history of intimidation/voter fraud like SEIU and ACORN; then they would consider rejoining the union.

Somehow I imagine every Senator and Representative saying to himself or herself –

What have we done? We have brought about the destruction of America. It was on my watch!

(One additional thing for Members of Congress to remember is that states like California, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and some other bloated, selfish, leftist states have much lower percentages of residents enlisting in the military than states that would be more likely to entertain seceding! Who would protect America and her diminishing freedoms from al Qaeda and the Taliban? Maybe they could make a deal with the state/nation to allow its free citizens to serve in the U. S. military.)

Maybe Members of Congress wouldn’t say anything and just continue bleeding America’s taxpayers without listening to them.

I hope for the former; but if the latter occurred, I would pack my bags and move to Texas or wherever. I would be going to that ‘Field of Dreams’!

Never in my 55 years on this earth have I thought that I would seriously consider the idea of secession from the United States of America. I guess I was wrong. Personally, I will be waiting to see if America can be set again on its path under the Constitution through the electoral process in 2010.

If America can’t be righted to its course, it may be prudent for all freedom loving Americans to be reading up on secession.

Speaking of the 2010 elections, have you heard that Larry Sinclair, the man who alleges that he and Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual sex in 1999, is running for Congress?

Copyright © 2009 About Australia

Secession and the State Militia

November 21, 2009

Today, I’m going to tread ground upon which many fear to tread by discussing the first two phrases of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states thus: “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.”

Seems to me that we have either ignored or simply missed a very vital component of liberty in our discussions and writings about secession…or about the Second Amendment. That very vital component is the existence and use of force.

No reasonable proponent of state sovereignty wants to propose secession and state nationhood through armed overthrow and insurrection. All of the thought leaders of secession that I have read concentrate on the orderly and lawful methods of secession, and eschew any ideas of military resistance. That’s fine.

But James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson had a different perspective.

The Framers knew that when tyranny advanced against any state, the state’s last option to resist that tyranny was to take up arms and fight. They had just proven its effectiveness by seceding from Great Britain through the use of state militias.

Most of the words I’ve ever seen written about the Second Amendment had to do with the last phrase of the Amendment. Even when I wrote about this subject HERE, my emphasis was about firearms.

My only paragraph about the militia said this:

“Any State with a well-regulated Militia would be capable of defending itself from Federal tyranny. 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 Federal system.”

The very nature of government is force. It is not governed itself by anything but raw force. Bullies and tyrants never are. If you doubt this, go find a woman who has gotten a restraining order against an abusive ex-husband. See how safe she feels. A week hardly goes by in which there is not a news story about an ex-husband or boyfriend who murders a woman, even though she got a court-issued restraining order. But courts don’t enforce restraining orders because cops are not personal bodyguards. They only deal with violations after the fact.

In like fashion, courts and Congresses, resembling murderous ex-boyfriends and looters, are only stopped from wreaking their mayhem by force or the threat of force.

Do you notice that American armed forces are in Afghanistan and Iraq, not walking the streets of Pyongyang, North Korea? That’s because North Korea is very willing to defend itself. Washington bows up like a banty rooster about the lawful Iranian civilian nuclear program, but sends bribes to “Dear Leader” Kim Jong Il.

Even if secessionist and nationalist leaders champion the cause of non-violence and secession through lawful means, they do themselves and their followers a disservice by refusing to broach the subject of armed resistance to Federal tyranny. That position is akin to posting a sign in your front lawn that reads “Gun Free Zone.” You’ve just announced that you have no means of defending yourself against attack and violence. Ask those at Fort Hood, Columbine High School and Virginia Tech.

There is a fine line between acknowledging that you’ll fight tyranny and picking a fight with a tyrant. The first trick is to know enough not to cross that line. The other trick is to be aware that the bad guys keep moving the line.

I think of a state like Texas and its very exciting nationalist movement. I encourage a free and open discussion of militia re-building as they move forward. With a Texas population of over 24 million, the militia could easily become a force of 1-2 million able-bodied adult men.

Secessionists in every state need to talk about this subject.

Any state that seriously contemplates secession must reconstitute and rebuild its own Militia. This will be one of the most solemn indications of that State’s seriousness about its own liberty and the liberty of its citizens.

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

Who Will Be the New Founding Fathers?

November 20, 2009

Russell Longcore throws down the gauntlet to state politicians and readers.

I’ve been writing about secession now for a while. Recently my articles have been featured on the website. Every time that a new article is posted, I get tons of emails from readers that I dutifully answer. I figure if they took the time to write to me, it would be discourteous of me not to answer. Plus, hundreds of new readers look over my secessionist website at It’s all good.

I learn so much from the writers. They ask the most penetrating questions that make me think deeply about what I write. Most of the messages are positive and complimentary. I always get a couple that inform me that I’m a raving idiot who knows nothing. Curiously, those e-bombs are always from north of the Mason-Dixon Line.

But after the last posting, “State Secession: Trying To Beat the World’s Worst Record,” and reader’s comments and questions, I’ve started to re-think some of my secessionist ideals.

I’ve held the hope that the push for state’s rights and secession, with the goal of forming a new nation, would come from the people duly elected to various state House and Senate positions, and from the offices of governors. That’s what happened in 1861. But I’m starting to wonder if there is ANY leadership in the state governments. I’m beginning to seriously doubt if secession and the desire for liberty truly beats in the hearts of any state politicians anywhere.

Where are the articles about secession written by state legislators and governors? When the Framers of the Constitution sought to convince Americans to ratify the new document, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison wrote 85 detailed articles that appeared in newspapers. Those articles are now known as The Federalist Papers.

Are there no politicians willing to make a policy statement about secession? No matter if the articles would be pro-secession or anti-secession, the paucity of position papers written by state politicians is an object lesson we’d better notice.

You might try to correct me by pointing to the thirty nine states have passed legislation or resolutions asserting their Tenth Amendment rights. A few have passed legislation that asserts their Second Amendment rights, specifically that Federal gun laws and BATF regulations do not apply to firearms manufactured within a state’s borders. Why haven’t at least SOME of the sponsors of the legislation, or the guys writing the resolutions, gone on record in writing with articles posted at widely-read forums like this one? Getting a resolution passed has nothing to do with winning hearts and minds out there in the citizenry.

I guess it’s possible that I’ve missed those articles. I know I didn’t read the local papers in Montana and Tennessee, two states that passed the Second Amendment bills. But I live in Georgia, and the Georgia Senate passed and adopted SR 632 on April 1, 2009, which is self-titled “A RESOLUTION affirming states’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.”

I did not know about this Georgia resolution until about a month ago, and I live not 25 miles from the State House.

