Movie Reviews: “The Hurt Locker” and “The Green Zone”

March 25, 2010

I sat through these crummy movies so you won’t have to. Oh, how I suffer for my people…my “peeps.”

The Hurt Locker

This piece of war propaganda won six Academy Awards a couple of weeks ago. It had no plot, a weak story line, it started nowhere and went nowhere. The main character takes risk after risk, placing himself and his squad in mortal danger. Nowhere in this movie does the story or the director ask the moral question of why America is in Iraq.

Then, it shows the main character reaching the end of his deployment and going back to “the world,” only to miss the adrenaline rushes of defusing explosives back in Iraq. The movie ends as the main character gets off the plane back in Iraq for another deployment.

The Pentagon’ fingerprints are all over this movie. Stay away from this steaming pile of propagandist bullshit. You’d spend two hours you’ll never get back, and not be entertained.

The Green Zone

At least this movie had a plot.

Chief Miller, played by Matt Damon, is a squad leader of Army troops in Iraq in the early days of the invasion. He and his squad are tasked with finding the Weapons of Mass Destruction that the Bush Administration said were in Iraq. But in location after location, his squad finds nothing. He meets a CIA operative early on in a briefing session who tells him plainly that there are no WMDs. But, the Army has received its intel from the Bush Administration bureaucrats in the Green Zone. Chief also runs down a Wall Street Journal reporter who has written a series of false articles with the Bush propaganda in her articles. But no one ever checked out the secret source. Chief finds out who the source is, an Iraqi general who discloses that he told the CIA that there were no WMDs. Chief finally figures out that the Bushies changed all the CIA intel to justify the invasion.

Damon does a believable job, just like he did in the Bourne Identity trilogy. But the overall message in the movie is the utter fecklessness and criminal behavior of a government that sends men to die in a foreign land…for a lie.

States that secede from this rogue government won’t be invading other nations. Want to save the lives of our young soldiers? Support 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.

Vermont Secession Strategy

March 24, 2010

by Kirkpatrick Sale, Director
The Middlebury Institute

March 19, 2010—Thomas Naylor has just outlined the strategy that the Second Vermont Republic is operating under in a paper he has distributed this week. Though it is (very) specific to Vermont, where there are now at least nine candidates for the fall election, it should be of interest and perhaps instruction to secessionists everywhere. The text follows:

The Problem: The American Empire is the largest, wealthiest, most powerful, most materialistic, most racist, most militaristic, most violent empire of all time. It is owned, operated, and controlled by Wall Street, Corporate America, and the Israeli Lobby. It has lost its moral authority and is unsustainable, ungovernable, and, therefore, unfixable.


1. The Vermont Mystique. Classic red barns, covered bridges, the picturesque patchwork pattern of small farms, black-and-white Holsteins, tiny villages, little rivers, ridges, hollows, valleys, and dirt roads.

2. The Vermont Village Green. A place where people meet to chat, have a coffee, a locally brewed beer, a glass of wine, or a bite to eat; read a newspaper; listen to music; smell the flowers; and pass the time away. A place which is all about the politics of human scale—small towns, small businesses, small schools, and small churches. The village green is neat, clean, democratic, radical, nonviolent, noncommercial, egalitarian, and humane. A mirror image of the way America once was but no longer knows how to be.

3. David and Goliath Image. What could be more absurd than tiny Vermont, the second smallest state in the United States in terms of population, confronting the most powerful empire in history? The image of Vermont as an underdog is not likely to go unnoticed.


1. Neoconservatives. The Republican Party, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and CNBC. [Vermont] Governor Jim Douglas, Lt. Governor Brian Dubie, the Ethan Allen Institute [John McClaughry], and True North Radio.

2. Neoliberals. The Democratic Party, most of the national media including ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, and PBR. Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Patrick Leahy, Congressman Peter Welch, and their political supporters.


The peaceable return of Vermont to its status as an independent republic [1777-91] and the peaceable dissolution of the American Empire.


1. Political independence by 2015.
2. Dissolution of the American Empire by 2020.


1. Moral Authority. Challenge the moral authority of the U.S. Government, Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Patrick Leahy, Congressman Peter Welch, and all of their collaborators.

2. Swiss Model. Unabashedly embrace the socio-economic, political model of Switzerland, the most sustainable nation-state of all time.

3. Imagine…Free Vermont. Launch a new political party whose aim is to elect state government officials and members of the legislature committed to Vermont independence. Once the party has a majority in the legislature, a motion will be introduced calling for a statewide convention to consider articles of secession. After these articles of secession have been approved by a two-thirds majority of the convention delegates, negotiations will begin with the United States Government for the peaceable departure of Vermont from the Union.

4. Vermont Commons. Develop the economic, agricultural, energy, and environmental foundations necessary to support a sustainable, politically independent Free Vermont.

5. Radio Free Vermont. Sow the seeds of peaceable rebellion against the Empire through Vermont-based music produced by Vermont musicians.

