The Secessionist Campaign for the Republic of Vermont

By Christopher Ketcham / Montpelier Sunday, Jan. 31, 2010

Editor’s Note: When the topic of Secession is found in the pages of Time Magazine…truly one of the pillars of the Main Stream Media…it means that secession is being taken seriously.)

The President on Wednesday may have reassured Americans that the state of the Union is “strong,” but, just the week before, a group of Vermont secessionists declared their intention to seek political power in a quest to get their state to quit the Union altogether. On Jan. 15, in the state capital of Montpelier, nine candidates for statewide office gathered in a tiny room at the Capitol Plaza Hotel, to announce they wanted a divorce from the United States of America. “For the first time in over 150 years, secession and political independence from the U.S. will be front and center in a statewide New England political campaign,” said Thomas Naylor, 73, one of the leaders of the campaign.

A former Duke University economics professor, Naylor heads up the Second Vermont Republic, which he describes as “left-libertarian, anti-big government, anti-empire, antiwar, with small is beautiful as our guiding philosophy.” The group not only advocates the peaceful secession of Vermont but has minted its own silver “token” — valued at $25 — and, as part of a publishing venture with another secessionist group, runs a monthly newspaper called Vermont Commons, with a circulation of 10,000. According to a 2007 poll, they have support from at least 13% of state voters. The campaign slogan, Naylor told me, is “Imagine Free Vermont.” In his fondest imaginings, Naylor said, Vermonters would not be “forced to participate in killing women and children in the Middle East.”

Second Vermont Republic’s gubernatorial candidate is Dennis Steele, 42, a hulking Carhartt-clad fifth generation Vermonter and entrepreneur. He owns Radio Free Vermont, an Internet radio station, and honchos an online venture called ChessManiac.com. Steele says that, if elected, his first act in office would be to bring home Vermont’s National Guard from overseas deployments. “I see my kids going off to fight in wars for empire 10, 15, 20 years from now,” said Steele, who served three years in the U.S. Army. “People in Vermont in general are very antiwar, and all their faith was in Obama to end the wars. I ask people, ‘Did you get the change you wanted?’ They can’t even look you in the eyes. We live in a nation that is asleep at the wheel and where the hearts are growing cold like ice.”

Steele and the secessionists have nothing but contempt for Vermont Senators Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy, who are otherwise considered among the most liberal members of Congress. “They’ve done nothing to stop the wars,” says Steele flatly. Thomas Naylor was more pointed: “Every time a Vermonter serving in the National Guard gets deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, likely to be hurt or killed, Bernie and Patrick are there to commemorate the departure and have pictures taken.”

With 20 or so mostly middle-aged attendees looking on, the candidates each stood at the podium to deliver a remarkably unified message: The U.S. government, they said, was an immoral enterprise — engaged in imperial wars, propping up corrupt bankers and supersized corporations, crushing small businessmen, plundering the tax-base for corporate welfare, snooping on the private lives of citizens — and they wanted no more part of it. “The gods of the empire,” Steele told the room, “are not the gods of Vermont.”

“It’s an abusive relationship we have with the central government,” says Peter Garritano, a square-jawed 54-year-old Subaru sales manager who is running for lieutenant governor. “We know it’s scary to leave the abusive nest. It’s a comfort zone in its own way. But we think we’ll do better leaving.”

An independent Vermont, the group believes, would expolit its already highly developed local small-scale agriculture, its “locavore” farm exchanges, with a tax structure reformed to incentivize small business and industry (and to make life difficult for large out-of-state corporations). By 2020, they foresee Vermont producing at least 75% of its own electricity and heat, using wind-, solar-, biomass- and hydro-power. They want to establish a Bank of Vermont owned by the people of Vermont — freed from the arbitrary controls of central bankers — as well as a local alternative currency, with Vermont pension and operating funds invested not in Wall Street but in locally owned financial institutions. “We favor devolution of political power from the state back to local communities, making the governing structure for towns, schools, hospitals and social services much like that of small, decentralized states like Switzerland,” declares the group’s “21st Century Statement of Principles.”

Seven secessionist candidates declared for seats in the state senate. Among them is Robert Wagner, 46, an economist who is also a computing consultant with Oracle Inc. Wagner, who homesteads with his wife and six-year-old son in the Green Mountains, says that current U.S. law enables multinational corporations to abuse Vermont as a “resource colony.” Citing a 2008 study by the University of Vermont, Wagner says the state stands to gain over $1 billion a year in revenue by taxing equitably the corporate behemoths that exploit Vermont’s “commons,” which includes everything from the state’s groundwater, surface water, wildlife and forests, to the public spectrum of the airwaves. According to the UVM study, for example, Coca-Cola, Nestle and Perrier and other refreshment manufacturers avoid $671 million in taxes for the environmental damage incurred by their siphoning of state groundwater.

But what about that comfort zone of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps, plus the infrastructure currently funded by the federal government, including bridges, roads and particularly the interstate highways? One analysis by a researcher at the University of Vermont found that the state only gets 75 cents back for every dollar it hands over to the federal center. The secessionists say they’d prefer to save their money and keep it at home. “Not only would an independent Vermont survive,” says Naylor, “It would thrive, because it would free up entrepreneurial forces heretofore held in abeyance. We’re not preaching economic isolationism. We want to confront the empire, and that doesn’t mean just owning a Prius and keeping a root garden.”

Copyright 2010 Time Magazine Online

Secession and Sound Money

When some American state eventually secedes from the Union, they will face monetary issues before nearly any other issue. The establishment of a currency sets the foundation for everything else that will happen in the new nation, since nearly all human interaction is based upon commerce. I’ve already written HERE. about the gold standard. Today I want to say more about this subject, and try to convince you how important it will be.

The Constitution of the United States was a compact ratified by the states. The ratification, or adoption, of the Constitution took place between September of 1787 and July of 1788. But the Constitution is not a legal contract, and cannot bind any two persons legally in any way. Consequently, it has no real power or authority today. I wrote about this subject HERE. So, a seceding state can use the old Constitution as an example of a founding document. But a seceding state is going to become a sovereign nation. So, only if a new sovereign nation desires to enter into a compact with other states to form a new confederacy might many of the articles apply to the new nation. Each state already has its own Constitution that will require amendment and redesign to accommodate its new position in the world as a sovereign nation.

Here is what the old Constitution says about money:

Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have power:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;”

Article I, Section 10 forbids the States from coining money, emitting bills of credit (paper currency with no specie backing), or making anything but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts.

When the United States of America was founded, there was no government-controlled national currency. For decades, Spanish silver coins and other foreign coins of gold and silver were widely circulated in the Americas as one acceptable medium of exchange. The US Mint wasn’t established until 1792, and then US and foreign coins were all used in America.

America started out with competing currencies.

Later, legal tender laws were passed. This simply means that Congress passed laws making something other than gold and silver legal tender for payment of debts. If you look at any Federal Reserve note today, you’ll see the words “this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private” printed on the bill. Governments typically and historically have done this so they can inflate the currency and pay for additional government spending without direct taxation. There is nothing in the Constitution that allowed Congress to enact legal tender laws, but they did anyway. The Constitution prevented the states from making anything other than gold and silver legal tender for payment of debts, but did not specifically prevent the Federal Government from it. So, contrary to the Tenth Amendment, they did it.

Over the history of America, we evolved from a system of competing currencies, all backed by gold and silver, to a Federally-founded private bank cartel that monopolizes the printing and issuance of currency.