The sponsors of the Georgia resolution introduced this onto the Senate resolution calendar on the 39th day of a 40-day legislative session. Most senators, in a rush to complete their work in the final hours, didn’t even read the 6-page bill, and it passed 43-1. So while it was nice for the sponsors to introduce and shepherd the resolution, the back-door tactics don’t appear to champion the cause in a forthright manner. A writer in the Atlanta Journal Constitution called it “lend(ing) aid and comfort to radical causes and fringe groups.”¹

Yeah, baby. Secession is pretty radical.

In my article “Cowardice In State Government”, I ask this:

“But where is the state legislature and Governor that will notify Washington that there is a new “nullification sheriff” in town? When will some state begin nullifying the laws coming out of Washington, and refusing to allow them to be obeyed in that state? When will a state refuse to enforce Federal legislation? When will a state slap the cuffs on a Federal law enforcement officer who is trying to enforce Federal law in a state that has nullified Federal law?

Where is that state that will be true to its origins, and allow nothing but gold and silver coin (specie) as tender in payment of debts (Article I, Section 10)?”

None of the state politicians would even have to breathe the word “secession” to assert their powers of nullification, would they?

I even make the suggestion that states could begin now collecting their tax revenues from their own citizens in silver and gold. The process would begin to teach citizens what true money is before they are plunged into a worldwide currency collapse and are forced to learn the hard way. State politicians could even make speeches against secession and still collect their tax revenues with real money instead of Federal Reserve Notes.

Then I think back to the days before the formation of the Confederate States of America. In those days, eleven individual state governments actually passed legislation that a Governor signed, and eleven individual states formally seceded from the united States of America.

In Charleston, South Carolina, on December 20, 1860, the first vote for secession at the Secession Convention was 169 to zero.

On January 9th, 1861, Mississippi joined South Carolina. Florida joined the secession ranks the next day on January 10th. Alabama followed on January 11th. Georgia seceded on January 19th. Louisiana left the Union on January 26th. Texas was seventh to leave on February 1st.

Those seven new sovereign nations sent delegates to Montgomery, Alabama to draft a confederacy. They ratified the provisional Montgomery Constitution on February 8, 1861, and elected Jefferson Davis as President the next day.

Virginia defeated a vote for secession on April 4th. But on April 17th, two days after the attack on Fort Sumter and Lincoln’s call for troops, Virginians voted to secede. Arkansas and Tennessee seceded on May 6th. On May 20th, North Carolina joined the Confederacy.

I do not know if those 1861 state-elected representatives and governors wrote and published their positions. But they understood state’s rights and nullification, understood the US Constitution, and voted in favor of secession in sufficient numbers that seven states could leave the US peaceably and form a new nation. Shamefully, the North did not want peace.

The differences between the politicians of 1861 and 2009 are so stark that comparison is almost laughable.

There was no “groupthink” back then. There was no mass communication media that drowned people in entertainment and info-tainment. The simplest news item took days or weeks to become known by the populace. The closest thing to fast news was Samuel Morse’s telegraph.

Today’s world is a constant din of instant info-noise. Today’s state legislator or Governor is well trained in the ways of Washington plunder and bound with the heavy chains of Federal money. States suckle and cannot stop. They are willing participants in the economic rape of America. If they weren’t, they’d stop it.

So, the questions become obvious: Is it reasonable to believe that men and women in elective State offices who have a Federalist worldview will forsake that worldview and embrace a completely new worldview of nationhood for their state? Should we look to our state houses and governors’ offices for leadership when the poop hits the fan? Should we have any faith in state politicians to protect their own state’s economic health?

I am beginning to believe that the new Founding Fathers and Mothers will be men and women whose names you’ve never heard before. The present crop of state politicos may have to be shoved aside and considered obstructionists. The visionaries who actually bring new nations into existence will rise from obscurity and their names will eventually be found in history books.

So, as I close, I’d like to issue two challenges.

Challenge Number One: Politicians of the Fifty States, I challenge you to write articles either in favor of secession or in opposition to secession. Your constituents have a right to know your position in this matter. I will post your articles at for the world to see. I cannot speak for others, but I’m guessing that other important websites and blogs will pick up your articles and post them far and wide.

Challenge Number Two: Readers, print this article and send it to your state representative, state senator and governor. Then watch to see if they accept the challenge.

Finally, remember Matthew 7:18-20: Jesus said “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

¹Atlanta Journal Constitution, April 16, 2009, “Georgia Senate threatens dismantling of USA,” by Jay Bookman.

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

A Case For Secession-Introduction

November 19, 2009

by Patrick Samuels

What I will be sharing with you over the next few weeks may be considered by some, perhaps many, seditious at the least, treasonous at worst. Fortunately we still enjoy freedom of speech in this country and political speech in particular. This will not be the time or place to argue the methods of secession. Should a state currently operating under the contract of the Constitution of the United States find these arguments compelling in the future, or if the national government continues its slide into tyranny and obligates free men to act to preserve their freedom, it is my hope that the attitude of Thomas Jefferson would prevail; “Let them part by all means if it is for their happiness to do so. It is but the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, and keep them in the Union if it be for their good, but separate them if better.”

Since the “Civil War”, or the War for Southern Independence, established the preeminent place of the national government over the states, eliminating their ultimate sovereignty and right of self determination guaranteed under the tenth amendment of the Constitution, and the continual implementation of the progressive/statist agenda beginning with the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, the people of the various states in the union have been “disposed to suffer, while the evils are sufferable…” In recent years, more and more Americans are no longer finding the evils “sufferable”. We are tired of having our money confiscated for “redistributive justice” or wasted on pork barrel projects. We are tired of distant politicians thinking they know better than we how to raise our children, take care of our own health and well being, and spend our own money. We are increasingly worried that the national government will treat our God given rights as merely privileges to be exercised at the whim and direction of those in power. We are continually offended by politicians who treat us with contempt and disdain. We are fearful of the results of out of control spending and debt accumulation. Many of us believe that if we continue along the path we are on, our children and grandchildren with inherit a country that is merely a shadow of its former self. We believe that the greatness of the United States of America rests in the morality and industriousness of its people and the wisdom of a system of government whose chief aim is to secure their liberty. In a world where tyranny and oppression have been the rule rather than the exception, the United States has demonstrated the great things that can be accomplished by a people unencumbered by class, strict religious ideology or oppressive rulers. To see all that made this country the beacon of light to the world that it has been under attack by the very government we entrust with its perpetuation has become insufferable.

To even contemplate secession brings tears to eyes of every patriot who admires the courage of the men who formulated this Union, remembers the sacrifice of those who gave their all to preserve it, and takes pride in the accomplishments such a great nation has given to the world. Many of the original patriots said the same about Great Britain. It was the best system then available in the world but had become increasingly tyrannical, marring all that was good about it. To see the Union dissolve after all these years is a distressing thing to contemplate. Yet free men are under no compulsion to yield their freedom to perpetuate a government that no longer secures their liberty and happiness, no matter what their affection for its history.

