Debra Medina For Governor of Texas!

January 24, 2010

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.

January 23, 2010

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

January 22, 2010

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.


Secession and the Ten Four Pledge

January 21, 2010

Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, found
HERE. Mike and his team have produced documents that are known as the “Ten-Four Pledge.”

This document consists of ten affirmations on government and ten pledges to be solemnly kept by officeholders while they hold public office. So, candidates for office, whether at State or Federal levels, are encouraged to sign one of these 10-4 Pledges and post it at the Tenth Amendment Center website.

The ten affirmations speak to the foundational truths of the Constitution of the United States. They are as follows:

As a public office holder, or a candidate for public office, I affirm that:
1. All just political authority is derived from the People, and government may only be established and maintained with their consent.
2. The People of each State have the sole and exclusive right and power to govern themselves in all areas not delegated to their government.
3. A government without limits is a tyranny.
4. The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government in the Constitution, and also that which is necessary and proper to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or by the people themselves, as they determine.
5. In order for a federally-exercised power to be “necessary and proper” it must be a) something that, without which, would make the enumerated power impossible to exercise, and b) a lesser power than that which has been enumerated
6. The “Interstate Commerce Clause” in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, does not permit Congress to regulate matters that merely affect commerce among the States. It only permits Congress to regulate trade among the States.
7. The phrase, “general Welfare,” in Article I, Section 8 does not authorize Congress to enact any laws it claims are in the “general Welfare” of the United States. The phrase sets forth the requirement that all laws passed by Congress in Pursuance of the enumerated powers of the Constitution shall also be in the general Welfare of the United States. This was affirmed by James Madison when he wrote: “With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
8. The federal government is not authorized to tax the People to raise monies for unconstitutional purposes. Likewise, the federal government is not authorized to condition funding to State or local governments on compliance with mandates which require them to do what the federal government is not authorized to do directly.
9. When Congress enacts laws and regulations that are not made in Pursuance of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the People are not bound to obey them.
10. When the federal government exceeds its Constitutional authority, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy. Without that remedy, the People would be living in a tyranny, under the unlawful and excessive control of one or more branches of the federal government.

Then, the document calls the candidate to take an oath that:

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.

Mind-boggling, isn’t it?

If you go to the The 10-4 Pledge page at the website, you can see all of the pledges that have been posted by candidates from all over the USA. You can also download a copy of the pledge HERE. These 10-4 Pledges are not just for newbie candidates alone. These should be signed by incumbents who wish to keep their jobs, also.

I live in the state of Georgia. Sadly, there are only two candidates who have signed and posted the Pledge. Even the state legislators that drafted the Tenth Amendment resolution that passed in the Georgia Senate last term have not signed this Pledge.

There is a wave of anti-government sentiment slowly building in America. The Tea Party movements show that some citizens are seethingly infuriated with government, and are looking for that one solution that will return to them their freedoms.

For example, on Tuesday night, Scott Brown of Massachusetts clubbed the Democratic candidate to win Teddy Kennedy’s old Senate seat…a seat that had been Democratic for over 40 years. The race was not even close….in the Democratic fortress that is Massachusetts.

Please don’t misunderstand. Scott Brown is not the solution. Scott Brown wanted to become a member of the Washington criminal class, and he got his wish. And in my opinion, Republicans and Democrats are like identical twins that come from the same mother’s womb. Brown SAID a lot of things that sounded like principle. We’ll see if his principles will fight Leviathan or succumb to the DC blandishments of power and privilege.

Americans are beginning to understand that there are only two ways to control Washington…nullification and finally, secession. My greatest concern is that the American populace will be blind-sided by the looming economic meltdown before they can fully understand nullification and secession. But, I also believe that no force less severe than an economic collapse will focus the minds of Americans toward secession.

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.


States’ rights protesters rally for change at Capitol

January 20, 2010

By Mike Ward

(Editor’s Note: This event happened over the January 15th weekend.)

