New Page at DumpDC

March 31, 2010

One thing that we all have in common is that we all make a journey of understanding. We read and study and observe human action. All of this accumulated data results in our worldview…the “rose-colored glasses” through which we filter all of our sensory data. Our journey is just that…it is not a destination.

We at DumpDC are on a journey also. When I moved to the Atlanta area in 1992, I was a rock-ribbed Republican activist, fundamentalist Christian, Marine Corps enthusiast and completely intolerant of opposing thought. Now, I’m a Secessionist/Anarchist/Capitalist, a Scientific Deist and much more patient with the opinions, foibles and faults of others.

Why do I tell you that? Because of our new “Archive by Title” page.

This page allows all readers to find all the articles we’ve ever published in one easily accessible place. It will also show you how we have moved along in our journey just since the inception of DumpDC a year ago.

I urge you to take the time to read the articles in our archive. There are some fantastic articles in there written by great minds around the country. I promise that the time you spend in the Archive will be beneficial to your journey.


The Texas Secession Convention of 2010?

March 31, 2010

by Daniel Miller, President of the Texas Nationalist Movement

In 1861, delegates from the various areas of Texas met to discuss the overriding national question of the day – Union or independence. The fact that a secession convention had been called should have given a hint as to the outcome, but in a state where Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution states “all political power is inherent in the people”, the forms must be observed.

The results of the convention are now a matter of historical record. With the current political climate in Texas and with the word “secession” gaining prominence, it is tempting to revisit the Convention of 1861 as a “guidebook” for any efforts heading that direction. An examination of the 1861 Convention should yield a fairly good plan for secession or, at least, the steps and criteria that must be met for legitimacy.

Before I begin, I want to make sure that you understand that I did not toss in the word “legitimacy” for lack of a better word. Any real political process must have legitimacy. It’s results must be unquestionable. The measuring stick for legitimacy is contained in the aforementioned Article 1 Section 2 of the Texas Constitution. Here is the full text:

“All political power is inherent in the people and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.”

It is obvious that the criteria for any legitimate political action in Texas must involve the express will of the people. Further, it must not be contrary to the express or implied rights of the people or the Republican principles of government expressed either in the Constitution or as part of the political history or theory of a Republic. Other than these two criteria, the power of the people is virtually limitless.

“How do we determine the will of the people?”

In the absence of anarchy or revolution, history has determined that when systems and processes are in place to allow the individual to express their political will, then those systems and processes must be used. We will see in this examination of the Convention of 1861 that the process was illegitimate up to a certain point. Once legitimized by the then-current government, its results became politically and legally binding upon the government of Texas.

Before looking at the Convention of 1861 and the process, it is important to understand the context in which it took place. The roots of the Convention of 1861 began in October of the previous year. It was assumed that Abraham Lincoln would win the Presidency of the United States running on an entirely sectional platform. With campaign promises that pitted the southern states against the northern states and offering a bold re-imagining of the very nature of the Union his very election was seen as an affront to the people of the southern states.

The reaction was swift. The legislature and people of South Carolina chose to secede in December. This was followed by the secession of five other states whose legislatures took up the question of Union or independence.

However, in Texas, the legislature was on break and only Governor Sam Houston could call the legislature in to a special session — and, in Texas, only the Legislature could convene a convention to deal with the issue of secession. Houston refused to call a special session, as he believed that secession would lead to union with the other seceding states, which would lead to a military conflict with the remaining United States. He also hoped that if some time were to pass that the public support for secession would die down.

Out of frustration, several prominent Texans, including the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court Oran Roberts, issued a public call for a secession convention. They went so far as to run advertisements in several prominent Texas newspapers calling for an election of delegates that would be overseen by the County Judge in each county.

Governor Houston, believed that some sort of convention would meet. He also understood that the convention was illegitimate, as it had no basis in law. But to punctuate his point, he called the Legislature into a special session before the convention was to meet to have them declare it illegitimate. His plan backfired — the Legislature legitimized the convention and promptly turned the House chambers over to the convention to meet.

So began the Convention of 1861. It was borne of external pressure and internal frustration. But there are lessons to be learned from this.

There had to be at least some elected officials on board. The Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court was a good choice. There had to be a public notice and call for the convention using the lawful forms of the day (newspapers of record in each county). There had to be a publicly accessible election of delegates. The elections had to be overseen by the lawful authority for such actions in each county. In this case it was the County Judge. Finally, the Legislature had to act to transfer legitimacy to the convention. Even with all of this, the Convention of 1861 and its results are still the objects of question as, in some aspects, didn’t meet the minimum election standards of the day. But many things can happen when the Constitution says: “in such manner as they may think expedient”.