6. Outreach. Through the Middlebury Institute, the website, ( and other networks, reach out to other independence movements in the United States and elsewhere.

7. Finance. Utilize modern Internet-based social-network technology to raise money to finance the activities of the SVR Strategic Alliance.

Kirkpatrick Sale
Director, Middlebury Institute

When Will The Texas Offense Take the Field?

March 23, 2010

”The best defense is a good offense.” Vince Lombardi

I’m using a football analogy today, since football is a religion in Texas. So, this is a “come to Jesus” altar call in football parlance.

Two teams are playing in a winner-take-all game. It’s Texas versus Washington for all the marbles. The game is now in sudden-death overtime, and the clock is winding down, with no time outs available for either team.

Washington’s offense has been pushing Texas up and down the field throughout the whole game. But the Texans have mounted a mighty defensive stand here in the final stanza.

It’s time for the Texas offense to take the field.

There are a lot of actions that Head Coach/Governor Rick Perry and the Texas Legislature can do RIGHT NOW to “take the field” and start pushing back against the Washington team and win this game…once and for all.

Think about this scenario for just a moment. In this media-driven, 24/7 worldwide ocean of information and content, consider what would happen if Coach Perry called a news conference and read the following statement:

“Over the past few decades, The United States Federal Government in Washington DC has enacted law after law that taxes the citizens more, while regulating away more and more individual liberty. The passage of the Health Care legislation in Congress was the final act of tyranny to be forced upon the citizens of the state of Texas. I’m announcing that as of this date, we in the State of Texas will begin serious and solemn consideration of the sovereign act of secession from the United States of America. Within a few days, we Texans will come together in a Constitutional Convention to write a new constitution for a New Texas.

Enough is enough. To quote Sam Houston, Texas will again lift its head and stand among the nations.”

That’s all Perry needs to say. It would only take him 40 seconds if he was a slow reader.

Such a proclamation would galvanize the world media. Little else would be covered for days, perhaps weeks on all the major new outlets worldwide.

Then the Coach and the team would have to put up or shut up.

Here are ten “plays” for the Texas offense that could be run even before a Constitutional Convention was organized and gaveled to order.

1. Call an emergency session of the State Legislature to meet within 30 days with the following agenda:
2. Enact legislation that required each Texan who pays state taxes of any kind to pay the tax in gold or silver coin, or Egold.
3. Enact legislation to provide for the private minting of gold and silver coins as Texas legal tender.
4. Enact legislation that formally nullifies all Federal laws in Texas.
5. Enact legislation that strengthens the law enforcement powers of county Sheriffs in Texas, making the county Sheriff the top law enforcement officer in each county. As part of the Sheriff legislation, enact a statute that requires any Federal employee or sworn officer to obtain written authority from a county Sheriff to enforce any US Federal law upon a Texas citizen, with criminal penalties for any non-Texas officer violating the law.
6. Enact legislation that rejects the jurisdiction of any US Federal Court in matters of Texas sovereignty and nationhood.
7. Enact legislation that reorganizes the Texas Citizen Militia, comprised of all able-bodied men and women between the ages of 18 and 50. This bill would provide for immediate training and provisioning of the militia.
8. Authorize the Constitutional Convention and set the date within 90 days.
9. Draft a Texas Declaration of Independence and post it on the state’s website so that people around the world could read it before it’s delivered to Washington.
10. Draft a Texas Ordinance of Secession and post it on the state’s website so that people around the world could read it before it’s delivered to Washington.

How’s that for a sudden-death offensive series?

And what could the Washington team do in response? Breathe out threats? All that Texas is doing is “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” (from Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence 1776).

Football fans and lovers of Texas, one of these two teams is going to win. There will be no tie. Either Texas leaves The United States, or The United States turns Texas into a perpetual serfdom. There is no third option.

Who will win this game? Secession is the Hope for Mankind.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

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

The Constitution and an Insurance Policy

March 22, 2010

On Saturday, March 20th, I posted an article about my Facebook exchange with Michael Boldin, Founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. Even though Michael eventually agreed with me about secession, his organization is probably not ready to forsake the Constitution quite yet and aggressively promote secession.

My career has been in the insurance business. I started in 1973 as an insurance agent. In 1994, I switched over into the claims adjusting side of the business. So I know how to read and interpret an insurance policy. Let’s compare insurance policies in general to the US Constitution.

The US Constitution has articles, sections and terms that expressly outline the duties and responsibilities of “The United States of America,” the name given to the management company created by the thirteen states in 1787. The Constitution and its Amendments also expressly outline the duties and responsibilities of “The United States” and the several states to each other. It lists the things that “The United States” is prohibited from doing. The document is not legal, and cannot bind any two persons to each other or to a government.

An insurance policy has terms and conditions that expressly outline the duties and responsibilities of the insurance company and the policyholder to each other. The policy is a legal contract, since both parties signed the agreement and each received a copy of the agreement. This is a “contract of adhesion,” meaning that the insurance company created all the terms and conditions, and the policyholder could not alter the contract, but could only adhere to it by signed agreement. The insurance policy also contains exclusions, the list of risks and losses that are not covered under that policy.