Al Hays said he was a longtime Republican Party precinct chair in the Houston area, cheerleading for Gov. Rick Perry and the state’s GOP leadership.

No more.

On Saturday, Hays drove to Austin to join more than 600 fellow Texans at a grass-roots State’s Rights Rally on the Capitol grounds that roused more than two hours of cheering as speaker after speaker charged up a take-back-our-country agenda.

“We stand on the cusp of a new era,” said George Scaggs, director of NewRevolutionNow, a group demanding that the Legislature pass a so-called nullification resolution to block the federal government from enacting President Barack Obama’s health care initiative and other unfunded — and what they say are unconstitutional — federal mandates.

“This is a fledgling revolution, that’s what it is.”

Added Austin resident Peggy Venable, Texas director of Americans for Prosperity, “We’re mad as hell at the direction of government and we’re willing to fight to change it.”

Businessman Adrian Murray, president of the Fort Worth 912 Project, another take-back-your-government group, said the federal government is violating the Constitution “and should be viewed as a hostile power … a clear and present danger to the people of the United States.”

“The time has come for people to rise up and defeat their anti-American, Marxist agenda,” he said of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress, as the crowd cheered.

A sign in the front of the crowd read: “Oust this regime.”

Raloph Barrera/America Statesman

With rhetoric that was at times reminiscent of Ross Perot’s third-party presidential campaign nearly two decades ago, and sometimes echoed the invective hurled during the states’ rights movement before the Civil War, speaker after speaker served up their harshest criticism of Obama and Congress.

But Perry and his GOP re-election challenger, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, and state lawmakers did not escape the anger. Other signs read: “Vote ‘Em Out,” “Perry: The Next Unemployed Texan,” Hey, Governor. It’s Time To Go!” and “Throw Out Kay Bail Out.”

When state Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, started to speak, he was initially drowned out by boos and catcalls. “He is in the system. He works for The Man,” read a large sign waved nearby by a man with a dry-erase board.

“If we were called into a special session — if — I think there’s a good chance the nullification resolution would pass,” Wentworth said after leaving the stage.

Several protestors waved large posters showing Obama in white face paint, his lips colored red \u2013 reminiscent of the Joker in ‘The Dark Knight’ with the word “Socialism” beneath. Attorney General Greg Abbott drew cheers when a speaker noted he was poised to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the so-called “Obamacare” bill.

State Reps. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, and Wayne Christian, R-Center, drew cheers with their support of the nullification resolution.

“This usurper in the office of president has been shredding our Constitution,” Berman said. “Washington is dominated by Socialists … Socialists do not believe in God. Their god is the state.”

Texans from as far away as Galveston, Harlingen, Jefferson and Midland, in groups with names such as Waco Tea Party, Houston Patriots, Austin Liberty Coalition and ACT for America, cheered themselves hoarse as they railed against Big Government for state’s rights.

“The Republican Party tried to use us, but we’re onto them now,” said Norman Shugar, 77, who drove in from outside Houston. “I was for Perry. Now, I’m for Medina.”

Some said they planned to vote for Libertarians; others said they would support Perry if he supports nullification — an unlikely possibility.

None of the gubernatorial candidates spoke. Debra Medina, a dark horse GOP challenger, was at the rally and wanted to speak — and tempers flared briefly at the end of the rally when she was not allowed to, as music was turned up to drown out her supporters. State troopers moved in briefly to help cool tensions.

But if the speakers were adamant about what they want, and what they see as wrong with federal and state government, perhaps it was the messages from the colorful display of dozens of historic Independence flags that underscored their passion the best: Come and Get It, Don’t Tread On Me. Liberty Or Death. Plus these more modern adaptations: Texas Independence Now and Secede.

mward@statesman.com; 445-1712

Copyright 2010 America Statesman


Campaign for Liberty: The School of REAL Politics

January 19, 2010

Politics is a no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners, winner-take-all, long-term war over the adjudication of power.