There are those who say “This is America, love it or leave it!” Some among the dissent, myself included, have formulated “escape plans” to be implemented when the confiscation of our wealth or restrictions on our liberty become too great. For a small minority, of which we may be, this would be the moral and proper thing to do. However, if the majority of the people in a state or region become dissatisfied with their government, no longer willing to endure the “long train of abuses and usurpations”, finding no reasonable redress for their grievances and envisioning only despotism in the end, then the secession of that state or region becomes reasonable, just and proper. Why should a people who have invested their lives in the soil of their ancestors be expected to pick up and leave because an oppressive government seeks to reduce them to servitude? Do not those who have toiled to reveal the wealth of the land for their own prosperity and that of their progeny have a right to stay on that land without the expectation that they or their children will be brought into bondage? Do we not have the right to stay in an area where our history and culture have developed in conjunction with our geography to make us unique, without subjecting ourselves to the policies of a government that embraces the antitheses of our culture and values?

Most will object to secession with the idea that we still elect our representatives, we just need to put the right people in office, we need to change Washington from the “inside”. Do we really believe that’s possible any longer? Let’s say that in 2010 we “threw the bums out” and there was a historic fifty percent turnover in the house and senate. Would anything really change? Thirty years ago we had the Reagan Revolution. Twenty years ago there was the Contract with America. Where are we today? Did anything change? Is government smaller, did it shrink even a little? Tom Daschle was voted out and replaced by Harry Reid. Wishy-washy Republican leaders are replaced by other wishy-washy Republican leaders whose best plan of action is to give ground slowly and whose worst is to cooperate to give away our freedom. There is a systemic problem in Washington and it is that the two parties are entrenched in power and the radical party leadership calls the shots because they hold the money for everyone’s reelection in their hands. If ignoramuses like Nancy Pelosi, criminals like Charlie Rangle and Chris Dodd and just plain weirdoes like Barny Frank can be reelected time and time again in their gerrymandered districts, the system is broken and there is no hope for real change in Washington. The parties and the huge Washington bureaucracy are holding us hostage and that is not going to change before the economic and moral damage becomes irreparable.

Finally, consider the fact that the liabilities and obligations assumed by our national government are unsustainable and will, in the near future, result in the destruction of our currency and economy. If our ship of state is like the Titanic and some of us can see the iceberg ahead, Obama, Pelosi and Reid have just given the order for full speed ahead. Some may say deliberately, and not just out of ignorance or stupidity. If the national government is going to commit national suicide, are the people of the many states obligated to go down with the ship, particularly if the people in those states have been continually dissatisfied with the policies that brought us to the point of impact? Would it not be a wise course of action to get into a lifeboat now so you are assured a seat when the ship goes down? A state that secedes before the ship strikes the iceberg, develops a sound currency and economy based on free market principles and an efficient private sector utilization of resources will not only survive the catastrophe, but thrive, because it will have recaptured the ideals and values that made this country great.

I have written this introduction and what will follow based on the idea that a single state or a few that make up a region of the country with similar values and culture would choose to leave the union. If a larger number of states would seriously consider this course of action, then we need to ponder the consequences of a constitutional convention. If the many states choose to, in essence, form a new government under a revised contract, restoring freedom and common sense in government, then perhaps this nation can remake itself in the image of its former glory.

Why consider this now? Although this is not the place to consider the history of the secession movement in this country or its legal ramifications, suffice it to say that a country founded on the right of secession has had secession movements throughout its history. Massachusetts was the first and the southern confederation was the last to be taken seriously. The events of the last two years have awakened many people to the deficiencies of their government, while their government has flaunted those deficiencies as if they were a badge of honor. There are those of us who believe that our national government, with its entrenched leadership and bureaucracy, is incapable of relinquishing power. Perhaps the grab for power and control has become too blatant to ignore but it is only the acceleration of a pattern that began with Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Even if we put a stop to the current attempts at tyranny like health care or cap and trade, it will only be a temporary reprieve. The vast majority of the people in our national government, and many state and local governments as well, believe that they can do a better job of managing everything than the people can. Democrat or Republican, they believe their job is to fix things the government was never meant to fix, many of which are not broken or are broken because they broke it!. Such an attitude will only lead to more tyranny, more absurdity and the absolute ruin of our economic and moral foundations. The ship is steaming full speed ahead for the iceberg. It may be ten yards or ten miles from hitting but it will hit. The laws of economics and the lessons of history make it certain. Will we jump over individually, swimming for safety as best we can? Or will the people of several states rise up and declare their right to liberty and self determination? If the latter is a consideration, the following essays will provide some powerful ammunition to make a case for secession and provide some of the philosophical foundation for building a free state based on the principles that worked so well for so long in the United States.

Copyright 2009,


November 18, 2009

by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

PART ONE of this commentary explained why reform of America’s monetary and banking systems requires introduction of a private electronic gold currency as a parallel medium of exchange to compete with Federal Reserve Notes and the Treasury’s base-metallic coinage. PART TWO explained why a State would provide the best vehicle for introducing such a new monetary unit. This PART highlights some of the specifics of the plan as they apply to the model State, New Hampshire. The latest version of the New Hampshire bill can be found at

A. The State Electronic Gold Currency Plan is based on two fundamental principles of law and economics: (i) that the Constitution provides for monetary federalism, whereby each State retains sovereignty over her own monetary transactions; and (ii) that individual choice and free competition among various currencies in the open market offer the most rational, efficient, and politically safe way for society to select its media of exchange.

1. Congress lacks constitutional power to require that the States use any particular medium of exchange or “legal tender” in the exercise of their governmental functions.[1] In addition, although Congress has mandated that “United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes and dues”,[2] it has also declared that all “obligation[s]…containing a gold clause or governed by a gold clause…issued after October 27, 1977” are legal.[3]

The New Hampshire bill deals with the most important of every State’s reserved sovereign functions: namely,

*borrowing by the State;
*payment of State legislators, officials, employees, contractors, suppliers, and so on (that is, public spending);
*payment for takings of private property through exercise of the power of eminent domain; and
*payment of judgments, fines, penalties, and other monetary awards in the State’s courts.

Moreover, by specifying the use of gold for receipts and payments in these areas, the New Hampshire bill plainly operates on the basis of “gold-clause contracts”. So, both constitutionally and statutorily, the bill removes the State’s monetary policy from control by Congress, the Department of the Treasury, or the Federal Reserve. To be sure, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution imposes absolute limits on a State’s monetary policy:

No State shall…coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; [or] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.[4]

In using electronic gold currency as her medium of exchange, however, New Hampshire will not be “coin[ing] Money”, merely employing a private “Money” over the creation of which she has no control. And even the gold or silver coins into which the bill requires that an electronic gold currency be freely convertible are not “Money” that the State herself has “coin[ed]”.