But, during all this time, America has had a dual currency system that almost no one knew about. I’m not talking about a bi-metal (gold AND silver) system. I’m talking about gold and silver coins with face monetary value, and also paper currency with a face value. There is a section of US Code, 31 USC 5103, that purports to establish US coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender. Ask Robert Kahre about this dual currency system.

Robert Kahre is a businessman who used to live and work in Las Vegas, Nevada. He now resides in a Federal prison, convicted of violating IRS regulations. For many years, Kahre paid his employees using gold coins…perfectly legal. But the IRS decided that they did not like it, and prosecuted Kahre. Read the Robert Kahre story HERE. You will be stunned. Kahre is in prison for embarrassing the Federal Reserve and the IRS. And the dual currency system still exists unchanged.

In order to establish the most sound money possible, a state that secedes to become a new nation will have to establish a system of competing currencies. In order to complete this precedent-setting act, they will have to:

1. Write their own Constitution to prohibit the establishment of legal tender laws.

2. Write their own Constitution to permit private minting of gold and silver coins.

3. Establish the weight and purity standards for gold and silver coins as a part of the establishment of all standardized weights and measures. The value of the coins should not be regulated by the new nation, but should be regulated by the free market alone.

Establishing sound money, or not establishing sound money, will be the first and most important bellwether for a newly formed nation. If the new nation stumbles in this, its most important issue of the protection of individual property rights, it is destined to eventually fail, just like the United States of America.

“A just weight and balance are the LORD’S: all the weights of the bag are his work. It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness. Righteous lips are the delight of kings; and they love him that speaketh right.” Proverbs 16:11-13

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

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

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

Conspiracy, Census and the Case for Secession

by Gary D. Barnett

After reading my title, I suppose many will automatically think I am some sort of anarchist or revolutionary. If so, then thank you for the compliment. If only I could be thought of in such an honorable way?

The very intrusive and invasive U.S. Census can be used to make a case for secession. Not that a case for secession can’t be made using a myriad of other criteria, but due to the original reasoning for the census, I think one can show that any country with more than 300,000,000 people cannot possibly remain a free republic. It simply is not possible. Our nation was intended to be several states, with a federal system to oversee the protection of individual rights. It has become a single nation-state with all control coming from a central-planning leviathan. This is an untenable situation and was bound to lead to tyranny. This in and of itself is reason enough to pursue secession.

First, let’s look at the Census issue. Stated in Article 1, Section 2 of our constitution:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years; and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years of the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative.

There are a couple of things that stand out in this passage. First, an actual enumeration (simple head count) shall be made every ten years. This count of heads is all that is authorized by the constitution, and is to be done so that a proper ratio between the representatives and the people can be determined, and to also determine the proper apportionment of direct taxes among the several states. As an aside, the number of representatives has been fixed at 435 since 1911. The total population of the United States in 1911 was 93,863,000. Obviously, our population has increased almost three and one half times since then without any change in representation. Secondly, the writers of our current constitution said that there should not be more than one representative for every thirty thousand people, and going forward from the original 65 members, the rule of one representative for every thirty thousand people was generally accepted. As I will discuss later, there were no fixed upper limits on the number of representatives, but the Founders did caution against too large a number; but why?

The ratio of representatives to people was not exact as heavily populated centers would have fewer representatives per capita, but the end result was to be full and fair representation of all the people. Since the number of representatives has been fixed for almost one hundred years, what is the point of the current Census? Since no additional representation is even being discussed and no talk or legislation exists to change this number, is the Census now valid and/or constitutional? I do realize that specific district changes do occur and that apportionment of some taxes (actually very little) is still constitutional, but I think a very good argument could be made that not only is the modern Census completely unnecessary, but that it might now be unconstitutional as well due to the fact that the primary reasoning for this count has been thrown aside by the federal government. If no count will result in a change of representation, then the costly and invasive U.S. Census should be stopped immediately. Obviously, the modern census count is used not to determine representation as originally intended anyway, but is used as a tool to determine the improper and unconstitutional amounts of wealth redistribution, and to gain personal and private information about the citizenry. The coming census also includes a precise mapping by GPS of every address. What in the world does locking in my home position in a government database have to do with representation or apportionment? This information, by the way, is none of their damn business! This in and of itself is reason enough to scrap this invasion of privacy because the entire census count is nothing more than a farce to help expand government interference into private matters.

What does all this mean? A breakdown of the numbers is useful here. Initially, there was one representative for every 30,000 people. In 1911 when the representative number became fixed at 435, there was one representative for every 216,000 people. Currently, there is one representative for approximately every 760,000 Americans. If we were to go back to the original plan, we would now have to have about 11,000 representatives. Is anybody up to 11,000 campaigns and elections every two years? Before you answer, think about the unseen consequences.

Karen DeCoster pointed out to me that having thousands of representatives, as ridiculous as it sounds, might prove to be beneficial. Can you imagine the bottleneck if 11,000 politicians were trying to agree on a particular piece of legislation? Nothing would ever get done, rendering the political process mute. This might not be a bad idea after all, as gridlock is a desired end. Gridlock stifles political aggression and is certainly a friend of freedom.

Times have certainly changed over the past 200 years or so. James Madison once thought that the number of representatives, as long as not too small or too large, was not a big issue. He thought this because he had faith in the American people; in that they would not continue to vote for those who would advance tyranny, and considering the times, he was most likely correct in his assumption. What in the world would Madison think if he were alive today? His trust in the American people would be shaken beyond repair. How could anyone today believe that our liberty is safe in the hands of the imbecilic and unenlightened American voter?

His foreknowledge was evident when he said:

What change of circumstance, time, and a fuller population of our country may produce, requires a prophetic spirit to declare, which makes no part of my pretensions.

Judging from his words, he understood that times would bring change and that larger and larger populations would cause problems in representation. Given the times of our Founders, one representative for every 30,000 people seemed proper, but today, one for every 760,000 is absurd. Let’s face it; this country has become too large for freedom to survive under its present form of government. Instead of freedom, we now have socialism, fascism and tyranny. So what can be done about it? I think there is only one logical answer: Secession!

Secession should not be feared but embraced. Our country was borne by secession and in my opinion can only be saved by secession. Secession in my mind is an inherent, God-given right. If one is bound by or to the state by force, freedom has no validity and cannot exist. Secession is the virtual unbinding of the chains of tyranny. It is the emancipation if you will, from the servitude of the state and awakens the spirit of liberty. What better solution is there when extreme conditions exist?

Many will balk at the idea of secession but there is no need. Our country would not be torn apart, but restored, by separating ourselves from a tyrannical government. Secession is not a breakup of the country because the country will remain intact. The spirit of America would not be lost but regained. The oppressive power of the federal government would be curtailed, and in many cases eliminated. Just think of the benefits if the federal government’s power was eradicated. Massive taxation and inflation would all but disappear. Unjust and unholy foreign aggression would not be possible. Spying, wiretapping and unwarranted searches would be a thing of the past. The growing police state and standing armies could not be funded at current levels and would have to be pared back. U.S. military bases in other countries would have to be closed and all military personnel could come home where they belong. The insane war on drugs and its accompanying prison-state apparatus would shut down. With these changes, torture would no longer be the rule of the day, and civil and just law could return. In other words, a return to freedom would be evident and real prosperity would once again be available for all to seek. Does this sound euphoric? Of course it does, because freedom and free markets are euphoric in a real way, unlike the so-called socialistic euphoria based on theft and oppression.