Ultimately, the Convention of 1861 led to a referendum. Governor Houston and many others believed that since a referendum brought Texas into the Union, a referendum was needed to bring us out. This, of course, is the purest expression of Article 1 Section 2. While the actions in the establishment of the convention are questionable, the vote of the people as a whole is not. The people of Texas made the decision overwhelmingly to secede at the ballot box.

Since we are looking at the Convention of 1861 as somewhat of a guidebook, it is important to note that all guidebooks contain “do’s” and “dont’s.” As such, the Convention of 1861 is replete with both. But from the Convention of 1861 experience we can discern a process that must be followed to embrace what worked and avoid what cast a pall of illegitimacy upon it.

Doing this is what drives the Texas Nationalist Movement’s stated plan for the independence of Texas. Here I provide you with our guide to secure our return to an independent Republic of Texas.

1) Build public support for Texas independence and organize that public support.

2) Pressure the Governor and Legislature to call a Secession Convention or a referendum on the issue. This is done by exerting political pressure, enlisting them to our cause or replacing them. They must see that the people of Texas want independence and that they must act in their lawful capacities to shepherd the process.

3) If, after enlisting the support necessary from the people at-large and members of the government, the Governor and the Legislature fail to call a Convention or issue a referendum, then we act to force the issue on the ballot on the local level as most counties and municipalities have initiative and referendum in their charters. If they will not allow Texas as a whole to speak, we will do it one county or city at a time.

It is this strategy that drives our public outreach, membership recruitment and petition drives. The Texas Nationalist Movement wants to deliver MILLIONS of signatures from Texans to the Legislature on January 11, 2011, and dare them not to act. For if they do not, then we will. In the absence of action from them, we will take up that mantle of leadership and push for a convention or a county-by-county secession referendum. We will do whatever in our power to follow the guidelines, embracing the good and eliminating the bad, and secure our Republican form of government, our individual liberties and our political, cultural and economic independence. We will deliver Texas from the destruction of our Constitution and experience prosperity and freedom like we have never seen.

Will we see a legitimate secession convention in 2010? Doubtful. But the jury is still out for 2011.

Ready to declare your independence? Join the Texas Nationalist Movement today!

Texas Nationalist Movement
3104 Nederland Avenue
Nederland, TX 77627
United States


Is The United States Still a British Colony?

March 30, 2010

Courtesy of The America Patriot Network

(Editor’s Note: This just crossed my desk, and I found it interesting and provocative. See if it provokes you.)

The trouble with history is, we weren’t there when it took place and it can be changed to fit someone’s belief and/or traditions, or it can be taught in the public schools to favor a political agenda, and withhold many facts. I know you have been taught that we won the Revolutionary War and defeated the British, but I can prove to the contrary. I want you to read this paper with an open mind, and allow yourself to be instructed with the following verifiable facts. You be the judge and don’t let prior conclusions on your part or incorrect teaching, keep you from the truth.

I too was always taught in school and in studying our history books that our freedom came from the Declaration of Independence and was secured by our winning the Revolutionary War. I’m going to discuss a few documents that are included at the end of this paper, in the footnotes. The first document is the first Charter of Virginia in 1606 (footnote #1). In the first paragraph, the king of England granted our fore fathers license to settle and colonize America. The definition for license is as follows.

“In Government Regulation. Authority to do some act or carry on some trade or business, in its nature lawful but prohibited by statute, except with the permission of the civil authority or which would otherwise be unlawful.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.

Keep in mind those that came to America from England were British subjects.So you can better understand what I’m going to tell you, here are the definitions for subject and citizen.

“In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.

“Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.” Swiss Nat. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 45 S. Ct. 213, 214, 69 L.Ed. 504. Blacks fifth Ed.

I chose to give the definition for subject first, so you could better
understand what definition of citizen is really being used in American law. Below is the definition of citizen from Roman law.

“The term citizen was used in Rome to indicate the possession of private civil rights, including those accruing under the Roman family and
inheritance law and the Roman contract and property law. All other subjects were peregrines. But in the beginning of the 3d century the distinction was abolished and all subjects were citizens; 1 sel. Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 578.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.

The king was making a commercial venture when he sent his subjects to America, and used his money and resources to do so. I think you would admit the king had a lawful right to receive gain and prosper from his venture. In the Virginia Charter he declares his sovereignty over the land and his subjects and in paragraph 9 he declares the amount of gold, silver and copper he is to receive if any is found by his subjects. There could have just as easily been none, or his subjects could have been killed by the Indians. This is why this was a valid right of the king (Jure Coronae, “In right of the crown,” Black’s forth Ed.), the king expended his resources with the risk of total loss.