The Campaign for Liberty (CFL) sponsored a Regional Convention in Atlanta January 15-17. The convention was the most eye-opening political event I have attended in recent years.

Over 500 political junkies were in attendance (my guesstimate), and got far in excess of their money’s worth in political training. CFL Director of Development Steve Bierfeldt made arrangements for me to have a pass to the event. Being only recently made familiar with CFL, I had little idea what lessons were in store in this weekend event.

The Campaign for Liberty is a political organization founded about a year ago by John Tate, former National Political Director for the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Committee. Respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, individual liberty, sound money, non-interventionist foreign policy and stellar grassroots training in political activity constitute the foundation of the Campaign for Liberty. CFL is experiencing exponential growth, with over 5,000 new members joining weekly.

Friday evening’s festivities began with a private reception featuring the conference’s guest speakers: Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, college professor and author, Dr. Thomas Woods, best-selling author and Senior Fellow at The Mises Institute; Lew Rockwell, president of the Mises Institute and Editor of LewRockwell.com, the most popular anti-tyranny website on earth; and Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, the special guest for the weekend and keynote speaker for Friday night’s kickoff session.

I was like a wide-eyed groupie. These men are my heroes, and I was honored to meet and speak with each one. They are disarmingly charming, brilliant minds, and gracious gentlemen.

Friday night’s general session began with a brilliant speech on Nullification by Dr. Tom Woods. He pointed out that the Frankenstein monster is not more powerful than its creator, and in like manner, the DC monster should not be more powerful that its creators, the several states. As many states have nullified the Federal “Real ID” program, and 39 states have passed Tenth Amendment resolutions, combined with a few gun law resolutions, Woods said that we will see increasing Nullification efforts by the states.

Between speeches, a great video was presented on the big screen. Jimmie Vaughan, legendary bluesman, sings “The No Shackles Blues.” Here’s Jimmie singing the song at the 2007 Texas Independence Day Rally in Austin, Texas. See it here:

Congressman Ron Paul delivered the stirring keynote speech. To summarize, he stated that the full effect of Washington’s dire mess has yet to be felt in America. He warned of additional economic woes and the inevitable collapse of the dollar that are on our horizons. He said that part of the disaster in Washington is due to Americans being lax in their duty to control lawmakers. But his speech was filled with the liberty-based solutions to America’s problems, and he ended his speech with the encouraging words that the message of liberty is the only message that brings people together.

The weekend’s training sessions had topics such as:

• “The Real Nature of Politics” – the theme was “unless you are politically feared, you will not be politically respected.”
• “Choosing Your Battles” – the theme was that “politicians want to divorce the legislative season of politics from the election season. It is our job to link them together so a voting record has an affect on an election.”
• “Inside Operations”- showed how to handle legislators when you want to get a bill passed.
• “Targeting Legislators” – discussed getting roll call votes to get legislators on record, then either helping your friends or punishing your enemies.
• “Outside Operations” – taught working with lobbyists and single issue groups.
• “Tactical Principles” – explained how “the political system works just like the founders feared it would, but they planned it to make it hard to make anything happen.”

The speakers and moderators were CFL experts mixed with the guest speakers, and each brought decades of bare-knuckled campaign experience to the session. Each of the training sessions was an insider’s analysis of the political process, from grassroots organizing to running for national office.

Three Dimensional Chess

Party politics should be compared to playing three dimensional chess. A standard game of chess is all about strategy, and thinking many moves in advance is required. But party politics add deeper, more cynical dimensions to the strategies.

Here’s an example of the kinds of analyses we were taught. Many of the finest political consultants use this grid to determine how to proceed in all political decisions. The grid asks four questions and requires that a numerical value be placed on each point, from minus-10 to plus-10:

1. Win or lose, will efforts on this issue raise new money or people?
2. Win or lose, will efforts on this issue help friends or allies?
3. Win or lose, will efforts on this issue hurt enemies or their allies?
4. What is the value of policy if we win or the cost if we lose?