This is serious business! It is important, it is imperative, and time is of the essence! Any secession from this tyrannical government, whether by states, portions of states, or regions, will require gargantuan efforts by individuals. This government will never be receptive of any plan to limit its power, and secession is a virtual elimination and negation of centralized government. No break from this behemoth can or will be achieved through government action or government process. That would be an exercise in futility and would fuel even more oppression. It will require that those involved, whether individuals, groups of individuals or entire states, not obey any unconstitutional or unjust federal law. As should be evident, this will be no easy task, but the rewards of victorious secession are freedom, liberty and prosperity.

June 8, 2009

Gary D. Barnett is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc., in Lewistown, Montana. He is a regular contributing writer at http://www.LewRockwell.com.

Hyperinflated Entitlements

by Tom Baugh

A few weeks ago, First Wife and I were standing in line at the market, and ahead of us was a woman with a cart full of junk food. Hidden among the junk was a coloring book strategically placed there by the little girl darting around her as the child worked to place the items on the conveyor. During a moment of inattention by the mother, up went the coloring book, partly covered by a bag of death doughnuts. The coloring book inched its way toward the cashier, until, at the last moment as the clerk’s hand reached for it, the mother sprang into action. Snatching it away, she chided the girl, “I told you we don’t buy this kind of trash.” Of course not. Why should she want to help the girl improve her mind or her artistic ability for the price of a half-bag of doughnuts? After all, that’s not the mother’s responsibility, is it?

This clearly wasn’t the first such disappointment for the girl, as she stood there with stoic eyes while the mother fumbled around in her wallet, eventually producing a little debit card with a big Georgia peach on it. And then I understood.

Here in Georgia, as in many states, entitlements such as food stamps are now implemented electronically. Recipients of this largesse now carry EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) cards, which for all intents and purposes, function as normal debit cards. Recipients even get to check their account information online through a system maintained by JPMorganChase. Of course it is. Sadly, I’m not making any of this up.

A few days ago, Russ Longcore wrote an article (Secession and Economic Collapse) about the effect of a banking collapse and incipient hyperinflation. The picture he paints in that article is realistically grim. If anything, his article may be too optimistic. I say this because for the first time in human history, we are staring down the maw of impending hyperinflation in which the parasites will be insulated from tragedy, while the productive will be singled out for economic and personal destruction. And programs such as the peach card, administered by our wards at JPMorganChase, will be instrumental in this sequence of destruction.

Regardless of the precipitating causes, once an economic crisis begins in earnest, as Russ correctly predicts, all of your money in the bank will immediately become inaccessible. Your credit cards will probably become inaccessible soon after, since the banks will reasonably assume that you won’t have the ability to pay them back, or will want to pay them back in little tiny hyperinflated dollars. But fortunately, our fellow card-holding citizens won’t have this problem.

It is obvious that during periods of hyperinflation governments respond by printing more money, worsening the hyperinflation. But printing money doesn’t necessarily mean ink and paper. Our government can easily print more money right now, with zero materials cost, simply by adding more zeroes to the end of all those EBT accounts. What yesterday was a peach card (or longhorn card or whatever) with a balance of five hundred dollars could tomorrow easily contain five thousand dollars, or five million dollars. Spend all you want, they’ll make more. Overnight, food stamp recipients could become the richest people you know. Meanwhile, you won’t even be able to buy a carton of eggs. Maybe they’ll let you wash their cars for a few crumbs from their plates.

And why would our government charge up those cards with fake money? Why, for the same reason that they issued all those cards in the first place: to attract and keep a solid block of voters. This isn’t rocket science.

But what about food shortages? Won’t the shelves be bare? Not necessarily, at least to start. For a while, those rapidly inflating Electronic Benefits Transfer cards (I never get tired of appreciating the honesty in that name) will keep the supermarkets afloat. Because our peach card heroes will be able to sustain their purchases of expensive junk food, the stores will keep pace with hyperinflation and be able to continue to bring goods in to stock. It will be a surreal situation: stores stocked with goods, but you won’t be able to afford to buy any of it. How do you think that will make you feel, standing in line behind someone who can buy anything they want, while you had to scrape together enough to buy a half-dozen eggs? Of course, they are buying these goods with money created by destroying your savings, but hey, that’s just a detail.

But it isn’t just food stamp recipients. No sir. With a little bit of imagination, one can easily uncover many more groups who will benefit from executive orders pumping up their equivalent of peach cards. Retirees living on fixed incomes from Social Security could easily enjoy the same hyperinflated perk with a stroke of a pen. As could government employees, including the military, law enforcement, and key government contractors; in short, anyone who gets a government check. In the depth of such a crisis, producers of original value will suddenly find themselves impoverished; yet surrounded by public servants and beneficiaries of enforced charity who barely notice anything is wrong. Other than that your attitude suddenly got a lot worse. Maybe they ought to take your guns away, just in case you start getting ideas.

We can actually already see the seeds of this situation in action today. If you have a stable government job, for example, it is a great time to buy a house. You will probably qualify for all you need to buy a great house at rock bottom prices. Too bad for the sap who spent his life saving to buy that house and now can’t afford the payments. Never mind that increasingly oppressive regulations, combined with tightening of credit, drove him out of business or cost him his job. He should have been smart enough to have a government job in the first place. Everyone knows that’s where the real action is. For those getting the checks with all the flags on them, or their electronic equivalent, these are boom times. Couldn’t be better, in fact, except with more of the same, of course.

I’ve maintained for a while that they, the unproductive parasites, do indeed surround us, the productive few who generate original value. Parasites rarely decide to become productive. Worse, some currently productive people, with enough coercion and misery, will, in desperation, turn to parasitism. Facing poverty, that former body shop owner might decide to join Obama’s domestic security forces, for example. That’s a great path out of poverty, but too bad it makes him a little more unsympathetic to your particular plight. Maybe the tasering won’t kill you when you lose it and start yelling at that peach card leech ahead of you in line at the store. If it does kill you, at least your family will get your tiny little insurance dollars. Oh wait, I forgot, you were committing the crimes of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest at the time. Sorry, no insurance either.

The bottom line is, we are surrounded, and we will become more surrounded with each passing day. Crises will only work to increase the rate at which our fellow man decides to jump sides. Eventually, there will be very few of us left.

So, what do we, the productive people, do about this? Scribble some more signs and have more rallies? Nope. These things only waste your precious time, because our enemies aren’t simply innocent sheeple. No, by now each of these people have made conscious decisions to eat you alive. We have to get over the idea that with enough education, people will wake up and set things straight. There are just too many of them now who profit from taking everything you have worked for your entire lives, and destroying everything of value in this country. We have to understand who the real enemies of liberty are. The leaders whose names we know are merely the agents of the teeming, anonymous masses.

But, there is hope for us. Oddly enough, our salvation will come by steering a course directly through the heart of the storm. One of the neat features about crises is that they so easily spin out of control, almost by definition. Some of those guys who decided to join the parasites to police you happened to be filling an essential economic cog unawares. We never know how the ripples of economic activity splash and slosh, but at some point, some farmer isn’t going to get his feed or fuel delivery, and ten thousand chickens will die. Or a crop doesn’t get harvested in time, or the pipeline breaks and the guy who knows how to fix it has been replaced by a quota. Or went into cardiac arrest or cracked his head after being tasered for yelling at some leech in the supermarket.