If you’ll notice in paragraph 9 the king declares that all his heirs and
successors were to also receive the same amount of gold, silver and copper that he claimed with this Charter. The gold that remained in the colonies was also the kings. He provided the remainder as a benefit for his subjects, which amounted to further use of his capital. You will see in this paper that not only is this valid, but it is still in effect today. If you will read the rest of the Virginia Charter you will see that the king declared the right and exercised the power to regulate every aspect of commerce in his new colony. A license had to be granted for travel connected with transfer of goods (commerce) right down to the furniture they sat on. A great deal of the king’s declared property was ceded to America in the Treaty of 1783. I want you to stay focused on the money and the commerce which was not ceded to America.

This brings us to the Declaration of Independence. Our freedom was declared because the king did not fulfill his end of the covenant between king and subject. The main complaint was taxation without representation, which was reaffirmed in the early 1606 Charter granted by the king. It was not a revolt over being subject to the king of England, most wanted the protection and benefits provided by the king. Because of the kings refusal to hear their demands and grant relief, separation from England became the lesser of two evils. The cry of freedom and self determination became the rallying cry for the colonist. The slogan “Don’t Tread On Me” was the standard borne by
the militias.

The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been taught that we defeated the king and won our freedom. The next document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally contradict our having won the Revolutionary War. (footnote 2).

I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States. You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep this in mind as you study these documents.
You also need to understand the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it was Benjamin Franklin Esgr., a great patriot and standard bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.

An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this status, see the below definitions.

Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and others
who bear any office of trust under the crown….for whosoever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a gentleman.” Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562

Esquire – In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and
below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, sergeants, and
barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others.” Blacks Law Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641

Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the Treaty were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was David Hartley Esq.

Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty to the crown.

In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America are
relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and
copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers. In article 4 the
United States agreed to pay all bona fide debts. If you will read my other papers on money you will understand that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he protect their interest with this Treaty?

I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War? If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king
granting us our land would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the Revolutionary War. To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won.
Think of other wars we have won, such as when we defeated Japan. Did McArthur allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No way! All these men did is gain status and privilege granted by the king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations. Worst of all, they sold out those that gave their lives and property for the chance to be free.

When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington he surrendered the battle, not the war. Read the Article of Capitulation signed by Cornwallis at Yorktown (footnote 3)

Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781, that
Cornwallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that “a holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown.”….”in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire.”

All the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and
obligation of the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to
support his subjects and colonies. At the same time he retained financia subjection through debt owed after the Treaty, which is still being created today; millions of dollars a day. And his heirs and successors are still reaping the benefit of the kings original venture. If you will read the following quote from Title 26, you will see just one situation where the king is still collecting a tax from those that receive a benefit from him, on property which is purchased with the money the king supplies, at almost the same percentage:

-CITE-

26 USC Sec. 1491

HEAD-

Sec. 1491. Imposition of tax

-STATUTE-

There is hereby imposed on the transfer of property by a citizen or resident of the United States, or by a domestic corporation or partnership, or by an estate or trust which is not a foreign estate or trust, to a foreign corporation as paid-in surplus or as a contribution to capital, or to a foreign estate or trust, or to a foreign partnership, an excise tax equal to 35 percent of the excess of –

(1) the fair market value of the property so transferred, over

(2) the sum of –

(A) the adjusted basis (for determining gain) of such property in the hands of the transferor, plus

(B) the amount of the gain recognized to the transferor at the time of the transfer.

-SOURCE-

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 365; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, title
X, Sec. 1015(a), 90 Stat. 1617; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95-600, title VII,
Sec. 701(u)(14)(A), 92 Stat. 2919.)

-MISC1-

AMENDMENTS

1978 – Pub. L. 95-600 substituted ‘estate or trust’ for ‘trust’ wherever
appearing.

1976 – Pub. L. 94-455 substituted in provisions preceding par.

(1) ‘property’ for ‘stocks and securities’ and ’35 percent’ for ’27 1/2
percent’ and in par.

(1) ‘fair market value’ for ‘value’ and ‘property’ for ‘stocks and
securities’ and in par.

(2) designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar. (B).

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1978 AMENDMENT

Section 701(u)(14)(C) of Pub. L. 95-600 provided that: ‘The amendments made by this paragraph (amending this section and section 1492 of this title) shall apply to transfers after October 2, 1975.’