Neither will the State be “emit[ting] Bills of Credit” when she employs electronic gold currency as her medium of exchange. For such a currency is not anyone’s mere “Bills of Credit” that only promise to pay gold, but consists instead of the actual gold that is the very stuff of payment.

And when the State offers electronic gold currency “in Payment of [her] Debts”, she will in effect “Tender” such “gold and silver Coin” as her creditors may desire to receive by the statutorily required conversion of their electronic gold currency into coinage. Thus, her creditors, not the State, will fix what shall be the exact form of the gold or silver that functions as the final “legal tender” for their own transactions.

2. The New Hampshire bill does not require that everyone use only electronic gold currency in their financial transactions with the State. Although, consistently with Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, the State could do just that: For in reciting that “[n]o State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”, that Clause plainly reserves to each State her original sovereign power to “make…gold and silver Coin a Tender”, to the exclusion of everything else. Rather, in keeping with the principle that the question of which media of exchange are best suited to people’s needs should be decided through open and fair competition in the free market, the bill leaves the choice to use electronic gold currency, or not to use it, to each individual or enterprise (with the exception of a small class of taxpayers and parties subject to certain judgments adjudicated in the courts, to be discussed below). Thus, New Hampshire will have a system of parallel and competing media of exchange, to the exact degree her own citizens and businessmen desire it.

As those citizens and businessmen increasingly realize that gold is a medium of exchange far superior to such political currencies as Federal Reserve Notes and base-metallic coinage, the State will enjoy numerous benefits. For example,

•The use of electronic gold currency in people’s financial transactions with the State will encourage and facilitate its use in their general commercial transactions, because people who receive that currency from the State will want to spend it directly for their own purposes; and people who need electronic gold currency to make regular payments to the State will want to receive it directly in their own businesses and employment.

•People’s increasing use of electronic gold currency in financial transactions other than those involving the State will encourage the expansion of the new financial institutions the New Hampshire bill recognizes, as well as promoting entry into the field by existing banks, which will recognize the advantage–and soon the necessity–of offering such services.

•These financial institutions and reformed banks can be expected in short order to offer, not only deposit accounts, but also investment or loan accounts, in which customers deposit electronic gold currency that the depositaries then loan to other clients, sharing the interest-earnings with their depositors. (These investment or loan accounts, of course, will have to be strictly segregated from the institutions’ and banks’ gold deposit accounts, and not be allowed to serve as a basis for issuing gold currency units.) Long-term loans for capital development will especially benefit from being denominated in gold, because of the low rates of interest that payments guaranteed in that medium will allow. And,

•The development of an economy in which gold plays an important role as a medium of exchange for capital investment will encourage new investment in New Hampshire, because capital tends to flow towards a stable economy, and foresighted investors always consider an economy to be more stable the more stable its medium of exchange, and the more supportive of that medium and its stability the government is.

Thus, this bill can significantly contribute to a solid foundation for New Hampshire’s economy for a long time to come. Is that too optimistic a forecast? Hardly as optimistic as the degree to which one must be pessimistic (or just plain realistic) about the future of the present monetary and banking regimes.

B. Some particulars of the New Hampshire bill merit attention, too.

•”Section 6-D:3 Duties of the Treasurer” defines the special duties the State’s Treasurer must fulfill with respect to New Hampshire’s use of electronic gold currency. This provides guidance to the Treasurer, and sets standards by which his performance can be evaluated. After all, the State’s use of electronic gold currency will be both novel and controversial. Without precise directions, the Treasurer may not understand the extent of his authority and how he is to exercise it. He may also find himself under adverse political pressure, or even be personally unsympathetic or antagonistic to the idea of gold as currency. A clear statement of his duties will contribute to the Treasurer’s proper, efficient, and even-handed execution of his responsibilities.

•”Section 6-D:4 Electronic Gold Currency Payment Providers” establishes strict qualifications and standards of operations for the private firms that will supply electronic gold currency for the State’s use. This weeds out any “fly-by-night operators”, particularly those who might attempt to employ a fractional-reserve scheme in their issuance of gold currency units. An important goal of the bill is to insulate the State herself (and, eventually, New Hampshire’s whole economy) from the dangers inherent in the present Ponzified regime of fiat currency and fractional-reserve central banking. This purpose would be defeated if the firms supplying electronic gold currency were permitted to function in that unsound manner.

•”Section 6-D:5 Independent Specie Vaults” establishes qualifications and standards of operations for the private firms that will hold in safekeeping the actual gold on the basis of which the Electronic Gold Currency Payment Providers will furnish electronic gold currency. This eliminates any and all fractional-reserve practices, guaranteeing instead that the system operates exclusively on the safe principle of “bailment”–whereby the depositaries hold their customers’ gold or silver not as the depositaries’ property, to which the depositors have only a claim for the payment of a debt, but as the depositors’ property, in which the depositaries can assert no proprietary interest whatsoever.

•”Section 6-D:6 Specie Exchanges” establishes qualifications and standards for the private firms that will engage in free-market exchanges of electronic gold currency for gold and silver coin, or Federal Reserve Notes. This makes gold and silver coin the ultimate media of payment into or out of the system. Thus, electronic gold currency units can be created from, and converted into, gold and silver coin–and while those units are in existence, they will represent an exact, insured equivalent of actual gold bullion held in safekeeping.

•”Section 6-D:7 Use of Gold and Silver” establishes the State’s policy of not requiring any person or enterprise that deals with the State to use anything but electronic gold currency as a medium of exchange; lists the State’s essential sovereign functions as to which such currency will be employed; and offers to enter into “gold-clause contracts” with all creditors of the State to the extent the Treasury holds sufficient gold to pay out at that time. This takes the State out from under the national legal-tender law,[5] and empowers her people, to the degree they desire to exercise that power, effectively to “demonetize” Federal Reserve Notes and base-metallic coinage in their financial transactions with the State.

•”Section 6-D:8 Use of Gold and Silver; Taxes and Other Public Charges” requires that State tobacco taxes be paid in electronic gold currency. Although tobacco taxes are relatively small in amount (estimated to be somewhat less than 10% of New Hampshire’s annual revenue) they will provide the State with a regular income in gold that will enable her to pay the first creditors who desire to receive gold. If, on the one hand, more creditors request payment in gold than the tobacco taxes can satisfy, the Treasurer may convert holdings of Federal Reserve Notes into electronic gold currency, or advise New Hampshire’s Legislature to mandate that other taxes or public charges be made payable in gold. If, on the other hand, tobacco taxes prove more than sufficient to satisfy creditors’ requests, the residual amount of gold held by the State can be treated as an investment, or can be converted into Federal Reserve Notes or other assets as necessary.