The unpredictable and uncontrollable free market economy which tyrants disdain is exactly the economy which feeds, houses, clothes, and warms four hundred million people (illegals included) in this country. Wrap a chain around that economy, and it will start leaking value in every direction, none of them good. No matter how bad it gets for the productive individual in the short term, the leeches will receive their due some winter. All you need to do until then is to be able to survive through that winter. Other authors help prepare you accordingly for that. In the meantime, as discussed in my article “How Many Shoes?”, prepare yourself for long-term survival by learning something useful which you can trade later with your productive brethren.

Later, trimmed of all the fat in the herd, we will then be able to restore Constitutional principles to their rightful place without all the parasites who think that great document just gets in their way of stealing from you.

Tom Baugh is the author of “Starving The Monkeys: Fight Bank Smarter”. He is also a former Marine, patented inventor, entrepreneur and professional irritant.

Secession and Football Fundamentals

We are only two weeks away from the Super Bowl. After watching the Minnesota Vikings make mistake after mistake in Sunday’s Championship game, and give away the game to the New Orleans Saints*, I think back to my high school football experiences.

After an embarrassing loss like the Vikings had, our coach would have told us, “Boys, we’re going back to the basics and re-learn the fundamentals of football.”

Favre reacts to another fumble.
(Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images)

The fundamentals of football are:

• blocking and tackling
• holding the football tightly and not fumbling the ball
• keep doing your job until the whistle blows
• score more points than the other team
• work as a team, not as individuals
• winning gets you more girls than losing

What could this lesson possibly have to do with state secession, you may ask?

The Secession War of 1776 pitted the English colonies against motherland England and King George. The Declaration of Independence declared the colonies as sovereign nations…as sovereign as England herself.

Soon after the colonial victory, the states ratified the Constitution, which instituted a very strict few duties for the new Federal Government that the states created, and retained all other power to the states and to the People.

Those are the fundamentals of the game.

Over time, the Federal team began doing things for which it had no power or authority. The People’s team began fumbling the ball…and the Federal team always recovered the fumble. The People’s team gave up yardage (sovereignty) on every series of downs. And the referees…the courts…kept throwing flags against the People’s team and hitting them with the penalties.

The game has ceased to be fun to play. The refs have left the field to the Fed team, and now the Feds play however they want. The Fed team makes up its own rules, and the game doesn’t even resemble the fundamentals. And insult above all insults, the Fed team tells the People that they have to keep playing and cannot leave the field.

The whole concept of state secession is to return to the fundamentals. No state would ever consider seceding unless the Federal Government that it helped to create was doing things it ought not do. The fundamentals require that the Federal Government operate within its Constitutional restrictions.

Nullification will not be able to be effective, since there is no American state with a Militia in place to enforce any nullification challenged by the Feds.

Then, you must factor in the reality that the US Constitution has no authority to bind any two persons in any way, and that no legal status exists between the People and the Federal Government. Read Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason.”

So, it is time for the People’s team to walk off the field and stop playing this no-win game. But to do so, seceding states had better revitalize their Militias first.

By the way…free men get more chicks than slaves. Lighten up, Francis!

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

*Even though I was rooting for the old guy, Brett Favre (a Mississippi boy), the Saints are a Southern team, and the South is where my heart is. Geaux Saints!

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

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

Secession: The New Third Rail of Politics

Ever heard of the “Third Rail” of politics?

The concept of a “third rail” comes from electric trains…the big kind that people travel on. The wheels of the train run on the normal rails, and a third rail is the electric power source for the train’s electric motors. Touch the rails for the wheels and you have no problems. But touch the third rail, usually electrified with hundreds of volts, and you die.

In politics, the Social Security system became known as the “third rail” of politics. The system became sacrosanct over time, and politicians who wanted to reform Social Security came to find out that touching the system meant certain political death.

But there is a new political “Third Rail” in America today…Secession. It evokes fear and dread in most politicians, no matter if those politicians are at the state or federal level. Even the lone Congressman leading a revolution in Washington for liberty…Dr. Ron Paul of Texas…won’t speak of secession as a solution to end Federal tyranny.

I had opportunity to speak to Dr. Paul in person at the Campaign for Liberty’s regional conference in Atlanta a week ago. When I asked specifically about secession, he said that states had no chance for secession at the present time. Rather, he stated that as the Federal government implodes, the states would be able to nullify or simply ignore Washington…a “de facto secession” is what he called it.

Doctor Paul is privy to a vast breadth of information to which I have no access. So, I cannot simply dismiss his opinion about secession. And perhaps his opinion about secession will change as circumstances change in America. But it appears to me that Ron Paul is not yet willing to support the concept of state secession as the solution to DC tyranny. He will not touch the Third Rail.

In his recent“State of the Republic” Address, he outlined all of the reasons that America is in such deep, unavoidable trouble as a nation. Here is the summation that Congressman Paul offered:

The only way that we can prevent blood from running in the streets is to offer a better idea of the proper role of government in a society that desires first and foremost -liberty.
And that is impossible without a firm commitment by our thought leaders to the ideas of freedom, the source of all creative energy and prosperity. An all-powerful state is the threat to that ideal.
The prevailing attitude of the people-as it once was in early America-must be that of liberty and self reliance, rather than the nanny state and dependency relying on government force to mold all private choices.
If this is understood, a smooth-although not painless-transition to a free society is achievable. Ignoring this option will be very destructive to everything that is dear to the hearts of most Americans.
What is it that we must do? We must immediately:

• Balance the budget by reducing spending
• Change our foreign policy to that of non-intervention
• A full audit and more supervision of the Federal Reserve leading to abolishing the Federal Reserve
• Legalize competition to the Federal Reserve with competing currencies
• Regain respect for civil liberties and privacy while reigning in the CIA
• Wean ourselves off the dependence of wealth transfers by government
• Abolish crony capitalism-no subsidies, no bailouts, no regulatory or tax privileges to protect the powerful elite, especially the military industrial complex
• Eliminate the income tax, inheritance tax and taxes on savings and dividends.
None of this can happen without the restoration of Congress to its dominant position of the three Branches of Government as was originally intended by the Constitution. The Executive and Judicial must be reined in, and Congress must assert its prerogatives over all legislation curtailing all unconstitutional agendae through budgetary controls.

Signs abound that angry Americans are now more ready than ever before for a change in direction that is indeed real. If this program were improvised-even suddenly and dramatically-the adjustment, though significant and to a degree somewhat painful, would be much shorter and of minor consequence compared to the chaos and poverty that will result if we refuse to change our gluttonous appetite for a free lunch.

While I agree with Dr. Paul’s analysis, no amount of videotape…no amount of ink on a page…not even the complete agreement of all pundits will convince me that Washington will EVER contemplate any one of the eight bullet point actions listed above. And if they won’t contemplate them, Congress will most assuredly NOT enact any of them. Actions speak louder than words.

Rep. Paul stated openly at the conference that, even with 315 co-sponsors to HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve, he does not anticipate that a vote on this bill will be allowed in the year 2010.

So, in the obvious absence of ACTION by Congress on the eight recommend-ations by Rep. Paul, what practical solution is left to solve the empire-ending problems coming from DC and affecting every American?

There remains only one solution.

Secession.

I disagree with Doctor Paul. I do not believe that we can prevent “blood from running in the streets.” State secession would not prevent the economic collapse of the Dollar. And when the dollar melts down, crime, hunger, poverty and death are still going to happen widely in America. I also believe that the President will invoke nationwide martial law as soon as the economic collapse occurs. At that moment, governors and state legislatures are going to have to make a hard decision who is finally in charge.