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1976 AMENDMENT

Section 1015(d) of Pub. L. 94-455 provided that: ‘The amendments made by this section (enacting section 1057 of this title, amending this section and section 1492 of this title, and renumbering former section 1057 as 1058 of this title) shall apply to transfers of property after October 2, 1975.’

A new war was declared when the Treaty was signed. The king wanted his land back and he knew he would be able to regain his property for his heirs with the help of his world financiers. Here is a quote from the king speaking to Parliament after the Revolutionary War had concluded.

(Six weeks after) the capitulation of Yorktown, the king of Great Britain,
in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781), declared “That he should not answer the trust committed to the sovereign of a free people, if he
consented to sacrifice either to his own desire of peace, or to their
temporary ease and relief, those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of which the future strength and security of the country must forever depend.” The determined language of this speech, pointing to the continuance of the American war, was echoed back by a majority of both Lords and Commons.

In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the House of Commons that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be their opinion “That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans to obedience by force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the true interests of Great Britain.” The restof the debate can be found in (footnote 4). What were the true interests of the king? The gold, silver and copper.

The new war was to be fought without Americans being aware that a war was even being waged, it was to be fought by subterfuge and key personnel being placed in key positions. The first two parts of “A Country Defeated In Victory,” go into detail about how this was done and exposes some of the main players.

Every time you pay a tax you are transferring your labor to the king, and his heirs and successors are still receiving interest from the original
American Charters.

The following is the definition of tribute (tax):

A contribution which is raised by a prince or sovereign from his subjects
to sustain the expenses of the state. A sum of money paid by an inferior sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure the friendship or protection of the latter.” Blacks Law Dictionary forth ed. p. 1677

As further evidence, not that any is needed, a percentage of taxes that are paid are to enrich the king/queen of England. For those that study Title 26 you will recognize IMF, which means Individual Master File, all tax payers have one. To read one you have to be able to break their codes using file 6209, which is about 467 pages. On your IMF you will find a blocking series, which tells you what type of tax you are paying. You will probably find a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 says is reserved. You then look up the BMF 300-399, which is the Business Master File in 6209. You would have seen prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, non-refile DLN. Meaning everyone is considered a business and involved in commerce and you are being
held liable for a tax via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K.. The form that is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA – Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account, you won’t find many people using this form, just the 1040 form. The 8288 form can be found in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3. If you will check the OMB’s paper – Office of Management and Budget, in the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information Collections, Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act, you will find this form under OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. withholding tax-return for dispositions by foreign persons of U.S. real property interests-statement of withholding on dispositions, by foreign
persons, of U.S. Form #8288 #8288a. These codes have since been changed to read as follows; IMF 300-309, Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reserved, the BMF 300-309 reads the same as IMF 300-309. BMF 390-399 reads U.S./U.K. Tax Treaty Claims.

The long and short of it is nothing changed, the government
just made it plainer, the 1040 is the payment of a foreign tax to the
king/queen of England. We have been in financial servitude since the Treaty of 1783.

Another Treaty between England and the United States was Jay’s Treaty of1794 (footnote 5). If you will remember from the Paris Treaty of 1783, John Jay Esq. was one of the negotiators of the Treaty. In 1794 he negotiated another Treaty with Britain. There was great controversy among the American people about this Treaty.

In Article 2 you will see the king is still on land that was supposed to be
ceded to the United States at the Paris Treaty. This is 13 years after
America supposedly won the Revolutionary War. I guess someone forgot to tell the king of England. In Article 6, the king is still dictating terms to the United States concerning the collection of debt and damages, the British government and World Bankers claimed we owe. In Article 12 we find the king dictating terms again, this time concerning where and with who the United States could trade. In Article 18 the United States agrees to a wide variety of material that would be subject to confiscation if Britain found said material going to its enemies ports. Who won the Revolutionary War?

That’s right, we were conned by some of our early fore fathers into
believing that we are free and sovereign people, when in fact we had the same status as before the Revolutionary War. I say had, because our status is far worse now than then. I’ll explain.

Early on in our history the king was satisfied with the interest made by the
Bank of the United States. But when the Bank Charter was canceled in 1811 it was time to gain control of the government, in order to shape government policy and public policy. Have you never asked yourself why the British, after burning the White House and all our early records during the War of 1812, left and did not take over the government. The reason they did, was to remove the greatest barrier to their plans for this country. That barrier was the newly adopted 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The purpose for this Amendment was to stop anyone from serving in the government who was receiving a Title of nobility or honor. It was and is obvious that these government employees would be loyal to the granter of the Title of
nobility or honor.