Based on scoring, consultants can determine what issues to pursue and which to leave alone…for now.

Before attending the CFL convention, I thought that I had a modicum of knowledge about politics. But after attending this training, I realize that I knew little but political theory.

My assessment of the event is that the Campaign for Liberty has created one of the most comprehensive political training systems in America today. Any person who wishes to become successful in the political arena MUST avail themselves of the training provided by this educational organization. After attending this event it seems to me that individuals who want to go into any form of politics and do not get this training should (a) not expect success, (b) expect a long, bruising learning curve, or (c) not be taken seriously as a political activist.

Get yourself to the very next event sponsored by the Campaign for Liberty.

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 the Bankruptcy of Ideas

January 18, 2010

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” ~Arthur Schopenhauer

I was on a conference call Thursday night with the leadership of a state secessionist movement. The general theme of the call was the need to present a unified message to all seekers of truth.

Later, as I tried to slow my mind down before sleep, I had an “AHA!” moment which is why you’re reading this now.

There is a war being waged for your mind. There are only two sides in this fight.

One side believes that government is good, and more government is better. They want to minimize individual liberty, and they promote the interests of groups.

They believe in:

No restrictions on the power to tax, spend and regulate
Their superiority to make decisions for your own good
State ownership of your assets and liberties and their right to take either or both
Deficit spending
The Federal Reserve
Printing counterfeit money
Planned inflation
Fractional reserve banking
Bailouts of banks, insurers and automakers
Unending foreign wars
Acceptable death and casualty tolls of American military personnel on foreign soil
Imperialistic foreign policy
Social Security
Medicare
Health Care “reform” legislation
Meaningless elections
Voting fraud
The military-industrial complex
The Patriot Act
Thousands of pages of new laws and regulations every year
Constant, mind-numbing propaganda through the Main Stream Media
Government schools, low achievement and substandard educational quality
The Supreme Court’s rulings on which laws DC will obey
Abortions on demand
Preventing American energy independence
Alienating all of our world allies
Selling our sovereignty to foreign nations who buy American debt

The other combatant camp believes in individual liberty and natural rights bestowed upon man by his Creator. They know that power corrupts. They know that any government must be bound with strong chains to protect life, liberty and property.

They believe in:

Tightly defined government
Enforcement of restrictions on government
Free Enterprise
Balanced budgets
Honest elections
Gold and silver-backed money (hard money)
No counterfeiting
Property rights
Protection of human life
The sanctity of contracts
Justice that defends the innocent and restores the injured
Defense by militia

No matter what you see on TV, hear on the radio, or read on the printed page…all of the rhetoric and rumble boils down to you deciding which side you support.

It’s ALL ABOUT your guiding principles. Your world view defines your actions.

The “AHA” moment was that the big government side is intellectually bankrupt. Every scheme they have tried for 150 years has eventually failed. They have no new ideas that don’t begin with a preconception of government solutions. They have no solutions that protect liberty and restrict government. They exhibit no willingness to return to the Constitution. Their regime is repressive and exhibits the low, negative energy of tyranny and despotism.

The small government camp has the solutions. Their message is one of high-energy and a positive attitude. Their ideas harken back to the Reformation and Enlightenment principles of God-granted liberty and self-determination. At the same time they project a realistic, achievable vision of tomorrow.

The decision you must make is whether to take action or not. If you take no action whatsoever, you will default into the big government camp. They already own you. So you need to do nothing at all to keep moving on toward destruction.

If you do not want to go down with the big government ship, it will be required of you that you take some sort of action in opposition to the despots and tyrants. Happily, the small government camp does not force you to act. You’re free to take any action you choose to throw off such oppressive government and embrace liberty.

But act you must if you ever want to live free.

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.