But if a state will secede and immediately adopt a gold/silver monetary policy combined with the freedom of currency competition (just like Paul wrote in the Free Competition in Currency Act, HR 4248), that state or states will have the ONLY chance on the North American continent to shorten the suffering of its citizens and create a new nation based upon individual liberty and sound money.

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

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

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

Secession and Economic Collapse

Economic collapse in the United States is inevitable. But because the dollar is currently the world’s reserve currency, when the US gets sick, so will the rest of the world. Tragically, the worst of the consequences for regular people will happen here in America. Let’s look at what will happen.

I Thessalonians 5: 3-6 “For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. 6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.”

Today, I’d like us to stop talking about the theoretical side of economic collapse and actually put some specifics out there for you to consider.

The Causes of Economic Collapse

Congress, the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve have flooded the world with paper US money. Not all “money” is a spendable piece of paper currency. Treasury securities are sold to pension funds, insurance companies and to other nations, like China and Japan. They can be traded between parties just like cash. Look over the pie chart below and notice who owns MOST of the US debt…states, foreign nations and the Federal Reserve, who owns a whopping 49% of all US debt.

Source: CNBC

Just the Federal Reserve and foreign government holdings account for over 77% of all US Treasury securities owned. So if the Federal Reserve controls the money supply…and own almost 50% of the Treasuries…and foresee deficits into the future…what choice do they have but to buy more Treasury debt and printing more paper money to pay for it?

The US Federal Government is going to run a TRILLION DOLLAR deficit this year. That means they can do one of four things: (a) tax Americans a trillion dollars to collect the money from the citizens; (b) borrow (sell debt instruments like bonds) to the Fed, pension funds, states, insurance companies and nations of the world; (c) slash government and cut back to a balanced budget; or (d) print another trillion dollars in currency and buy some more US Treasury debt.

Which one do you really believe that Washington will do?

Now, institutional investors aren’t completely droolingly stupid (that we can prove). And most of the foreign investors are way smarter than Americans. They know that the dollar has no basis for value. They all know that inflation happens when governments print too much paper money with no underlying value. So, they can look into the future and see that they are going to receive payment in dollars that have shrunk in value. And they see that the more wildly Washington spends money, the more the dollar will shrink. Dollars that shrink in value means their buying power diminishes…the definition of inflation. The US Dollar has lost 95% of its value since the 1920s. Said another way, what now costs a dollar today only cost five cents in 1920.

This is the reason that the other nations of the world are looking for a new reserve currency. This is the reason that the oil producing nations would like an oil bourse, which would accept payment in currencies other than the dollar (Iran just started one). They know how bad off the dollar is and they don’t want to get stuck with billions of dollars of worthless currency as payment for their oil.

Here’s something else that institutional investors know…that the value of these securities and dollars they hold is a soap bubble on a hot day. It will only last briefly and then it will pop and disappear. Investor confidence maintains most of the value of US Securities, and investor confidence is extremely shaky right now. Said another way, if a couple of major holders of US Treasury securities tried to sell off their holdings next Monday, it would trigger a worldwide panic in the bond markets. Others holding US debt would also try to sell their holdings in an effort to get something for them as opposed to holding worthless bonds unsellable at any price. The bond market would collapse overnight, which would also collapse the rest of the financial markets, including the banking sector.

There are hundreds…perhaps thousands of holders of US Treasury securities. To maintain the semblance of investor confidence, every boldholder would have to sell his holdings with perfect timing. But selling presumes that there is a willing buyer at some price, and that has yet to be proven. Any one of them that makes a mistake could cause the crash of the worldwide bond market, and inevitably the crash of the entire world financial system. So, do you really believe that no one will make the mistake that crashes the system? Remember, much of investor confidence is based upon PERCEPTION, not reality.

Once that happens, the banks and credit companies would cease to function, or at least, their operations would be curtailed for an indefinite time. The term for this event used to be a “bank holiday.” Few will see the fun in that holiday.

If you watch the news each week, you’ll notice that lots of banks have already closed in America. And the bank examiners and regulators ALWAYS seem to close the banks on Friday. That gives them the weekend to scurry around and fix things if possible.

So, let’s explore the string of events that will likely occur on the day the system fails.

It’s a Friday. You go to work in a normal fashion. At lunchtime, you swipe your credit card at the restaurant and the transaction is rejected. The cashier says that all the credit and debit card transactions are being rejected, and there must be something wrong with the satellite feed. Luckily, you have cash, and you pay your bill. By the time you are leaving, the manager announces to the whole restaurant that they are not accepting any more new customers until their credit card system comes back online. All customers will have to pay cash.

You go back to work. When you get there, you punch up CNN on your computer and find that the problem is not just that restaurant’s uplink. News reports state that the worldwide bond market crashed during the morning, sending the rest of the financial markets into a freefall. The New York Stock Exchange called a halt to trading and closed at 11:30 am. Credit transactions all over the US are not working. Businesses are closing early, or only accepting cash transactions. You and your co-workers leave work early to go to your banks to make a withdrawal of cash to tide you over the weekend. But hundreds of thousands of other people have run to their banks to get cash, too. And because the banks are only required by law to keep about 15% of their assets on hand in cash, they quickly run out of money. Many banks have closed their doors for the day. When you arrive at your branch bank, it’s already closed. The sign on the door says the branch will be open again Monday morning. The ATMs do not function…anywhere.

You look in your wallet and there is six dollars there. Payday was today and now you cannot cash your paycheck. You were going to fill your tank on the way home, but now you can’t. You wonder how you’ll get to work Monday with no gas.

On your way home you drive past gas station after gas station. Many have already closed. Many have erected hastily-scrawled signs that say “CASH ONLY, NO CHECKS.” The lines of cars are blocks long.

When you get home, your spouse has had much the same experience. She went to the market on the way home from her job and the market manager had also posted “CASH ONLY” signs on the front door. People were buying up everything they could afford. The milk and bread shelves were already bare. Thankfully, your wife’s car has a full tank of gas.

You look in the pantry. A quick look tells you that the family will be able to get through the weekend just fine, although the meals might be a little weird. But by Tuesday, you’ll be running out of essentials.

Throughout the weekend, regularly scheduled news shows become 24/7 special reports about the banking and credit interruptions nationwide. Videotape from all over America shows the closed banks, shops and gas stations. 18-wheelers are parked and shut down all over the roads and in truck stops since the truckers can’t fill their fuel tanks using credit. And, some of their loads of refrigerated or frozen goods will spoil if the reefer unit runs out of fuel.

The Saturday news shows report that the Federal Reserve has been taken over by the World Bank. The President has signed an Executive Order authorizing the takeover. But since taking over the failed Federal Reserve, they have now replaced all dollar-denominated money with the Euro. They also devalued the dollar’s convertibility by a factor of 2. That means when you convert your dollars to Euros, you will only receive less than half of the face value of your dollars. Before the collapse, it cost $1.50 to buy one Euro. Now it costs $3.00. So, your $100 bill will only convert to about 33.50 Euros. The President proclaims a limited window of 30 days in which citizens will be allowed to convert all dollar currency into Euros. Than after that, the Federal Reserve notes will be entirely worthless. The President states that this is the only solution to prevent chaos.