The War of 1812 served several purposes. It delayed the passage of the 13th Amendment by Virginia, allowed the British to destroy the evidence of the first 12 states ratification of this Amendment, and it increased the national debt, which would coerce the Congress to reestablish the Bank Charter in 1816 after the Treaty of Ghent was ratified by the Senate in 1815.

[END]


Repeal and Replace: The Blindness of the GOP

March 29, 2010

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) stated that the Republican’s motto for the upcoming election cycle will be “Repeal and Replace.”

McConnell was responding to the total Republican defeat on the health care bill that was signed into law this last week. No Republicans voted for the bill, either in the House or the Senate. McConnell emphasized that the GOP will propose repeal of the new law, but then replacing the new law with legislation of its own design.

“We can do better,” he said. “We can expand access to people with pre-existing conditions. We can keep people from being kicked off their plans. We can lower costs and premiums. We can do all of these things without undermining the things we do best and without raising taxes that kill jobs in a bad economy.”

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Who wouldn’t like the Republicans if they pulled this off?

Answer: Anyone who understands that the Congress HAS NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to enact ANY legislation regarding health care.

Notice that McConnell didn’t say “Repeal…and nothing else.” Oh, Hell no. The Republicans simply want to replace the Democrat’s law with a new law of their own. And don’t be naïve to think that the GOP’s bill won’t be laden with pork, just like the present bill.

But where was the GOP all during the Bush Administration? The GOP had the Congress AND the White House. If health care was important, they had eight years to do something. Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m glad they did nothing, but their inaction wasn’t because they are philosophically opposed to health care legislation.

This is a disagreement between criminal gangs who all work for the same crime boss. There is only one political party in DC, and that is the Big Government Party. None of these elected Mafiosi (my apologies to the real Mafiosi for this insult) stand for individual liberty and property rights. They wish to be masters, and for Americans to be slaves.

(Sorry, Ron Paul. I’ll respect you when you end your Quixotic quest and go home to Texas. But for now, aren’t you just a criminal with a conscience? If I was an attorney or doctor for the Mafia, I’d still be working for criminals, wouldn’t I? Where’s the difference?)

Nullification of Federal Law will not be effective in any situation. The states do not have the power necessary to withstand Washington on even the smallest detail. States rely upon Federal dollars, and most states will cave in if DC cuts off their flow of Federal money.

The only possible, logical solution to protect individual liberty and property rights, while simultaneously throwing off the heavy chains, crushing taxation and debt of the US government, is for states to secede from the Union.

But, as you may already know from much of my previous writing, the states are no more prepared to secede than they are to nullify. All Washington has to say is a loud “BOOO!!” and most of the states will cower in fear.

We can only hope and pray that one state…just one…find their backbone and tells Washington to go straight to hell.

Secession is the Hope for Mankind. Who will be first…and wisest?

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.


Health Care Legislation: The Future of Health Care in America

March 28, 2010

You didn’t really think that I could resist weighing in on this health care debacle, did you? With my 35-plus year background in the insurance business, I think I can bring some unique perspective to the table.

First, this law has a name already: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But, on the day that President Obama signed the bill, Vice President Joe Biden whispered in Obama’s ear that this was a “Big F**king Deal,” which was picked up by microphones and broadcast around the world. So, from now on, I will refer to this bill as the BFD.

One bound copy of the BFD

The premise of my article is that American Health Insurance has now been assassinated by Washington, and the insurance companies are complicit in their own demise.

FDR and His Disciples Began The “Insurance” Scam

President Franklin D. Roosevelt capitalized on the nation’s understanding of the concept of insurance when he rolled out the Social Security program. Remember, the concept of insurance requires risk…future issues that can be avoided or mitigated. But old age cannot be avoided by anything but an early death. Poverty and disability may be avoided or mitigated, but the insurance companies don’t sell Poverty Insurance. They do sell Disability insurance, since there is a risk that can be managed.

Social Security is a pure wealth transfer program, not any kind of insurance. FDR liked to call Social Security “insurance,” which was a blatant lie. And his disciples ever since love the reference to “insurance,” since Americans like insurance.

But Social Security is actually the largest Ponzi scheme in the history of mankind. The money taken from the newest suckers goes to pay the benefits to the old suckers.

Karl Marx said “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Perhaps Social Security should be correctly named “Socialist Security.” In the 1980s, Henry Fairlie said “from each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.” Fairlie’s phrase accurately describes the new Universal Healthcare welfare program.