•”Section 6-D:9 Use of Gold and Silver; Loans, Bonds, and Notes” allows for State debt to be denominated and paid in electronic gold currency. Use of gold as the guaranteed medium for payment of her bonds will enable New Hampshire to borrow at low interest rates for long periods, stabilize her long-term indebtedness, and increase her credit rating.

•”Section 6-D:10 Use of Gold and Silver; Purchase and Sale of Property by the State” permits the State to buy and sell property of all kinds for electronic gold currency. As the process of governmental purchase and sale sets prices in gold for various types of property, it will assist in expanding the use of electronic gold currency in similar private commerce throughout the State, by providing the base on which a general structure of prices denominated in gold can be built.

•”Section 6-D:11 Use of Gold and Silver; Expropriated Property” allows payment in electronic gold currency for property taken by the State through exercise of her power of eminent domain. This will eliminate the incremental confiscation that can occur when “fair market value” for such property is purportedly paid in a chronically depreciating currency such as Federal Reserve Notes. Full payment of “fair market value” for any property requires payment with a truly free-market, not a political, currency.

•”Section 6-D:12 Use of Gold and Silver; Damages, Fines, and Penalties” allows, and in some cases requires, judicial damages, fines, and penalties to be paid in electronic gold currency. This curtails the ability of judges arbitrarily to decide what shall be the tender for these payments on the basis of their erroneous interpretations of monetary law, either requiring that the tender be gold, or leaving that choice to the private parties involved.

•”Section 6-D:13 Use of Gold and Silver; Contracts, Wages, and Fees” allows public employees and public contractors to be paid in electronic gold currency. This will assist in further expanding the use of such currency in private commerce throughout the State, by providing more foundational blocks upon which a general structure of prices denominated in gold can be erected.

•”Section 6-D:14 Notification of Choice of Medium of Payment” and “Section 6-D:15 Limitations on Payments of Gold and Silver by the State” require persons or enterprises desiring payment in electronic gold currency to elect such payment on a timely basis, and limit total payments of that currency to the amounts the State holds at that time. This is necessary because, when the statute is first implemented, the State’s only gold income will be relatively small, deriving solely from tobacco taxes and judicially imposed fines and penalties. The State cannot be required to convert its larger holdings of Federal Reserve Notes into gold in order to pay its creditors in the latter medium of exchange–for that would be to compel New Hampshire to redeem in gold the very notes the Federal Reserve System and the Department of the Treasury have refused to redeem since the 1930s. As more creditors of the State request payment in gold beyond the amounts collected through tobacco taxes and fines, however, public pressure will compel New Hampshire’s Legislature to designate more taxes and other forms of State income payable exclusively in gold, until eventually the State, her debtors, and her creditors will deal solely in that medium of exchange.

To be sure, the New Hampshire electronic currency bill is long and somewhat involved, because it tries to foresee and address every problematic contingency, leaving as little as possible to chance. In principle, though, the bill is very simple, because it promotes monetary freedom and the honesty such freedom imposes on the government in the most straightforward manner possible: free competition among media of exchange in the open market. That alone should be enough to warrant its support by every patriot.


1 See Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 71 (1869); Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108, 111 U.S. 701 (1884).
2 Title 31, United States Code, Section 5103.
3 Title 31, United States Code, Section 5118(d)(2).
4 Distinguishably from Clauses 2 and 3 of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 does not contain the exception: “[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress….” That means that Congress lacks any power to license a State to do any of the things Clause 1 forbids. So, for example, even if Congress had constitutional authority to create a “legal tender” other than “gold and silver Coin”, it could not require any State to use that “legal tender” as “a Tender in Payment of Debts”.
5 Title 31, United States Code, Section 5103.

© 2005 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved


November 17, 2009

by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

PART ONE of this commentary explained why reform of America’s monetary and banking systems requires introduction of a private electronic gold currency as a parallel medium of exchange in competition with Federal Reserve Notes and the Treasury’s base-metallic coinage. Why a State would provide the best vehicle for introducing such a new monetary unit is not too difficult to understand, either.

First, the States are geographically, operationally, and jurisprudentially permanent–they will neither move away nor go out of business in the foreseeable future, and constitute key elements in the Constitution’s federal system, which guarantees their existence and legal powers. See Article IV, Section 4, and Amendment X.

Second, the perennial processes of taxation and spending set up steady flows of purchasing power from society into each State’s coffers, and from her treasury back into the private economy.

Third, very large numbers of, if not most, individuals and businesses in each State are taxpayers or recipients of governmental payments, or both, or regularly conduct economic transactions with people or enterprises who or which are.

Fourth, the amounts of purchasing power any State takes in and pays out these days are significant in terms of the total monetary activity within her territory.

Fifth, when a State employs a new electronic gold currency, she will reduce for everyone else the costs of substituting that currency for Federal Reserve Notes and base-metallic coins. For instance: “Education costs” will be minimized because the State will inform everyone within her jurisdiction of how to employ such a currency in the payment of taxes and the receipt of public expenditures. “Opportunity costs” will decrease because transactions such as the payment of taxes and the performance of public contracts, which unavoidably involve the State, will have to be consummated in the new currency–and therefore people who must pay taxes in gold will seek to obtain income for that purpose in that currency; and people who perform public contracts will seek to pay their employees and suppliers in the currency they receive from the State. “Search costs” will drop because everyone will know that hundreds of thousands of citizens are already using the new gold monetary units in their dealings with the State, and therefore can just as easily employ them in private transactions. And “transaction costs” will plummet because all those citizens will have personal accounts with the State’s electronic gold currency provider, with which all other citizens can easily open their own accounts in order to enter into private contracts payable in that currency.

Sixth, a State is responsible for the welfare of her citizens. In America’ federal system, each State retains both the primary and the ultimate political responsibility for her own people’s health, safety, and welfare. That responsibility resides in her legislature–and cannot be delegated, let alone surrendered, to anyone else. Least of all can it be evaded.

Seventh, America’s federal system empowers and encourages State legislatures, within broad limits, to experiment with laws in the effort to achieve socially desirable results. See Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 597-98 & n.22 (1977); Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 376 (1972) (opinion of Powell, J.); California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 184-85 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring); Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261, 296 (1947).

Eighth, even a single State can (and will) be an exemplar and model for, and a challenge to, others. Any State’s adoption of an electronic gold currency will be too visible to remain unnoticed, even by the Establishment’s media. For each State exercises so much economic power within her own jurisdiction that her employment of a new currency will significantly affect not only the very large numbers of individuals and enterprises that deal directly with the State, but also the even larger numbers that in turn deal with them, both in that State and elsewhere. Moreover, the beneficial economic effects of one State’s adoption of an electronic gold currency cannot fail to have positive political consequences in other States. And no State can lose credibility from acting on principle, especially where application of her principles pays off.

Ninth, unlike the General Government, some States are political entities their patriotic citizens can actually hope to control–by educating, organizing, and mobilizing voters and key legislative leaders.

And tenth, if patriots take charge of their State’s monetary policy, then the General Government and the Federal Reserve System become irrelevant, because under America’s federal system each State enjoys the reserved sovereign power to employ whatever currency she desires in the performance of her essential governmental functions. See Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 71 (1869); Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108, 111 U.S. 701 (1884).

To implement these principles, I have drafted a proposed statute for the State of New Hampshire–full details as to which are to be found at –that can serve as a prototype for legislation in States throughout the country. (Of course, because this bill was designed to fit New Hampshire’s particular situation, it would need to be appropriately modified for use elsewhere.)

Unlike so many contemporary proposals for monetary and banking reform, this bill is perfectly constitutional. Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution delegates to Congress the power “[t]o coin Money”. And Congress has mandated the coinage of silver and gold,[1] and declared its coinage to be legal tender.[2] In addition, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 provides that “[n]o State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”. The New Hampshire bill enables and empowers that State’s citizens to employ Congress’s specie coinage (along with any other “gold and silver Coin”) for that required constitutional purpose, according to their own free choices, through the intermediation of an ultra-modern electronic gold currency unit fully convertible into specie coins or bullion.

Congress has also licensed the Federal Reserve System to emit Federal Reserve Notes irredeemable in silver or gold,[3] has authorized the minting of base-metallic coins,[4] and has declared those notes and coins to be legal tender.[5] These actions are plainly unconstitutional. Even were they valid, though, as a matter of constitutional law New Hampshire need not employ those notes and coins as her media of exchange, to any degree. For the Supreme Court has squarely held that Congress lacks any constitutional power to specify what the States must use as legal tender or media of exchange in the exercise of their essential governmental functions.[6] The New Hampshire bill deals with the most important of these functions: namely,

*borrowing by the State;
*payment of State legislators, officials, employees, contractors, suppliers, and so on;
*payment for takings of private property through the State’s power of eminent domain; and
*satisfaction of judgments, fines, penalties, and other monetary awards in the State’s courts of justice.

Therefore, in empowering and enabling New Hampshire’s citizens to choose gold and silver as their media of exchange, even to the exclusion of Federal Reserve Notes and base-metallic coinage, this bill implements the rule of law the Supreme Court has approved–and thereby in its operation enjoys complete immunity from interference by the General Government and the Federal Reserve System.

Interestingly, in this bill for the first time a State will fulfill the General Government’s monetary policy. Today, all United States coins and currencies, whenever minted or issued, are declared to be equally “legal tender”.[7] The law makes no preferences among them.[8] Anyone may choose one form of legal tender (or even some currency not designated a legal tender) as his medium of exchange, to the exclusion of any or all other currencies.[9] And the courts must honor and enforce such choices.[10] So the New Hampshire bill aids that State’s citizens in doing what the General Government recognizes as everyone’s statutory rights.

Moreover, those who imagine that silver and gold are somehow “out of date” as money forget that even Congress has mandated that silver and gold be coined in amounts sufficient to meet public demand, and that coins of these metals be legal tender.[11] These coins are now available in the marketplace. The New Hampshire bill aims at making them easily usable by every individual and enterprise in all financial transactions involving the State.

Other than certain taxpayers and persons fined in the courts of law (who are required to pay their public dues solely in gold in order to guarantee the State a small but steady input of specie, come what may), the New Hampshire bill does not require anyone to use electronic gold currency in financial transactions involving the State. Rather, it leaves the choice to each individual and enterprise—because the question of which forms of currency best serve the people’s needs should be decided through open and fair competition in the free market, with government adopting the people’s choice. People who find electronic gold currency (and the gold and silver coins and bullion into which it is convertible) most useful, will choose those as their media of exchange. People who find Federal Reserve Notes and base-metallic coins most useful will choose them. Thus, New Hampshire will operate a system of parallel, competitive media of exchange, to the degree her own citizens–not political and financial elitists in Washington, D.C., and New York City–desire it. One can anticipate, however, that, given freedom of monetary choice and empowered to exercise it efficiently, the people of New Hampshire (and of every other State) will seek to enhance their own economic security and political liberty by increasingly choosing gold and silver over rag currency and slugs, until (through gradual expansion of the law) the State’s financial transactions–and then her entire private economy–employ electronic gold currency to the virtual exclusion of any other.

The route to monetary reform proposed in the New Hampshire bill offers an outcome in which no one can lose–other than those intent on exploiting the American people politically and economically through fiat currency, central banking, and the endless monetization of public debt. If the proponents of electronic gold currency prove prophetic, and the present monetary and banking systems continue to deteriorate, or even collapse entirely, the New Hampshire model will offer a method for rapid, salvific change throughout the country. If those proponents prove overly pessimistic, and the monetary and banking systems continue to muddle through, the New Hampshire model will at least provide inexpensive insurance and peace of mind for the people who put it to work. (No one can reasonably fault insurance because the tragedy it covers fails to occur.)

The New Hampshire electronic gold currency plan proves that Americans do not have to depend upon the likes of Chairman Greenspan, or the denizens of Congress and the Department of the Treasury, to bring about real monetary reform in the foreseeable future. Americans can do that for themselves and by themselves–if they want to.

Part 1,Footnotes:

1 See Title 31, United States Code, §§ 5112(a)(1-7) (gold) and 5112(e) (silver).
2 See Title 31, United States Code, §§ 5103 and 5112(h).
3 See Title 12, United States Code, § 411 and Title 31, United States Code, § 5118(b) and (c).
4 See Title 31, United States Code, § 5112(a)(1-6).
5 See Title 31, United States Code, §§ 5103 and 5112(h).
6 See Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 71 (1869); Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108, 111 U.S. 701 (1884).
7 See Title 31, United States Code, §§ 5103 and 5112(h).
8 See Thompson v. Butler, 95 U.S. 695 (1878).
9 See Title 31, United States Code, § 5118(d)(2).
10 See Bronson v. Rodes, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 229 (1869); Butler v. Horwitz, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 258 (1869).
11 See Title 31, United States Code, §§ 5112(e) (minting of silver coins) and 5112(i)(1) (minting of gold coins); §§ 5103 and 5112(h) (all coins to be legal tender).

© 2005 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved


November 16, 2009

by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

Two of my earlier commentaries–DON’T COUNT ON WASHINGTON TO PROTECT US FROM A LOOMING BANKING CRISIS and CAN AMERICANS SOLVE THEIR MONETARY AND BANKING PROBLEMS FOR THEMSELVES?–have explored why this country cannot expect either the General Government or Americans as isolated individuals to solve the monetary and banking problems the Establishment has caused. Rather, America needs to find a workable mechanism that can

*return a significant part of this country to sound money and honest banking whether or not a monetary crisis ever occurs, before a crisis breaks out, and surely in case a crisis flares up;
*educate Americans–economically, politically, and in particular constitutionally–about the use of gold and silver as media of exchange;
*encourage, empower, and enable Americans to use gold, silver, or both as their preferred media of exchange;
*provide a nonpolitical–that is, private, free-market–medium of exchange actually consisting of (not just “backed” by) gold, silver, or both, but that government at every level can use for all public purposes, too;
*create open competition in both private commerce and public finance between gold and silver commodity moneys, on the one side, and fiat Federal Reserve Notes and base-metallic coinage, on the other; and
*offer an alternative to fractional-reserve banking.

For genuine and lasting monetary and banking reform to occur:

(1) This mechanism must be capable of operating and expanding in anticipation of, in response to, and during any regional, national, or international monetary and banking crisis, in order to solve or moderate, if not prevent or mitigate the worst effects of, the crisis in at least the location where the mechanism is already functioning. This capability is necessary to obviate any supposed need for “emergency” legislation or other draconian devices in that locale, so that the mechanism can prove itself there and thus serve as a model for the protection or rehabilitation of the remainder of the country.

(2) This mechanism needs to be put into operation well before a crisis breaks out–indeed, the sooner the better. Which means that it must be capable, both economically and politically, of being implemented in some significant place in the foreseeable future.

(3) Although this mechanism must be capable of beginning to function immediately upon adoption, it should be introduced, not on a “crash” basis, but as a measured, gradual reform that can be carefully thought through, publicized, put into place, tested, and perfected while everyone is still thinking clearly and acting calmly. It must be a mechanism that everyone will come to know is available, that many people will actually use even in the absence of any crisis, and that through such use will come to be widely understood and trusted.

(4) This mechanism must be economically viable from its very onset. If an even theoretically sound plan for monetary and banking reform proves too complex, cumbersome, or costly to implement in its initial stages, what will be necessary to avert or address a crisis will not be accomplished in time.

(5) This mechanism must be capable of interacting efficiently at all times with the present monetary and banking systems, yet nevertheless operate outside and independent of, and (most importantly of all) not suffer from any of the major problems that beset, those systems. Thus, it must be based on private, parallel, and competitive currency that consists of actual gold or silver, not mere claims thereto–let alone a new fiat currency. The depositary institutions that provide this new specie currency must operate on the principle of “bailment”–whereby the depositaries hold their customers’ gold or silver not as the depositaries’ property, to which the depositors have only a claim for the payment of a debt, but as the depositors’ property, in which the depositaries can assert no proprietary interest whatsoever. Consequently, the depositaries cannot engage in the pernicious practice of “fractional reserves”, or claim the special privilege to “suspend specie payments” (i.e., to assert immunity from their own contractual obligations to their depositors, while nonetheless remaining in business themselves).

(6) This mechanism must be targeted, systematic, and institutionalized, rather than dependent upon the uncoordinated efforts of isolated individuals most of whom will be unaware of, and unable to cooperate with, each others’ activities. It must operate both extensively and comprehensively—that is, it must immediately involve a large number of people within a specific geographical area carefully chosen on the basis of its economic and political significance, then extend fully throughout that area, then expand into other areas, and at length embrace the vast majority of citizens throughout the United States. In monetary and banking reform, “small is not necessarily beautiful” and is certainly not likely to be effective, because: (i) no tiny social enclave, no matter how apparently isolated and self-sufficient, will prove completely immune from the adverse effects of a nationwide or worldwide monetary and banking collapse; (ii) no such enclave’s partial success in protecting itself is likely to have significant positive spill-over effects elsewhere; and (iii) no such success in some isolated enclave can provide a convincing test of the method’s usefulness in larger areas with more complex economies. (Although, of course, if such is the best that can be done, then the inhabitants of every out-of-the-way enclave should do it, and let the rest of the country stew in its own juices.)

(7) For these reasons, this mechanism must be introduced in a locale that, in terms of geographical area, population, and level of economic activity, is relatively large and complex, rather than small and simple. Also, it must initially operate through a major participant in the market–that is, one with which large numbers of people financially interact, directly or indirectly, on a regular and permanent basis, and which continually takes in and pays out significant amounts of purchasing power in whatever currencies it employs.

(8) This mechanism will need a large degree of legal immunity from interference by the General Government (especially the Department of the Treasury) and the Federal Reserve System, which will undoubtedly claim “supremacy”, “exclusive jurisdiction”, and powers of “preemption” as to any new currency. For the very creation, let alone the operation and success, of any mechanism for monetary and banking reform will inevitably subject it to retaliation from the Establishment, fanatically opposed as it is to remonetization of gold and silver.

(9) Finally, operation of this mechanism must not be likely to trigger a depression, hyperinflation, or other monetary and banking crisis when it starts the open competition between gold and silver, on the one side, and fiat currency, on the other. After all, the purpose of reform is not to bring down the Federal Reserve System, come Hell or high water, but to replace it with sound money and honest banking in as timely, orderly, and inexpensive a manner as possible. Prudence must be the watchword.

The foregoing criteria for a successful reform compel the following conclusions:

I. The new medium of exchange should be a private electronic specie currency unit, itself of gold or silver, and fully convertible into standard gold or silver coins or bars. At the present time, the best choice available in the free market is the “goldgram”, provided by James Turk’s GoldMoney (at

The “goldgram” is a fixed weight of actual gold, but divisible electronically into very small amounts (0.001 part of a “goldgram”, or a “mil”), so that transactions of almost any size can be easily and expeditiously carried out.

The “goldgram” is transferrable anywhere over the Internet, making it a truly global currency. But, being entirely private in origin and operation, it is immune from the systematic political manipulations that commonly affect currencies emitted by governmental treasuries or central banks.

Because it is a completely private currency, the “goldgram” is protected by better safeguards than either the Treasury’s coins or the Federal Reserve System’s notes can claim. First, the “goldgram” is a fixed unit of weight of pure gold, with no arbitrary “dollar” denomination. This is quite distinguishable from the Treasury’s gold, silver, and base-metallic coins that are all denominated in numbers of “dollars” which are not only largely fanciful in constitutional terms, but also exhibit no rational relationship among themselves in the economic terms of their various purchasing powers in the free market.

Second, a holder of “goldgrams” owns a fixed amount of gold, itself a valuable commodity; whereas the holder of Federal Reserve Notes owns nothing but the Notes themselves, at best a political debt. True, a holder of Federal Reserve Notes has a legal right to their redemption “in lawful money”. Title 12, United States Code, Section 411. But no statute mandates the redemption of Federal Reserve Notes “in lawful money” containing any permanently fixed amount of any specific commodity. At best, a holder of those notes is entitled only to their face value in United States base-metallic coins, which can contain whatever slivers of junkyard scrap Congress and the Treasury decide to stamp as “money” from time to time–and which specifically at this time cannot include either gold or silver. See Title 31, United States Code, Section 5118(b) and (c).

Third, because each “goldgram” is the depositor’s own private property–not a debt owed to him by GoldMoney–the electronic gold currency system avoids all the problems of Ponzification inherent in fractional-reserve banks.

Yet, although they are held and transferred outside the established banking system, “goldgrams” are freely exchangeable with Federal Reserve Notes and base-metallic coinage, and vice versa. This provides users of “goldgrams” with outstanding protection, flexibility, convenience, and efficiency for all their monetary transactions. “Goldgrams” can function as a truly parallel currency, because any contract can be made, and paid, in “goldgrams” or fiat currency, as suits the parties’ needs.

The widespread introduction and use of “goldgrams” in America’s economy can cause neither a depression nor an hyperinflation, either. A depression will not occur, because extensive use of “goldgrams” will actually increase the supply of true, commodity money by remonetizing gold (and silver, too, when an equivalent system for “digitizing” that metal appears). So, even to the extent that “goldgrams” may displace Federal Reserve Notes and base-metallic currency from use, the economy will suffer no destabilization. A more sound currency will simply supplant a less sound currency, by operation of the free market. No hyperinflation will occur, either, because the supply of monetary gold is incapable of huge, arbitrary, and especially politically driven increases. Rather, it is fixed by physical availability, and the free market’s control over its production. Conceivably, Federal Reserve Notes and base-metallic currencies may depreciate against gold; but, as they do, gold will appreciate against them.

Of great importance, too, is that “goldgrams” are freely convertible into standard gold and silver coins and bullion as part of GoldMoney’s normal operations. This qualifies “goldgrams” for use in all public functions by States and localities that must satisfy the requirement of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution that “[n]o State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”. In selecting “goldgrams” as her medium of exchange, a State is not “coin[ing] Money” (which that Clause prohibits her from doing), merely employing a private gold currency over which she has no control. Neither is the State “emit[ting] Bills of Credit” (which that Clause also prohibits her from doing), because “goldgrams” are not anyone’s “Bills of Credit” that only promise to pay, but actual gold that is the very stuff of payment. And when the State offers “goldgrams” “in Payment of [her] Debts”, she “Tender[s]” such “gold and silver Coin” as her creditors may desire to receive by automatic conversion of their “goldgrams” into coinage–so that the creditors, not the State, fix what shall be the form of the gold (or silver) that functions as the final “Tender” for the transactions.

II. The last point is crucial, because the major participant in the market through which monetary and banking reform initially must operate most likely will be a State. Indeed, reliance on a State is probably the indispensable key to reform, as PART TWO of this commentary will disclose.

© 2005 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved

State Secession: Trying To Beat the World’s Worst Record

November 14, 2009

If you can’t think of reasons that state secession is a better solution for liberty than working within “the system,” consider the record of the Federal Government of the United States.

Sure, you can ultimately lay the blame on all of us, since we are the ones who allow the atrocities of Washington to continue. But for now, let’s look at Washington’s record of achievement over the last 150 years.

War of Northern Aggression – 1860s. The North wages war on a confederation of seceding states who left lawfully. Over 600,000 men died on both sides.

Reconstruction: 1860s-1870s. The North plunders the South.

Fractional reserve banking: counterfeiting by another name. Born in the 1800s, perfected by the Federal Reserve and central banking system of the USA.

Spanish-American War – 1898. “Remember the Maine?” A complete lie told by newspaperman WR Hearst, bought by the public and Washington to go to war.

Federal Reserve: established in 1913. For 96 years, it has mismanaged the economy and counterfeited currency.

IRS and the Income Tax (16th Amendment): 1913. What starts out as a small tax becomes a leviathan. What starts out as a small division of the Treasury becomes the most feared weapon of Washington.

World War 1: 1914 -1918. 117,000 dead Americans, 205,000 wounded. The US had no business in a European family war but President Wilson had other ideas.

Depression I: 1929 – 1940s. The Federal Reserve caused it.

New Deal: 1933-1936 FDR’s massive government jobs program, plundering the wealth of the USA. Fascism by another name.

World War II: 1941-1945. Another European war, we had no dog in this fight. FDR baited the Japs into attacking Pearl Harbor, giving him political cover.

Cold War: The US and the USSR escalate preparations for war to new heights, spending hundreds of billions of dollars on weapons.

Korean War: 1950 -1953. 36,000 Americans dead, 96,000 wounded.

Viet Nam: 1950-1975. 58,000 dead Americans, 303,000 wounded.

Creation of three letter agencies: HEW, HHS, CIA, FDA, FCC, DOA, DOD, EPA, and the list goes on…

New Cabinet bureaucracies: Energy, Education, Homeland Security, etc.

Grenada invasion, 1983. 19 Americans dead, 116 wounded.

Panamanian invasion 1989: 23 Americans dead, maybe 3,000 civilians killed.

Bosnian War: 1992-1995. US sends troops under UN flag, millions of civilians made refugees.

Gulf war 1999: President George HW Bush commits a massive force to Kuwait. 379 Americans die, 776 wounded in a 100-hour war.

Iraq: 2003-present. About 5,000 Americans dead, over 35,000 wounded (that they’ll admit to). That doesn’t count casualties of our mercenaries…I mean contractors.

Afhganistan/Pakistan: 2001-present. About 1,000 Americans dead, over 4,500 wounded. That doesn’t count casualties of our mercenaries…I mean contractors.

TSA: 2001-present: Domestic airline travel done “the government way.”

Let’s not forget…

**Counterfeiting, bailouts, nationalization and massive inflation: Just another way that Washington says “you belong to me.”

**Regulation of every facet of human life: Try to think of a second of your life that is not regulated in some way by Washington. Quick answer: that second does not exist.

**Two party political system: two sides of the same coin, both Washington cheerleaders and sycophants. Both want to spend unconstitutional money.

**Out of control military, bases in 130 nations.

Here is the point to this litany of tyranny. The government of the United States of America has screwed up the entire planet through their actions over the last 150 years. The events of currency collapse and inflation in our not-too-distant future will reverberate throughout every nation on earth.

States of the United States that choose to secede will certainly be affected by the implosion of the Washington government. But, could any new nation ever match the “Hall of Shame” listed above?

New American nations, formed from the seceding United States, would be little pinpoints of light and liberty. If their only guiding principle was to not make the same mistakes that the US government made over the last 150 years, they would be destined for success.

How could they fail?