Sunday afternoon your boss calls. Your suppliers cannot get product to your business since the truckers cannot move cargo. He tells you to just not come in Monday but to call him for instructions about Tuesday.

Monday brings no good news. More and more people, desperate for cash and panicked by the news broadcasts, have crowded in a riotous mood at banks all over America, but they’re turned away. News film shows inner city markets, gas stations and businesses that have been looted over the weekend. And the looting will now begin to spread out into the suburbs. Small bands of armed looters openly storm into businesses and take what they want. News stories show business owners sitting outside their front doors with rifles or shotguns in their arms. Crime mushrooms in only a 72-hour period. The police are completely overwhelmed.

Over the weekend, you and your family have combed the house for spare change. Between your change jar, coins in the couch and in drawers, you’ve come up with about twenty dollars. All the rest of your money is in your uncashed paycheck and in your bank account…unavailable. You have a no gold or silver coins. You have a couple ounces of gold jewelry that could be sold for cash. But what kind of cash? Should you hold onto the jewelry or sell it? Perhaps you should trade it for gold or silver coins.

On Sunday evening all TV and radio networks simulcast a Presidential address. In a terse statement, the President declares martial law in effect immediately. From now on, you will see troops on the streets, and all police officers will be dressed in SWAT team military gear, carrying AR-15 rifles.

On Monday, you call your boss and ask if he can take back your paycheck and pay you in cash. He cannot, since the business account is frozen just like everyone else’s accounts. He also tells you not to come in at all until the credit and banks work again. By the way, you’re not getting paid for your time off.

On Tuesday, you go to your local supermarket. When you arrive, you find armed guards at the entrances who search you for weapons before you enter. Upon entry, you find that many of the shelves are empty. You’re able to buy some canned goods, but that’s about it…and you only had $26 bucks anyway.

By Thursday, The World Bank has replenished some banks’ cash reserves. Some banks have re-opened for only a couple hours per day, and have restricted service to drive-up service only. Most people park their cars to save fuel and line up on foot to use the drive-up service. The employees that do show up for work are locked safely inside the branch away from the angry mobs. Women, who comprise most of the branch bank work force, are too scared of mob violence at the bank. Some refuse to work and some simply quit.

But many banks cannot reopen again, since the larger financial fallout has made them bankrupt.

By Friday, news programs show story upon story of armed thugs breaking into homes, looking for food, cash, valuables…and guns. Other stories feature homeowners who fought off robbers and looters with their own weapons, and showed film of the thugs lying dead in the front lawn. Cops are nowhere to be found, responding to calls more serious than simple robberies.

Only one week has passed in America, and things are only going to get worse. How are you going to feed your family? How are you going to keep the utilities on if you cannot work, earn money, get paid in cash and pay the utility companies? How will you pay if you need medication at your pharmacy, or need medical treatment? How are you going to keep your cell phone working? How are you going to feed your pets?

All of your neighbors are in the same mess you’re in. But now, you’re meeting together to see about ways to band together for safety, protection, and sustenance.

Now, you will see prices of all goods and services skyrocket. Inflation of 200%…300%…500% are common. Soon, those annual rates of inflation might become weekly rates.

A black market of goods and services springs up quickly. But the Federal Reserve or World Bank Euro currency is not accepted in this black market. Only gold and silver coins are accepted as money. For those who possess gold and silver coins, most goods that are unavailable to paper money users are readily available.

What’s happening to the poor…the sick…the elderly? Actually, the elderly may do better than you do, since the elderly are known for keeping more cash at home than most families. But this reputation will also make them prime targets of criminals who will rob them of their cash and valuables. For those who cannot fend for themselves, hunger and death are a very real possibility.

And folks, we are less than two weeks into the economic crash.

If the economic crash lasted a month, or two or three months, America would see a complete breakdown of society, with massive death tolls due to starvation and crime. There are going to be millions of men and women whose jobs will simply vanish, never to return. Millions of businesses will close, as consumers deem them to be unimportant to survival. What will these people do to earn an income? What skills do they have?

Eventually, states are going to have to decide if they are going to allow themselves to be run by Washington, or if they believe they can do better. One of the only ways to lessen the cultural chaos that has been portrayed here is for an American state to secede from the Union and establish a gold/silver monetary system. Even secession after the economic collapse will not protect anyone from the short-tem fallout of being unprepared to weather a disaster. But secession with a gold/silver monetary system is the ONLY possible method of cutting short the disastrous effects of the inevitable economic collapse. No one believes that Washington will ever again accept Constitutional restrictions and a gold standard for money. So, absent any help from DC, state secession is the only possible solution for governance and the only way out of economic collapse.

In conclusion, let me say that I am not trying to convert the sycophants of tyrants into liberty lovers, although that might happen in isolated incidents. I am writing to give crucial information to any citizen who is disturbed about America, and to encourage rebellion and sedition by the rest of the Americans who already know they are DC slaves.

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

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

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

Debra Medina For Governor of Texas!

Forget all the nice things I’ve ever said about Rick Perry. I’ve been far too nice…far too hopeful…far too gracious in my words about The Guv.

Rick Perry is a member in good standing of the political criminal class. He wishes to continue, and fellow criminal Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson wants his job. But Debra Medina is also running for Governor, and she actually wants to uphold and defend the Texas and US Constitutions.

The first Gubernatorial Candidate debate was held on Thursday, January 14th in Dallas. Participants were Governor Rick Perry, seeking another term; Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson; and Debra Medina, registered nurse and mother.

I watched this debate the day after on the Internet. I recommend strongly that you watch every second of this debate by CLICKING HERE.

John Weekley, political analyst for the CBS affiliate in Dallas, said that while there were no overt losers, Medina probably won the debate. In my opinion, Debra Medina should have been carried out of the debate hall on the shoulders of her supporters for a complete rout of the other two candidates.

Let’s summarize the words of each candidate:

Rick Perry: The very first question posed by the moderator was about secession and nullification, and she asked specifically if Perry supported nullification. Perry waffled and squirmed and never did really answer a simple “yes or no” question. But he did say that he would not nullify laws that had to do with Federal dollars, like highway funds, that should come to Texas.

Perry also stated that his favorite Federal program was the military, quickly giving a verbal hand job to all the military personnel that “keep us free.”

When asked by the moderator to name just one Federal program that needed to be cut, Perry could not, or would not, name one. He said he was happy with them all.

Perry disparaged Hutchinson by pointing to her senatorial voting record, stating that she was a Washington insider that voted nine times to raise the Federal Debt ceiling. He also pointed out that she had committed to vote against any Federal bailouts, and then reversed and voted for all of them on a party-line vote.

The Governor defended his record as Chief Executive, and stated that 1,000 people a day were moving to Texas for its pro-business climate.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson: The Senator painted on a very insincere smile and began ripping Perry as soon as she got her turn to speak. She told of the woes of high Texas taxes, lost jobs, immigration/border issues and Perry Administration ethical challenges. When asked about her position on abortion, she stated that she was anti-abortion, but she did not believe that states had any rights to adjudicate this issue.

Hutchinson could not think of even one Federal program she believed should be axed. But, like Perry, her favorite Fed program is the military. She did not really defend her senatorial record, but simply stated that she was a Conservative who would be more conservative than Perry if she were Governor.

Debra Medina: She supported nullification of unconstitutional Federal law. She said the states should individually decide abortion issues. She took a position strongly in favor of individual property rights, especially as it relates to the proposed Texas corridor. She advocated the sales tax as the only method of taxation in Texas, and is in favor of eliminating all property taxes. She stands for an end to the War on Drugs and the position that each state should decide this issue for itself.

In summary, Debra Medina won this debate by simply taking pro-liberty positions and small government solutions to problems. Hutchinson and Perry spent their night sniping at each other over petty issues, and both refused to take solid, verifiable positions on anything.

Both Perry and Hutchinson are career politicians who have prospered in the belly of the Beast. Each one wants to continue with “business as usual” in the next term as Governor. Only Debra Medina stands as a candidate who recognizes the fundamental problems built into the system and offers solutions to fix the problems.

I recommend Debra Medina for the next Governor of the State of Texas. Only Medina has the freedom-based philosophical underpinnings to lead a state that will eventually be faced with the secession issue.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

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

Choose Wisely, by Timothy Baldwin Esq.

The sentiment is brewing, the consensus is collecting and the solution is becoming more apparent: the States of America must reclaim their sovereignty and independence to protect our God-given liberty and freedom. At this point in our country’s existence, I dare say that the time for persuading others to “join their side” is over. For the most part, the people of the states have chosen what type of government they want, how they relate to that government and what they are willing to do to effectuate it.

American history reveals the same categorical beliefs concerning freedom and government have existed since 1776 (as human nature never changes): a small percentage (say, 10%) fight for freedom and independence; a small percentage (say, 10%) fight for imperialism; a large majority (say 40%) care nothing about getting involved; and the remaining percentage follow whomever they believe will win at the end of the day, to merely be treated as favorably as possible by the victors. These choices become more revealed as oppression becomes harsher and more intense, for with every action there is a reaction.

As the oppression from the federal government has become increasingly known and felt over the past one hundred years, those who have attempted to remedy the situation have explored solutions, most of which involved merely voting. Unfortunately, the solutions used during the twentieth century have proven ineffectual to protect freedom, and perhaps worse: they have aided the oppression of the federal government. Many are saying, enough is enough. Thus, now in 2010, real solutions are being seriously considered, not the least of which is an individual state’s DECLARATION ON INDEPENDENCE, just as the colonies did in 1776. This Declaration of Independence is commonly referred to as Secession.

Perhaps there is not a single issue that cuts to the heart of American principles more than the matter of declaring independence from all others, as secession does. The principles in support of or against secession are literally a dividing line that cannot be resolved by a (supposed) “common court” or “final arbiter,” such as the federal supreme court. A court can no more dictate to a body-politic (i.e. state) regarding the principles of self-government, consent of the governed, sovereignty, statehood, natural law, or breach-of-compact remedies than it can dictate an individual’s ability to defend his home from unlawful invaders.

Indeed, the States have never given up this natural right to govern and defend themselves, especially where the compact (i.e. the constitution) has been violated (e.g. “long train of abuses [evincing] a design to reduce them under absolute despotism”) by the entity created to be bound to its terms (i.e. the federal government). How do we know this? First, because there is nothing in the terms of the US Constitution itself which even implies that the states gave up their right to dissolve their part in the compact, which was formed by their voluntary assent to begin with. To the contrary, the US Constitution confirms that sovereignty of states in the tenth amendment. Second, because all of the most influential freedom documents used by our founding generation giving political, moral and legal grounds to secede from Great Britain confirm the right of a body-politic to disassociate itself with other states where the compact between them is violated. Third, because the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” reveal that a body-politic has the right “to alter or to abolish [government], and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” Fourth, because the very principles used to empower the federal government, contrary to the true meaning of the constitution, confirm that if the federal government’s powers can change with circumstances, so can the States’ powers, “to secure these rights [of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

You may not like the fact that all the States in America have this right of self-government. You may not agree with it. You may not understand it. But your opinion on the matter does not change their right given by God Himself. You may wish that the States would be perpetually bound to a union enslaving them. You may say that the States MUST pass a constitutional amendment to “reinstitute freedom.” You may opine that three-fourths of the States are the only means of preserving freedom. You may believe that each State could not “make it on its own.” But your opinions does not change the laws of nature, the rights and powers of an individual state, the authority of an individual body-politic and the obligations of all external subjects and objects (e.g. the federal government) relevant to the sovereign political decision of each state.

When the US Constitution was being publically discussed, it was never proposed that the union would thrive because of government FORCE holding them together. Rather, a moral bond was presupposed to hold the states together; namely, the principles of freedom revealed through the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Moreover, the States rested their ratification of the compact in 1787 upon the assumption that all the states and the federal government (their creation) would maintain the requisite element of GOOD FAITH to “uphold, defend and support the Constitution of the United States of America.” Without this assumption of good faith, “they would never [have] coalesce[d] into one body.” Samuel Pufendorf, Two Books of the Elements of Universal Jurisprudence, (Indianapolis, IN, Liberty Fund, 2009), 127. Those individual bodies-politic understood that “men who violate those pacts are sinning against the same law.” Ibid., 126. Therefore, where the necessary and requisite element of GOOD FAITH does not exist in that society, there will necessarily exist a valid fear that the compact will continually be breached. See, Ibid., at 127. When continuing fears of such breaches exist, “no civil society [can] be…preserved.” Ibid.

To many, this reality is all too clear. The federal government has demonstrated its continual and intended breach of the compact formed in 1787. To them, the shame they should feel for violating this compact apparently does not furnish enough restraint to limit their actions within the lines and bounds of delegated authority. Bad faith is evident and obvious. As a result, the people of the states are reviving their rights under the rule of law, which states, “if one party has broken its pledged good faith the other party is no longer bound.” Ibid., 122. From this rule of law, a truth follows: “he who does not stand by pacts already violated by the other party is not perfidious.” Ibid. In other words, where the non-breaching party of a compact no longer recognizes its obligations under the original compact, that non-breaching party is within its rights in doing so, viz-a-viz, secession.

In 2010, freedom-loving people in America are taking these principles seriously and have decided to lead their community and state in this regard. Many are running for state political office and are literally campaigning on the principles of state sovereignty, independence and/or secession. You can visit the this site to see which candidates have so far signed what is called the “Ten-Four Pledge,” sponsored by Michael Boldin, creator of http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com. These candidates are doing what no generation of candidates have done in a long time: they are standing on the principles of true federalism, wherein the states have the power and even the duty to resist federal tyranny. Consider their “Ten-Four Pledge” in part:

“As a public office holder, or a candidate for public office, I promise that, as long as I hold office:
1. My votes will always be in favor of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.

2. I do, and will continue to, oppose any and all efforts by the federal government to act beyond its Constitutional authority.

3. I will proactively introduce and support measures designed to adhere to the Tenth Amendment and preserve, to their fullest extent, the powers of the People in my district, and of the legislators and administrations of my State.

4. I will introduce, sponsor and support resolutions affirming the sovereignty of the People of this State under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

5. I will introduce, sponsor, and support legislation that nullifies, within my state, actions of the federal government which exceed its Constitutional authority.

6. I will introduce, sponsor and support legislation that provides such relief as is necessary and proper to provide fair redress to the citizens of my State in response to actions by the federal government which exceeds its Constitutional authority.

7. I will introduce, sponsor and support legislation which refuses federal funding made on condition that my State comply with federal mandates not authorized by the Constitution.

8. I will only vote in favor of a bill that I have thoroughly read, considered and understood.

9. I will be accountable to voters. Upon request, I will make public every vote I cast while in office.

10. I will keep this pledge public, and will provide a link on my website which directs constituents to the text of this pledge.”

Candidates like these will only continue to grow. This is not going away.

Whether you like it or not, a revolution is taking place in America. It is a revolution standing firm on the principles that our founding generation fought and died for: self-government, consent of the governed, constitutional government, limited government, separation of powers, lines of sovereignty, natural laws of God, freedom and all that implies.

A constitution itself may be virtually ignored by the government it created, but the principles and power of freedom never leave a body of people who are willing to take action and yes, sacrifice for these principles’ preeminence.

Indeed, were it not for those men and women who truly believed (“faith without works is dead”) that duty to God required resistance to tyranny, it is likely that the “experiment” in freedom would never have gotten to the laboratory of a constitution in 1781 or 1787. The colonies would have remained dependent on Great Britain. The colonies would have never become sovereign and independent states. The checks and balances, limitations and bounds of delegation within a written constitution, based upon the natural laws of God, would have never been incorporated into American governmental fabric.

Face the facts: the train of abuses is not slowing down. Just the opposite, it is gaining speed and adding more carts to its momentum every day. The time for choosing sides has just about expired. When the hammer falls, knowing where to stand and why will be crucial to you and your posterity’s freedom.

Make the right decision: choose freedom.

Copyright (c) Timothy Baldwin 2010

The Militia Question, Resolved: Second Amendment 101

Individual gun rights for personal protection are not why the Second Amendment was written. There is actually NOT ONE WORD in the US Constitution about the rights of the People to defend their persons and property…as directly relating to self defense.

The Second Amendment is all about thwarting government tyranny.

The following article was written by the late Michael E. Kreca (1962-2006).

Twenty-seven words first published in 1790 are now the source of the bitterest controversy the USA has seen since the 1960s if not since the War Between the States a century before that. They are central to an issue that splits left and right, male and female, white and nonwhite, North and South, East and West, wealthy and not-so wealthy.

They are:

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.

Let’s get this straight right away. First of all, the inalienable right of individuals to keep and bear arms as a check on a tyrannical government predates our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. This, among other things, was clearly and eloquently expressed in Sir William Blackstone’s 1768 “Commentaries On The Laws of England.” Hence, the Founders were operating within a long historical tradition based upon English common law.

Secondly, the term “well-regulated” meant something quite different two centuries ago. It is not today’s definition of “controlled,” “limited,” or “restricted” but was instead defined as “having proper kit and provisions” or in the case of objects or machinery, “properly maintained and kept in good repair.” The next is the Constitutional definition of the “militia,” and this what requires detailed explanation. The militia issue was extensively debated during the 1787–89 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and today has sadly been ignored by both sides in this issue.

Founder George Mason explicitly wished to have it clearly spelled out that the militia was “of the whole people,” in effect, a “general militia” that was affirmed in the Second Amendment and the 1792 Militia Act. Mason and his supporters feared the development of “special militias” – ones much like the Puritan “Roundheads” led by Oliver Cromwell and their opponents, the “Cavaliers,” in the English Civil War of 1642–57. Special militias are nothing more than state-sanctioned paramilitary groups – witness the German Nazi SA and its successor the SS as well as the Italian Fascist “Blackshirts.” In those cases, Nazi/Fascist Party membership was strictly required to join them as well as to legally own a firearm of any kind in either of those countries at the time.

These two groups were little different than standing armies. The difference is that they were created and used by the German and Italian governments to bypass any laws against using the military domestically against the people (or in the absence of such laws, to forestall the military’s unwillingness to do so) – in order to crush dissent and terrorize opponents. (Sound familiar?) Cromwell used his Roundheads to do much the same thing, even having King Charles I beheaded after a bogus trial, later closing Parliament and then invading Ireland with plans to wipe out the Catholic population, killing those of his comrades and anyone else who refused to comply.

Distressingly, we now have a lot of special militias in the USA – the Secret Service, FBI, BATF, DEA, IRS, the National Guard and today’s “near federalized” status of most state and local police departments – to name but a few. And they are all unconstitutional, if the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment and the 1792 Militia Act is correct. George Mason’s fears about them were well placed and have come tragically true. All these alphabet-soup special militias can do and have done (other than freely lapping up taxpayer money in ever-increasing amounts) is be responsible for numerous cruel and meaningless tragedies. These range from spying on, harassing and ruining the lives of anyone deemed an “enemy of the state,” to brutally breaking strikes, violently disrupting demonstrations and killing innocent people in places ranging from Kent State to Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Even the courts are beginning to revive this long forgotten but crucial “general vs. special” militia distinction. The 1990 Supreme Court case Perpich vs. Department of Defense is a case in point. Then Minnesota Gov. Rudy Perpich claimed the DoD violated the Constitution when it ordered the Minnesota National Guard (which he claimed was the ‘state militia’) to duty outside the state without his consent or that of the state legislature.

The Supreme Court ruled against Perpich. It held the National Guard is an integral component of the US Army Reserve system (it has been since 1916). It further supported its ruling by specifying the difference between the “special militia” (in this case the Minnesota Guard) instead of the “general militia” (citizens with privately procured and owned arms) as expressed in the 2nd Amendment. Also in 1990 the Court in another case affirmed the definition of “the people” expressed in the Bill of Rights as meaning individual persons, not a group.

So the statist left has its “militia” and the rest of us have ours. No wonder so many of them can’t free themselves from the false but mesmerizing aura of the “Militia = National Guard” equation. The statist left doesn’t want to because it’s interested not in the right of individuals to protect their lives and liberty against a tyrannical federal government, but in giving that tyrannical federal government a blank check, figuratively and literally, to indulge in state-sponsored terror under the tautological trinity of “crime prevention,” “anti-terrorism” and “national security.” And Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen has all but told us to “get used to the idea.”

So there it is. General militia versus special militia.

Which are you?

Think about that question the next time you are cajoled by otherwise-idle Million Mom March mavens to support “sensible gun laws” or are exhorted by the denizens of the pseudo-patriotic “law-and-order” crowd to “back the badge.”

Published in the May 26, 2000 issue of Ether Zone.

(Editor’s Comments)

Do not be distracted by the arguments over gun rights that are occurring in America. And don’t misunderstand me. Gun rights issues are always in play as an extension of the God-granted human right of defense of person and property.

Former presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party L. Neil Smith said: “Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon…rifle, shotgun, handgun, machine gun, anything…any time, any place, without asking anyone’s permission.

Make no mistake: all politicians…even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership…hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it’s an X-ray machine. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician…or political philosophy…can be put.

If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware or gun store and paying cash for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything…without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn’t genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody’s permission, he’s a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude toward your ownership and use of weapons conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn’t trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?”

The Second Amendment is all about thwarting government tyranny.

L. Neil Smith again:

“Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn’t say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers “the security of a free state”? And if it’s treason, then it’s punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings.”

There are no state militias existing in any of the American states to my knowledge. As we have seen in the Kreca article, the State certainly understands what a militia is. That individuals in every state do not understand their duties as free men and women is most shameful, and the single most obvious example of why the Washington regime is able to operate with no restrictions on its power.

It’s almost as if one army in a battle simply laid down their weapons and surrendered en masse…and then hoped that their new masters would be benevolent. But, when that army finds that their new masters are tyrants and despots, what will they do then? What CAN they do then?

Will any American state be able to successfully secede from the Union without its having a “well-regulated Militia?” The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.

For more about the Second Amendment, read Secession and Sun Tzu.

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

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

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