Health Insurance Is Over, Universal Healthcare Welfare Begins

Insurance of any kind is the transfer of risk to another party. In essence, you pay a small loss…your premium…so that in the event of a larger loss, your loss is covered and paid. The insurer spreads the risk over a large group of persons, therefore minimizing the risk of loss to any one person. If the insurer is correct in his calculations of risk, there is more premium income than claims expense, and the insurer makes a profit.

Calculating risk is a complicated business, requiring lots of data and the passage of time. Consequently, insurers charge premiums based upon the risk, the hazards and the probability of a loss. Low probability means low premium. High probability of loss means high premium.

If your house was already on fire, and you trotted down to your local agent and tried to buy fire insurance, you would be denied coverage. You had a pre-existing condition and a 100% certainty of loss and claim.

In health insurance, the concept of pre-existing conditions is a crucial underwriting consideration. For example, if the risks insured include cancer, and you already have cancer, the insurer is certain that you will make a claim. Insurers do not like to accept customers for which there is a certainty of loss.

Insurance companies do not accept risks and write insurance policies for risks that they cannot calculate. They must be able to accurately determine the upper limits of their loss exposures on any risk. Otherwise, they would be unable to know how much premium to charge for any risk. The very future of the insurer would be in jeopardy, being unaware of future losses and future income.

In group health plans, the insurers customarily accept new employees and family members with pre-existing conditions. But the insurer has enough historical data to accurately calculate the premium to be charged among the whole group. If the group has an unacceptable loss ratio (premium income to claim expenses), the insurer will either charge higher premiums or cancel the policy. The insurer has no other choice if it wants to remain profitable.

One of the features of the BFD is that pre-existing conditions will no longer be considered in underwriting a health insurance policy. In practice, this will mean that I could wait until my doctor diagnoses me with terminal cancer before I buy an insurance policy. Then, I pay my co-pays and stick it to the insurance company.

Another feature is that there will be no lifetime cap on benefits. Underwriting and actuarial considerations are worthless when an insurance company cannot calculate the limits of their loss exposures. Insurance ceases to be insurance…a transfer of risk…when there ceases to be any risk to avoid or mitigate. Under the BFD, health insurance becomes a universal healthcare welfare system.

No insurance company would ever agree to this…unless underwriting and actuarial decisions don’t matter anymore. That would only occur if there was some entity above the insurance company that was going to pay all the benefits. Guess who? The Federal Government will now be the premium collector, and the American taxpayer will ultimately pay ALL the costs for this new plan.

The agenda hidden in plain sight

The BFD is not about providing health insurance coverage for the 32-40 million ESTIMATED Americans without health insurance. It’s about a government takeover of a giant portion of this nation’s economy, and fascism.

How do I know for sure?

Well, let’s use the low end of the estimates, 32 million. I’m only using that because the government always lies, and the true number is probably a lot lower. And let’s say that the annual premium for the best health insurance policy you can buy is $5,000 per year per person regardless of age. Then do the math. 32 million uninsured people times a $5,000 annual premium per person is only $160 Billion per year.

Congress and President Obama could have bought every uninsured person in America a deluxe insurance plan for only $160 Billion. But that’s not what they did.

This bill is estimated to cost over 900 Billion dollars…and they ALWAYS underestimate on the low side.

So, as I said, this ain’t about insuring the uninsured.

But it IS about demographics.

Demographics and Two Major Players

The health care providers didn’t fight this bill. That’s because right now there are a lot of uninsured people that use the hospital Emergency Room as a free clinic. But under the BFD, all of those people will either pay for coverage, or the Federal Government will pay for their coverage. The days of hospitals providing free health care to the poor and indigent will be gone. The health care providers see the tidal wave of health care benefit money that will hit their shores. All they have to do is soak it up.

The health insurance industry didn’t fight this bill, either. That’s because they see 32 million people (questionable estimate) that aren’t paying premiums that will begin buying insurance. And many of those people will get the DC crowd to pay their premiums for them through “low income” subsidies. In addition, the health insurance companies already have the trained staff to help DC roll out this health care law and administer it for the DC bureaucrats. More money for the insurers.

What pact did the big insurance companies make with the DC devils?

The insurance industry has not fought this BFD. They have not used their club in the closet. So, the logical conclusion is that the insurance industry has made a yet-to-be-discovered pact with the DC devils to enrich themselves at the public’s expense.

All of the insurance companies domiciled in the USA have investment portfolios. Part of their money is always invested in government securities. That means bonds and other debt instruments. These can be Federal, State or even municipal bonds. But they all hold a large percentage of US securities.

Their bond holdings are sufficiently large that if they suddenly sold even a small portion of the bonds, it would collapse the entire bond market. And with the volatility of the dollar, and the mind-boggling Federal debt that is constantly growing, the value of all government bonds is dropping like a stone.