So the US Constitution has many similarities with an insurance policy. Both have terms, conditions and exclusions that define the relationship and duties between parties. Both have been widely interpreted, for good or evil. Both have engendered innumerable lawsuits over the years, the Plaintiffs seeking to have a court render an opinion on how to interpret the documents. And both the US government and the insurance companies have abused their obligations as well as abusing the citizen or policyholder.


An insurance policy can be cancelled. An insurance policy can be non-renewed. An insurance policy can be denied or rejected by either party.

But once the policy has been cancelled, the insurance company and the policyholder do not continue to argue about the terms and conditions of the dead policy. They do not continue to attempt to enforce the terms and conditions of the dead insurance policy upon each other. The insurance company stops sending the policyholder premium notices, the policyholder stops making premium payments, and the policyholder stops filing claims.

Think about how abjectly silly it would be for the policyholder and the insurance company to continue badgering each other about a policy that was terminated decades ago. Think about how absurd it would be for the policyholder to hand down this story from generation to generation. Think about how ridiculous it would be for that old policyholder’s children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren to continue desiring to be legally bound to that old policy, and to argue the terms and conditions of that policy that terminated a century or more ago.

Yet that is EXACTLY what the pro-Constitution folks like the Tenth Amendment Center do every day. They spend enormous amounts of time, energy and money arguing the articles, terms and conditions of a US Constitution that died back in the 1860s. They seek to enforce the terms of a dead document on a rogue band of well-dressed thieves and murderers in Washington DC.

You might be able to make the argument that the people who ratified the US Constitution back in the 1790s actually had a legal agreement between themselves and their new Federal Government. It would be a weak argument, and I submit that it would be fallacious. But a man who was 21 years old in 1790 would have been 91 years old in 1860. No matter how iron-clad his Constitution might have been for him, he could not transfer that compact to his progeny and bind them to it at his death. For to do so would have not secured the blessings of liberty to his posterity, but would have bound them with the chains of serfdom, since they had no chance to either accept or reject the pact.

Here is another strange twist to this story: What would you do if the insurance company continued to send you premium notices long after the policy cancelled? What if they escalated that to armed bill collectors who could arrest you, confiscate your assets, jail you or kill you when you refused to pay the premium on a policy cancelled years or decades ago? And the courts upheld the theft?

That is what “The United States” does every day. You are expected to pay taxes to this rogue government in every way imaginable, and you risk death if you resist.

This picture says it all.

So, when I receive comments from sincere people about their commitment to the US Constitution, I feel sadness and compassion for them, since it is clear that they have not discovered that the US Constitution has no authority over them, and offers no solutions or the future of freedom. I understand that this realization is an intellectual process, since I had to make the same journey from rabid Constitutionalist to fierce Secessionist. It’s painful, since one must admit that deeply-held foundational beliefs are categorically wrong.

But cheer up!! When the dark clouds of tyranny and ignorance part, the warm sunshine of liberty will warm all who are enlightened by its rays.

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.

National ID: Who Will Resist?

March 21, 2010

by Timothy Baldwin, Esq.

Editor’s Note: Mr. Baldwin’s article represents a flood that has reached the top of the levee, so to speak. He has stopped only inches short of breaching the levee and outright calling for secession. But, in light of his excellent points made, you’ll see that secession is the only logical conclusion of his article.)

U.S. Senators Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) introduced a bill which would require all persons in the United States (“U.S.”) seeking to be employed to obtain a government-issued biometric National Identification card.(FN1) Not so surprisingly, this measure has come in the name of “protecting America” against illegal immigrants working in the U.S. unlawfully. Thus, “[t]o ensure that only people legally in the U.S. can work here, the bill will propose a biometric I.D. for EVERY AMERICAN before anybody can get a job.” (FN2) This is yet another method by which the federal government continually institutes practices and principles contrary to what a Free Confederated Republic should be and contrary to principles of limited government, self-government, natural rights, and true constitutional intent and meaning. Judge Andrew Napolitano rightfully calls this legislation a “monstrosity” and predicts that this bill will not pass.(FN3) Perhaps Judge Napolitano is correct, but we should consider what the people of the U.S. once rejected but now embrace.

The New Deal

After Abraham Lincoln set the stage for federal government forceful takeover of the people and states’ rights, power and jurisdiction, Franklin D. Roosevelt capitalized on the people’s economic straits in the 1930s by introducing “The New Deal,” which in part socialized the economic, commercial and industrial fabric of the United States. Federal government control, regulation and power: that was the name of the game and still is.

From this era of federal government expansion and encroachment, we see U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), ruling that Congress has the power to regulate the most local of activities, such as an individual, non-commercial farmer’s production of crops for private use, and has the power to penalize and punish any violation of the same.