The insurance companies know this. They already know that they could cause the bond market to meltdown any day that they began selling off government securities. The US Federal government would finally be proven to be bankrupt. So, in essence, they have created a government interference insurance policy for themselves that protects them from Washington’s meddling in their business. It’s the equivalent of the old “club in the closet”…the weapon you bring out when it’s needed. And NOTHING prevents them from threatening DC with that club.

Health Care Rationing is Inevitable

Here’s the way for Washington to screw up any economic activity:

1. Tax it
2. regulate supply and demand
3. impose price controls
4. impose wage controls
5. impose limits on profits, or “windfall profits” taxes

The DC bunch is going to do this with health care. The health care industry will naturally shrink in size as many people realize that it makes no economic sense for them to continue in this path.

As the BFD unfolds, and the regulations start to affect doctors, the number of doctors will diminish. Some will retire early, some will switch to other careers, premed students will switch majors, and most doctors will just sing “Nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen.”

Some doctors will opt out of the government benefits system and stop treating anyone covered by the BFD. But that brings up another possible scenario. If the number of participating doctors drops, and rationing inevitably begins, I can see Washington stepping in and forcing doctors to treat BFD patients. Think about it. Doctors are licensed in every state. Congress could easily pass a new law that mandates all licensed doctors to accept BFD patients and BFD benefits…or no license for the doctor. What’s to stop Congress from doing this? Nothing.

But some medical professionals will adapt and prosper.

Doctors are going to watch as their incomes shrink. But some will think of ways to escape the American healthcare system while still practicing medicine.

That means an escape from America.

Canadians have been coming to American doctors and hospitals for decades to escape the rationing in Canada. Now it’s America’s turn to run for the border.

Over the next ten years, thousand of doctors, nurses and other medical professionals will set up shop outside the USA. They will establish clinics and surgical practices “just across the border” with the most modern and advanced medical treatment facilities possible…free from Washington’s crushing burden of regulation.

Expect the offshore medical industry, or commonly called “Medical Tourism” to explode in Mexico, the Caribbean (and Cuba, once Castro dies) and Latin America, in places like Panama and Costa Rica. Read more about Medical Tourism HERE.

For example, the prestigious Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Global Health opened the Hospital Punta Pacifica in Panama City, Panama in 2006. It is the most advanced hospital in Panama and rivals any great American hospital. Medical tourism will be a huge cash cow for this facility as health care falls apart in America.

Big Pharma is Smiling

The pharmaceutical industry has entered in the Promised Land. More people in the new system means more drug consumption.They will negotiate their pricing with the government, and the government health care will promote and buy their products. All Big Pharma has to do is continue paying bribe money to Congress.

The Swami Predicts…

1. Health care rationing nationwide
2. Price controls on everything related to medical treatment
3. Hundreds of hospitals close their doors
4. Dozens of health insurance companies close their doors
5. Thousands of doctors stop practicing medicine in the US
6. Thousands of doctors and nurses become Federal employees
7. Pharmaceutical companies’ stock value soars
8. Mortality rates in America creep upward due to rationing
9. Hyperinflation must occur as DC monetizes debt with paper money
10. The US economy collapses and America enters a Dark Age

OR…

11. Courageous states of the United States secede and the United States dissolves into the ashbin of history.

Which will YOU choose?

Secession is the Hope for Mankind. Who will be first…and wisest?

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.


A Constitutional Convention? Surely, You Jest!

March 27, 2010

by James P. Harvey

(Editor’s Note: Rob Natelson posted an article entitled Had Enough? at the Tenth Amendment Center website. My friend James P. Harvey wrote this excellent response to the Natelson proposal for a Constitutional Convention.

James has engaged Natelson and the “Tenthers” exactly where they are…still believing in a dead constitution and wanting to amend it. But the Constitutional Convention is insufficient for the task of restoring liberty in North America. I would go one step farther. I’d recommend writing a bunch of new STATE constitutions while we DumpDC. )

In consideration of the present and ever worsening condition of the people of America – many of whom are intellectually unprepared to accept what is said in this letter let alone the ramifications of another constitutional convention — let it be known that all who support this insane proposal must surely have nefarious intentions. Is that plain enough to establish my utmost opposition to this surreptitious political coup d’état?

Since Marilyn M. Barnewall said it best, let me quote this exceptional lady in an attempt to set the stage, and elucidate my position.