Prior to 1930, it would have been inconceivable that the people of the states and the state governments themselves would have consented to such a violation of the constitution and such an open encroachment into the lives of individuals, families, businesses and states. Yet, as soon as the circumstance presented itself, the New Deal was substantially adopted and accepted into society and government (or at least by the politicians). We are living with its effect today, almost 100 years later.

The Great Society

Continuing its managerial presence over individuals, families, businesses and states, the federal government expanded its power and usurpations into their lives and into their retained powers by creating, among other things, governmental welfare programs in the 1960s for those who “needed” help. This was a “War on Poverty!”

This era federal government expansion not only instituted socialistic and communistic principles and philosophy, taking from the “haves” and giving to the “have-nots,” but also created an unlawful entanglement of the federal government into the state and local public education system. Both of these matters were traditionally and largely held to be purely local matters, and would have never been deemed a legitimate federal power.

Have these federal government programs been terminated? Not hardly. Instead, they have been expanded and increased with fervor, intensity and passion. In contrast, there was a time in the U.S. when this political philosophy and these federal programs would have been rejected immediately and without discussion. Yet, we are living with their effect today.


One of the fundamental principles that shaped American and English jurisprudence for hundreds of years was the necessary protection of life, including the unborn life. Most (and I dare say, all) of the states in the union criminally or civilly punished the willful abortion of an unborn baby by the mother, or anyone else for that matter. If a congressman were to introduce a bill making it illegal for the states to make such restrictions against abortion, that congressman would have been told to take a long hike off a short bridge.

Yet, since 1973, over 1 million babies have consistently been aborted every year in the U.S., and when someone attempts to question the constitutionality or even the morality of the act of abortion, most federal politicians shirk their shoulders and say, “Well, it’s the supreme law of the land,” because the U.S. Supreme Court has determined it to be so. (How ignorant, disgusting and cowardly are these people!) And the ones who say they are opposed to it do very little (if not nothing) to encourage the states to resist this draconian federal usurpation. Supposedly, our only hope is in Washington, D.C., forty years afterwards. The contrast is blaring.

National Health Care

Today, the federal government is continuing to travel down the road of socialism and communism, contrary to every principle of truth held sacred by our founding generations, by their forefathers before them and by generations following them. This time, the federal government takes the matter of healthcare and determines that, first, they actually have the constitutional authority to regulate this matter; and that, second, they are going to do the U.S. a favor by creating yet another federal bureaucracy to regulate the healthcare profession and industry.

While there may be opposition to the healthcare proposals, most of them are not based upon the constitutionality of the bill, but on the pragmatism of it. The opposition is really not based upon principles of constitutional correctness or principles of freedom, but based upon the circumstances and mentality of the people in their district or other political expediencies–a purely democratic standpoint, not a republic standpoint. However, there undoubtedly will come a time in these states where the (vast?) majority of people will find it pragmatic for the federal government to regulate healthcare, just as the people did during the administration of F.D.R. and following.

Would the people in 1776 have agreed to such a federal power? What about 1787? What about 1830? What about 1860? What about 1913? In truth, the people of the U.S. have become so dis-informed, mis-informed and frankly put, ignorant on the proper limitations and constitutional ambits of the federal government. The results are obvious and apparent.

National ID

While Judge Napolitano believes that this National ID bill will not pass, our own history proves that the people of the U.S. will eventually accept this type of federal government expansion and intrusion, especially if the people continue in their ignorance as they have since the early 1900s. This begs the question: what are freedom-loving people going to do when the federal government does in fact (or at the least, attempts to) takeover our rights, powers and jurisdictions over ourselves, our families and our states?

Allow me to answer by making a dogmatic statement, without going into the supporting details and arguments at this time:

The STATES in the union must choose to live in freedom by resisting the federal government’s unnatural and unlawful actions or choose to live in submission to slavery by giving up their rightful powers and jurisdictions and by allowing the federal government to run rough-shod over the supposed constitutionally-secured liberties and freedom of the people within their borders.

Please do not misunderstand me. By resisting, I do not mean helping to get a Republic elected into a federal position. I do not mean simply sending out some email to their constituents to inform them of their position on the matter. I do not mean, encouraging people to “go out and vote.” I do not mean sending a letter of correspondence form a state house representative to the U.S. President.

By resisting, I mean the state representatives passing laws, the governor entering orders and the courts rendering judgments, preventing the federal government from attempting to tax their people for that federal power and from implementing their procedures upon the people of that state. I mean actually and physically resisting the federal government from occupying the state’s territory to execute those unlawful actions. I mean publically calling to its defense the other states in the union who stand firm upon the same fundamental principles of self-government, federalism, constitutional government and freedom to resist these ghastly attempts to reduce the people to despotism. I mean county sheriff’s arresting federal agents who are attempting to execute and enforce unlawful and unconstitutional procedures and laws upon the citizens of their counties. I mean actively and meaningfully using the sovereign powers retained under the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution and under the Laws of Nations.

If you think that the federal government is going to be stopped by voting into office the next batch of corruptors and encroachers, you are dead wrong. This belief has been proven fruitless at least since the early 1900s. The fact that people in the U.S. still believe that this method is the only effectual and available method of preserving freedom confounds me.

For societal and political freedom to exist in the states of America, the people within their individual bodies-politics (i.e. states) must re-study, re-learn, re-calculate and re-apply the formulas and maxims of truth from the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, just as our forefathers did, to secure these God-given rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

We can no longer look to the decayed system currently propagated to secure freedom or even to reclaim freedom. We can no longer wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to come to our rescue. We can no longer wait for a “conservative” President to be elected to restore freedom and to change over 100 years of federal usurpations. Can we even expect that three-fourths of the states in the union will insist on freedom’s principles? We certainly cannot hold onto the enslaving notion that “union equals freedom.” We can no longer hope for freedom by simply voting.

The question is not a matter of how far will the federal government go. They have already crossed the line of good faith, virtue and decency. They have already rejected those principles of truth and worldview expressed by our European and American forefathers, which framed the constitutions in America to begin with. They have shamed the honorable sacrifices made by generations before us–made by the enlightenment of their minds, the purity of their hearts and the blood from their veins. We know where they are going. We see where they are. We know their philosophy and intent–their design to reduce us to despotism! So, the question is, who will resist them?

Copyright (c) Timothy Baldwin 2010

1 Laura Meckler, ID Card for Workers Is at Center of Immigration Plan, The Wall Street Journal, (March 8, 2010), found at
2 Roger Hedgecock, Graham Pushes National I.D. Card, Human Events, (March 12, 2010), found at
3 National Biometric Card Is An Invasion To Our Privacy Says Judge Andrew Napolitano, The Economy Collapse (March 12, 2010), found at

President of Tenth Amendment Center Agrees on Secession with

March 20, 2010

After Lew Rockwell posted Lysander Spooner’s epic booklet “No Treason” as the “top story, position one” at on Tuesday, March 16th, I had a Facebook exchange with Michael Boldin, founder of the national grassroots political movement Tenth Amendment Center (TAC). Michael has given his permission to quote our exchange, so I’m posting our exchange verbatim, with notes in bold print after each exchange.

3-16 Russell Longcore to Michael Boldin

The lead post at is Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason” in its entirety. I’m amazed and delighted that Lew took this strong position. How do you continue doing 10th Amendment stuff in the face of this book’s irrefutable positions? You had a nullification article at LRC just yesterday. What gives?

3-16 Michael Boldin to Russell Longcore

Well, I believe I’m doing what’s best to help promote liberty – encouraging people to use the constitution as their line in the sand, and to actively disobey and resist anything beyond that.

Making constitutional positions is a necessity to show those people who actually believe in the “goodness” of a national government where and how often it violates our rights. Without that baseline education of the masses, how would anyone ever conceive of getting rid of the beast at all?

(Editor’s note: By educating the masses with the TRUTH about the Constitution.)

Today, we have a multi-trillion dollar budget in D.C. – if we can get the federal government down to its constitutional box some day, I believe that people with far greater minds will figure a way to reduce it from there, or maybe get rid of it.

As far as Spooner, though – I’ve loved his writings, but don’t always agree with his positions.

(Editor’s note: I could applaud the TAC’s work if it were not for the fact that the Constitution is a dead document. How exactly does a citizen, or even millions of citizens, force the DC demons back into Pandora’s box? The articles and clauses of a Constitution with no authority, combined with the powerlessness of the states to enforce any law upon a lawless rogue government, only wastes the time of both the TAC and its audience. Said another way, if you’re going to go to the trouble of stirring up the masses in revolt against DC, why not REALLY piss them off with the TRUTH and prove to them that ANY Constitutional remedy is meaningless and unworkable?)

3-17 Russell Longcore to Michael Boldin

Would it not be even more effective to inform the populace that the Constitution has no authority over their lives? Constitutional positions are not a necessity for any Americans. It’s simple. Either the Constitution is valid or it’s not. If it is truly invalid, then arguing over its articles and clauses only clouds the issue and prevents people from acting on facts.

Altering and/or abolishing the US Federal Government is the best solution. And that is best done by secession of the states, just like the USSR experienced in 1989.

Best regards,

3-17 Michael Boldin to Russell Longcore

(Editor’s note: Friends, read this response EXTREMELY CAREFULLY.)

I do agree that the constitution doesn’t have authority over people. And that’s where I disagree with Spooner the most. In fact, this is something we cover all the time! The constitution doesn’t apply to you, it doesn’t apply to me, it doesn’t apply to any person at all.

I don’t believe that spending time talking about abolishing the US government is nearly as effective as the work we’re doing, which is reaching the mainstream more and more. But, what’s great about that is pretty simple – the whole process of understanding liberty is a series of steps – something that most all of us have gone through.

1. statism in all its forms
2. something is wrong with the system, this political party will save me
3. all the parties are corrupt – maybe a third party?
4. parties and the federal government are a waste of time – decentralization.
5. secession
6. freedom from government

I’d say that TAC is clearly at #4, while your work is further down the line. But, even people at #2 and #3 are doing something good. In fact, my distrust of government was fostered heavily by – none other than Michael Moore. (it’s a long story). But, it started me on a path.

Bottom line? The more people that M.M. (Michael Moore) reaches in distrusting the establishment and their wars, the more people that will be open to hearing our message on other issues, which opens up more people to hear your message, which opens more people up to hearing the “voluntaryist” message.

And, since I don’t believe in the myth of some great libertarian dictator that will free us all, I believe that each step and those fostering activism on those steps – are essential.

Hopefully some of that makes sense!

(Editor’s note: Boldin says that the Constitution doesn’t apply to “any person at all.” But the words in the Constitution’s Preamble state, “We the People of The United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution…” If this constitution is not a document that has the legal ability to bind even one person to one other person, it is null and void. The Constitution MUST apply to ALL citizens lawfully as well as the people in “The United States”…the federal government, or it applies to no one. You cannot have it both ways.)

3-18 Russell Longcore to Michael Boldin

Good points, Michael. I’m not taking any kind of a position to abolish the US Government. I simply want the states to secede and allow the DC bunch to dissolve the way the USSR did. May I quote your email at DumpDC?

3-18 Michael Boldin to Russell Longcore

Man, I should always expect to be quoted on these kinds of conversations! I probably should pay attention to what I say a little closer these days…..

But yes, Russell – of course you can quote. I don’t think I said anything too idiotic or incomplete!

My main point on the abolishing government is that there are people who always seem to be one step further in their support of liberty. I’m sure there’s people who would say to a secessionist – “why are you wasting time on secession, when the only TRUE path is complete abolition of the state in all forms!”

Thanks for the discussion, Russell!

3-19 Russell Longcore to Michael Boldin

You’re a good man, Michael. Keep workin’ hard. Perhaps our paths will cross when folks give up on nullification and take the next logical step to secession. With the insanity in Washington that pours out on a daily basis, it’s probably won’t take all that long.

(Editor’s note: I respect Michael Boldin very much. The momentum that he and his Tenth Amendment Center have built in a very short time is awe-inspiring. Now, I call on Michael and the TAC leadership to take the next step and fully embrace state secession as the only logical and workable solution to ending the tyranny coming from the rogue government in Washington DC.

This Facebook exchange shows how close the nullification adherents are to the “Final Solution”…the dissolution of the United States and the new birth of liberty that will occur as states secede from the perceived Union.

Remember, if Spooner is correct, and the Constitution has no authority…then most of the things you and I THOUGHT we knew about governance are not true. Specifically, if your state is not bound to the Union by the Constitution, then no further action need be done when secession is contemplated. You don’t worry about resigning from a club of which you were never truly a member.)

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

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

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

The New Corporate Model of Governance

March 18, 2010

(Editor’s Note: This is an update of an article that ran at in October 2009.)

The US Constitution is a dead document. It has been dead nearly from its inception. It is neither contract nor treaty, either of which would give it the force of law. It does not, and cannot bind any two persons to each other, nor can it bind any person to the rogue government called “The United States of America” that is the occupying force in Washington DC.

In this article, I will prove that the Constitution is without authority and that the subject of secession related to the Constitution is entirely irrelevant, and that any states need not concern themselves with the constitutionality of secession.

When you are able to wrap your mind around this truth, it may cause you some consternation. This means that all of the things that you learned about the US Constitution in elementary school, high school government class, college and any information you’ve learned since you became an adult…IS WRONG. If you went to law school and took Constitutional Law classes, they lied to you.

Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying that all of the debates that are made about the details of the Constitution are in error. We can all spend our days arguing about the articles and clauses and their meanings. But if the US Constitution is dead, and cannot bind anyone to it, arguing about the merits of constitutionality of any government action is simply an exercise in re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

A constitution, or any document organizing a government, must have authority and validity. But the US Constitution has no inherent authority or validity and has never had either. If we can learn what the US Constitution is and what it is not, we can understand the flaws in the old constitution and then craft a new constitution for any seceding state with authority and validity.

I believe that one of the major reasons that Washington is able to operate as it does, outside the strictures of the Constitution, is because those persons in power know that the Constitution is not legally enforceable. Absent a restraining legal document coupled with principals that have the power to enforce the terms of the document, the DC criminals do exactly what they wish and what they can get away with.

The US Constitution has the following words in its Preamble, showing the intent of the Framers:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the united States of America.

The Founder’s sentiments seek to secure blessings to themselves and their posterity, meaning future generation of citizens. But a loose agreement cannot by law or reason bind any future person to its details. Contracts cannot obligate persons who will live in the future, either. They can only obligate persons who are living presently and who sign and receive the contract.

Even though the old constitution wishes to bestow blessings and liberty on their posterity, it has no power whatsoever to achieve this goal. Further, it never showed any intention toward future generations other than to offer useful recommendations to their posterity toward the blessings of liberty. If they were in some way able to bind future generations to the Constitution, they would not have bestowed liberty but slavery upon their posterity, since their children would be bound to it from birth, like it or not.

So what exactly is this Constitution?

I think it could only be called a “loose agreement” between certain people at the time that it was written and ratified. It is not a treaty ratified between sovereign states, which would have the weight of law. It cannot be considered a legal contract, since legal contracts have characteristics that the old constitution does not have.

It was ratified by votes in the several states. But ratification in any form didn’t turn it into a legal document with enforceability and authority.

The US Constitution is not a legal contract. The Constitution never bound any two or more parties in a legal way, nor did it ever purport to bind anyone. A timeless principle in contract law is that the contract is not valid until the contract is signed by all parties and delivered to the parties, or the representative of any signatory party. Any party may refuse to sign or deliver a written instrument and thus invalidate the contract. The US Constitution was not signed by anyone or anyone’s legal representative. It was not delivered to anyone or their representative. No one in the USA, either alive or dead, has ever signed the Constitution as a legal contract between parties. So how could it be a legal document with binding authority or validity?

Contracts are also voluntary. The parties come together for a purpose, but are free to dissolve the contract based upon the terms of the contract. Even if they leave contrary to the contract terms, there may be consequences, but they can still leave.

Abraham Lincoln’s position was that, once in the Union, no state can ever leave. And if the US Constitution was an enforceable contract between parties, his position would have been rejected instantly and laughed out of any court in the land. But in light of the unenforceable nature of the Constitution, Lincoln was free to do what he pleased as it related to the Confederate States of America and war. But the Confederate states were also right to secede from a Union that could not bind them. Constitutionality was irrelevant then, just as it is today.

The Constitution is not a perpetual corporation. The perpetuity of a corporation would require that new members voluntarily assent to its laws and by-laws as old members die off. New members must accept in writing because without their legal signatures, they would not be members and could not vote on corporate issues. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Framers intended the US Constitution to be a corporation’s organizational document…at least not a corporation in the strictest sense.

“The United States of America” is the name given in the US Constitution to the organization that the states created. Compare the work of the Founders to a group of thirteen property owners that need a management company to manage their properties. So, they created a management company and gave it specific tasks and responsibilities. The property owners retained to themselves all other powers not specifically delegated to the management company. They also did not transfer ownership of their properties to the manager. The owners remained the sovereign principals, controlling the manager. But there is NOT ONE WORD in the US Constitution that purports to create a new nation. Look for yourself.

So we can see that the Constitution is not a contract. It binds no one, and never did bind any persons. We see that all those who pretend to operate under its perceived authority act without any legal and legitimate authority.

But we voted and elected these Representatives and Senators. They are our duly elected officials, aren’t they?

Are our elected representatives our personal agents with legal authority to bind each of us individually and collectively? No they are not. In order for you to have a legal representative, you must sign your name to a document that gives the representative the power to act in your behalf. This document is commonly known as a “power of attorney.” You must also deliver the document to the agent.

People regularly sign a “power of attorney” for health care decisions and other legal matters. But what would you do if a stranger went to your doctor and usurped your wishes for your medical treatment, stating that he had your power of attorney? Any reasonable person would require the stranger to produce a written document bearing your signature prior to any changes of treatment. How much more should there be a written power of attorney for the DC stranger who plunders your income and steals your liberty?

Did you ever sign a power of attorney so that any elected officeholder could make binding decisions on your behalf? Did you authorize any person to obligate you to laws, regulations or the payment of taxes to any governmental body? I know that I have not done so. Neither have you.

And the secret ballot makes the concept of any elected representative acting as your agent even more ridiculous. How could secret voters hire an agent? How could secret voters enter into a power of attorney agreement?

So we see that those persons acting as our elected representatives are acting unlawfully, and that we have both the right and duty to treat them as usurpers and frauds.

Then upon what authority does the Federal Government operate? Who gave them the authority to enact laws, tax, confiscate men’s property and kill other men who resist their machinations?

You could say that voters select their representatives by secret ballot, and so bestow authority upon them. But in matter of law and reason, this is not true. It would not be upheld in a court of common law. If you and three of your friends voted in favor of a proposal in which a fourth friend would take it upon himself to deprive me of my property or my life, he would be a robber and/or a murderer. If he presented himself at my door to do his work, he would be unable to produce any legal authority to complete his task. Absent legal authority, I should treat him as a robber and murderer and resist his efforts even unto deadly force.

In a courtroom, a judge would ask to see your representative’s written authority to act in your behalf. You would be unable to produce such written authority.

So voting is neither a contract nor a power of attorney. And secret ballots should never be considered legally binding, since no signed contract between parties ever existed. Further, if voters authorize another person to act as their agent, they should do so in an open manner so to accept responsibility for the agent’s acts. That’s called “liability,” and that’s what happens out here in “the real world.” But the US Constitution, in Article I, Sec. 6, says that “for any speech or debate (or vote) in either house, they (Senators or Representatives) shall not be questioned in any other place.” So your agent cannot be held responsible for any laws they make…and neither can you. So, if no one is responsible, who is responsible?


And let’s return to the subject of legal authority. The Constitution has no legal authority to bind any two or more persons. If it did, you would possess a copy upon which you would find your own signature and at least one other person’s signature. But that document does not exist in any form and has not existed in over 235 years. So, absent that authority, voting is only theater. It is an exercise that makes the citizen feel that he is participating in a legitimate government.

The Federal Government in Washington has been illegitimate from its origin. There is no enforceable law or principal possessing superior force to restrain it from any act. It was only the morality and ethics of the earliest founders that restrained them from tyranny. Unfortunately for Americans, that morality and ethical restraint are a quaint memory.

OK. Convinced that the old Constitution is a cruel joke? Then, how can the new constitution be crafted to guarantee legitimacy and legality? If the framers of the new constitution write one like the old one, it will suffer the same illegitimacy issues as the old one.

Here are suggestions on how to write a new Constitution for a seceding State that wants to become a new sovereign nation.

The New Corporate Style of Governance

Form the new nation in the style of a corporation. Let’s call it State Inc. The Constitution can be its laws and by-laws. Each person will be given the option to subscribe to State Inc. and become a citizen. That person would have to be presented with a copy of the Constitution. Each person would have the choice to accept the Constitution in writing. Once accepted, each citizen would be, in essence, a shareholder in the corporation, since a person could not be a citizen/shareholder without signed consent. Each citizen would pay one once of .999 purity silver and would be issued one share of common stock with one vote. No citizen could buy or own more than one share of common stock. That would also mean that those rejecting the constitution could not be citizens of State Inc. Minors could not be citizens until they were of legal age to enter into a contract, usually eighteen years of age.

State Inc. might also issue preferred stock. The shareholder/citizens could actually invest their own money in preferred stock. This would provide the new nation with capital. Shareholders holding preferred stock might receive dividends if State Inc. makes a profit.

State, Inc. would also be able to issue debentures and corporate bonds to raise capital.

As the corporate structure would be a closely-held private corporation, the charter could specify that the stock could not be resold to non-citizens. Only State Inc. would be eligible to buy back the stock to be reissued to new citizen/investors.

The founders of State Inc. would have the right to present the offer of citizenship to anyone anywhere on the planet. They could cherry pick the world for the best and brightest talent! It would be a component of immigration policy.

Voting could be done by proxies (power of attorney), and the citizen could designate an elected representative as his proxy in writing. Or he could vote himself on any issue. This creates a hybrid between direct democracy and representative democracy.

Think this is unworkable? The largest corporations on the planet have been running this way for hundreds of years. GM (pre-nationization), Exxon, Standard Oil, all of the Dow Jones top 30…they all work this way just fine. Many have millions of shareholders, just like State Inc. would have. In fact, Sweden’s Stora Kopparberg was incorporated by King Magnus Eriksson in 1347 and still operates today.

State Inc. Monetary Policy

The new constitution must have an article about monetary policy. This article will authorize the private minting of gold and silver coins, and will mandate that coins only show their purity and weight, not any monetary value.

Banking, Entity Structure and Privacy

The new constitution must contain an article about banking. Specifically, Fractional Reserve Banking must be prohibited. In addition, strict protections of privacy must be enacted, shielding citizens from the tax laws of other nations.

The new constitution must contain laws that prevent tax treaties with other nations, thereby protecting State Inc. citizens from predatory taxation by other jurisdictions. Statutes must also protect the privacy of business entities such as corporations.


The sole method of taxation that is at once most restrictive to government yet least confiscatory to individuals is the sales tax. State Inc. should establish the sales tax as the sole source of government revenue.

The Militia

State Inc. must organize, train and equip a citizen militia, comprised of every able-bodied man and woman between the ages of 18 and 55. As the well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the natural right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Following the Swiss model of militia organization would be a good idea.

If the new constitution of State Inc. only had those articles about monetary policy, banking, taxation and militia, that would be sufficient to form a core government and bring State Inc. to life. Because the power of the purse and the power of the sword make all else possible. There are many details that must be worked out that are not listed in this article. But this article was not written to form a new government. It was written to get you thinking about constitutions and how they directly affect YOU.

Thomas Jefferson’s shining jewel, the Declaration of Independence, states that when a government shows a long train of abuses meant to reduce the people under absolute despotism, it is the people’s right and duty to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security. State Incorporated could be that new guard that secures the future of a new nation.

State Incorporated. A new model for governance on the American continent. An idea whose time is come.

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

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

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

For a wider analysis of this constitutional issue, read “No Treason,” by Lysander Spooner.