“Since human beings walked out of the cave, they have fought to either control their own destiny or sought the power to control the destiny of others. The “control my own destiny” group lacks the desire for power, and the “must have power” group lacks the discipline to use it wisely. Individualists who love personal freedom and accept responsibility for it know better. They become educated activists and leaders who use power wisely: for the people rather than against them.”

Only when a group of people rises up with an intellect equal to that of the founding fathers who wrote a document that kept Americans free for 250 years should a Constitutional Convention be considered. Only people with knowledge of the methods used to subjugate America, who have lived and acquired the wisdom of fifty years of experiential, productive maturity, and who have an in-depth understanding of Constitutional Law should be recruited to this group. No Kids Allowed – regardless of age – should be asked to undertake such a monumental task. Political experience is important to the process, but so too is economic understanding of the free enterprise system and how to run a business within it. The articulation skills needed to write a treatise on the necessity of clearly stated amendments understandable by the people and the Courts are required, and must be published before a Constitutional Convention is called.

Only when the above is accomplished and I am convinced there are in existence enough like-minded people in power to meet the three-quarters majority, will I lay down my opposition to a another Constitutional Convention.

In short, at this time in American history there are many outright scoundrels in Federal, State, County and City governments who have been indoctrinated in a school system (kindergarten through doctorate degrees) that teaches little about Common, Constitutional and Commercial Law – the three C’s of Citizenship. No intelligent person would ask a socialist, illiterate generation to rewrite a document created by a group of the most intelligent men who ever lived. I speak here of America’s Constitution as created by our founding fathers.

A Constitutional Congress at this time would put the most illiterate group of socialist moles ever privileged with citizenship in this Great Nation in charge of determining the fate of We, the People.

The current call for a Constitutional Convention is clearly a surreptitious attempt by those who would use linguistic gymnastics, confusion, fear, and frustration of the people to create a constitutional document which, in the end analysis, would enslave them.

When local efforts produce trustworthy State governments which communicate effectively with one another – and with the public – we will be capable of establishing a plan of action and producing trustworthy delegates. That plan of action should renew the people’s power over the federal government by States which treasure their own sovereignty. Then – and only then – should a Constitutional Convention be considered. Let us keep the horse in front of the wagon and prepare for freedom to prevail, rather than more tyranny.

James P. Harvey can be reached at: wethepeople@anationbeguiled.com


“Conservative” Senators Draw A Bullseye on American Citizens

March 26, 2010

A Detention Bill You Ought to Read More Carefully
by Marc Ambinder
Mar 5 2010, 3:40 PM ET

(Editor’s Note: The DC criminals are circling the wagons, my friends. They know that the end is looming on the horizon, and fear makes dangerous enemies. Don’t forget that John McCain was the Republican candidate for President in 2008. So don’t tell me how the Republicans are freedom-lovers.Just how much are you going to accept from these criminals and thugs before you fight back?)

Why is the national security community treating the “Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010,” introduced by Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman on Thursday as a standard proposal, as a simple response to the administration’s choices in the aftermath of the Christmas Day bombing attempt? A close reading of the bill suggests it would allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens without trial indefinitely in the U.S. based on suspected activity. Read the bill here, and then read the summarized points after the jump.

According to the summary, the bill sets out a comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected enemy belligerents who are believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their intelligence value and not provided with a Miranda warning.

(There is no distinction between U.S. persons–visa holders or citizens–and non-U.S. persons.)

It would require these “belligerents” to be coded as “high-value detainee[s]” to be held in military custody and interrogated for their intelligence value by a High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team established by the president. (The H.I.G., of course, was established to bring a sophisticated interrogation capacity to the federal justice system.)

Any suspected unprivileged enemy belligerents considered a “high-value detainee” shall not be provided with a Miranda warning.

The bill asks the President to determine criteria for designating an individual as a “high-value detainee” if he/she: (1) poses a threat of an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the U.S. or U.S. facilities abroad; (2) poses a threat to U.S. military personnel or U.S. military facilities; (3) potential intelligence value; (4) is a member of al Qaeda or a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda or (5) such other matters as the President considers appropriate. The President must submit the regulations and guidance to the appropriate committees of Congress no later than 60 days after enactment.

To the extent possible, the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must make a preliminary determination whether the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent within 48 hours of taking detainee into custody.

Next exerpt:

The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must submit its determination to the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General after consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General make a final determination and report the determination to the President and the appropriate committees of Congress. In the case of any disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the President will make the determination.

* * * * * * * *

Marc Ambinder is the politics editor of The Atlantic. He has covered Washington for ABC News and the Hotline, and he is chief political consultant to CBS News.

Copyright 2010 TheAtlantic.com

Watch Alex Jones discussing this bill: