Secession and Immigration: Who Should Be In Charge?

April 30, 2010

In light of the Arizona immigration bill just signed into law, I’ve had some thoughts about this whole issue. And grant me this: I’m no lawyer, but I am a thinker…and I can read. Hang with me as I chew this over.

Columnist Patrick J. Buchanan has a column in “Human Events” entitled Whose Country Is This? He asks a lot of questions, and pretty much blames President Obama and Washington for the mess at our borders.

But is it really THEIR fault that things are so horribly messed up?

That ragged, toothless old document, the US Constitution, authorizes Congress only one duty remotely related to immigration…with only seven words. Article I, Section 8 says: “(Congress shall have the power) To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

That’s it, friends and neighbors. There isn’t even a definition of the word “naturalization” in the Constitution. But generally speaking, naturalization is the acquisition of citizenship or nationality by somebody who was not a citizen or national of that country when he or she was born.

But that has NOTHING to do with immigration or securing borders against illegal immigration. Remember that not all that enter the USA WANT to become citizens. Some just want to live here.

The rule of naturalization, in its simplest form, would define which persons are eligible for citizenship, and the steps whereby they would become US citizens.

Beyond that, I cannot see any authorization for the United States to enact laws or enforce laws dealing with ANY persons entering any state legally or illegally. That would include those who enter any state legally but remain in the state after their legal immigration documents expire.

Seems to me that immigration laws are the purview of the states, since under the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.”

At first, immigration in America happened slowly. Historians estimate that under one million immigrants…perhaps as few as 400,000…came from Europe to the Americas during the 200 years after the settlement of Jamestown in 1607. But immigration began its long boom period around 1820. Between 1820 and 1860, over 5 million immigrants crossed the Atlantic.

And the flood of immigrants continued: in the 1860s, 2.3 million came; in the 1870s, 2.8 million came. Between 1880 and 1920, nearly 26 million men, women and children flocked to America.

All during these centuries, the Federal Government set no limitation on immigration. In fact, at least thirty states actively recruited overseas. Most of the barriers to immigration were set by European nations, not American states. For example, England prevented the emigration of skilled artisans until 1820. But soon, those barriers fell and foreign governments released their people to emigrate to America.

But in 1921, it came to an abrupt end. Congress bowed to pressure from those who had already immigrated and settled here to stem the tide of immigrants. Congress passed The Emergency Quota Act of 1921, a strict law based upon national origins, that limited immigration to no more than 150,000 entrants annually. This law favored immigration from those of British and European origin. This law was further tightened by the Immigration Act of 1924.

All during the period from 1776 to 1921, the Federal Government played almost no role in immigration, leaving the responsibilities to the states. In 1790, Congress had set a two-year residency requirement for naturalization…but it did not interfere with the rights of the states to accept as many immigrants as they desired. After Jefferson’s inauguration, the term of residency was set to five years, and remains the same to this day.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, was created in 1952. Before the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized in one location. The McCarran-Walter bill of 1952, Public Law No. 82-414, collected and codified many existing provisions and reorganized the structure of immigration law. The Act has been amended many times over the years, but is still the basic body of immigration law.

Once again, seems to me that Congress has entirely overstepped their Constitutional authority and enacted law upon law upon law dealing with an issue that should be handled by each state.

What if Michigan decides that they want to increase the number of immigrants into their state? That should be their business alone. If neighboring Ohio doesn’t want immigrants and passes laws that effectively close its borders, so be it.

And the same thing should be happening at the border between Mexico and the Southwestern states, from the Pacific Ocean to the mouth of the Rio Grande in Texas. Each state should decide their own immigration policy, enact laws pertaining to it, and go about enforcing the law.

I know that present immigration woes are hopelessly intertwined with US drug policy and the stupidly-called “War on Drugs.” But acknowledging how the DC criminals have bungled many issues, costing billions of dollars and countless lives, only shows how much Americans need to separate themselves from Washington.

The schizophrenia of Washington is writ large in this issue. If Washington understood the Constitution, it could tell the states that immigration is their problem, thereby saving Washington jillions. But DC likes power and the jillions it takes to screw up immigration for all 50 states and the rest of the world. So DC muscles everyone like a mob enforcer.

So, to answer the title question: the 50 states all bear principal responsibility for the woeful immigration debacle in America today. If the states would have asserted their sovereignty over the last 160 years, they would control immigration and the DC criminals would have no voice whatsoever in the matter.

Any seceding state would instantly face immigration and naturalization issues. Why not start dropping off the shackles of DC tyranny NOW? If Arizona can tell Washington to go pound sand, why can’t the politicians in YOUR state do the same…even before secession? Even if you never want to secede?

I call on all 50 states to nullify ALL Federal immigration law beginning with the 1921 law, and all subsequent laws regarding immigration. Then the states can re-assume their sovereignty in this matter and pass their OWN laws.

Secession can cure all the terminal political illness of the United States. 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.

Renouncing American Citizenship

April 29, 2010

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

(Editor’s Note: For another perspective on emigration, Should I Stay or Should I Go?)

Let’s be clear about something. A person who decides to give up his US citizenship is not guilty of disloyalty to America; quite the opposite. He could very well be more loyal to American principles than the regime is willing to tolerate.

It also does not mean that he is giving up hope for liberty; he may have great hope for liberty, in a different way and in a different place.

In any case, the rise of emigration, expatriation, and citizenship renunciation is a trend that is not going away. It is rising and will get more significant. In some ways, it is completely expected. When regimes over-control, over-tax, over-regulate, they gnaw at the innate sense of the right to be free. When this gets worse and worse, people tend to look around for better environments.

We’ve all known people who talk about it openly. It is becoming cocktail conversation, the once-unthinkable now standard fare. It’s not just an impression. State Department records show that 502 people gave up citizenship in just the last quarter of 2009. That is more than twice the total for 2008. That might not seem like a lot but what stands out here is the trend line, which is soaring. I also hear reports of year-long bureaucratic delays in approval, and, of course, plenty of people leave without permission.

The driving factors here are not cultural or social; they are economic. The US government is making it ever more difficult for Americans living abroad, taxing them wherever the bureaucrats can find them. The government makes it very difficult even to hold a bank account in the US unless the account holder can point to a US residency (thanks to the Patriot Act). And when the government finds a reporting error on income earned overseas, it can charge a 50% penalty.

Even when a person gives up US citizenship, and establishes citizenship with a freer country, the US government can still haunt him with continuing tax obligations and demands for military service. There is, at the least, a vast exit penalty. Any regime that would do things like this inspires people to want to stay at arm’s length.

Far more frightening is the sense that financial calamity is around the corner. A look at the data seems to suggest that. Vast reserves are sitting in the banking system, waiting to be unleashed to create what could be total destruction of the dollar. The deficit is rising so fast that it is hard to chart.

The jobs situation is terrible, especially for young people (and adults often make decisions based on what is best for their kids’ future). Personal income is falling and falling. Investment is not recovering after its cliff dive in 2009. The social welfare state is broke. Private debt is rising even though lending has not restarted.

The policies of the fiscal and monetary authorities are absolutely terrifying. The Fed is keeping rates at zero. The government is spending and spending beyond belief. Tax receipts are falling as never before, unleashing the greedy hand of the predator state to extract every last dime.

And look at what the US congress and president are doing about this terrible mess: they are working to socialize health care, start a war with Iran, impose tariffs on China, and otherwise tax, regulate, inflate, and control more more more. An economy that is heavily capitalized and driven by the entrepreneurial spirit can stand a surprising amount of abuse. But that reserve capital is being drained away into new bubbles, and the entrepreneurial spirit is being crushed at every turn.

Based on all these facts, the sense of impending doom is hard to avoid. And consider that most people are thinking only about today, this month, and this year. But among the rich and entrepreneurial we find a class of people who specialize in thinking outside the box, and for the very long term. It is among the ranks of these people that we are seeing the renunciation trend take hold. The smart money is giving up on the US political system.

What precisely is a person actually giving up when he walks into a US consulate and signs the renunciation oath? The right to vote? Yes, but just how much value are we supposed to place on the right to choose between dumb and dumber, and to have your vote cancelled out by the guy behind you in the line? No living person has ever swung a significant election. It is hardly a surprise that people put so little value on going through the motions of democracy.

There is much to give up in a cultural and social sense. It is not a decision to be made with a light heart. It is final and scary for that reason. What compels many people to do it now rather than wait is the sense that at some point, it might not be possible to renounce citizenship. As the controls grow ever tighter, so will the regulations on those who try to escape.

Every socialist and fascist regime in history has put up walls to prevent flight by people and capital. This is why people and capital are flying now, while they still can. In so doing, they are inspired by the writings of the American revolutionaries. The difference is that they have decided that living in the land of the free and the home of the brave means not being a slave of the US government.

The way to stop the brain and capital drain is readily at hand. Relinquish controls. Stop taxing people abroad. Adopt laissez-faire. Reinstitute freedom. Reject militarism and nationalism. Only that path will inspire optimism in the future of this country. Until that happens, we can expect this trend to continue, and to advise the young and successful families who ask us, to get out while the getting is good.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., former publications editor to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of

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

Arizona fires a shot across Washington’s bow

April 28, 2010

The criminals in Washington have dilly-dallied around and done little to enforce existing immigration law. The legislators and governor of Arizona decided that they would move ahead to stem the illegal immigration occurring across the Arizona-Mexico border. In the process, Arizona sent a message to Washington about Washington’s irrelevance.

Amazingly, President Obama referred to the signing of this STATE law as “irresponsibility by others.” Then, he stated that he had directed the Attorney General’s office to determine if this Arizona law was “legal.”

The temerity is breath-taking.

To begin this article, let’s review the most simple immigration laws.

Immigration law requires a non-citizen of the United States to apply for a visa in order to lawfully enter the USA. Once the visa is procured, the non-citizen is eligible to enter the USA during the term of the visa.

A non-citizen can also apply for his “green card,” the permanent resident card. Or, the non-citizen may file for US citizenship.

A permanent resident is someone who has been granted authorization to live and work in the United States on a permanent basis. As proof of that status, a person is granted a permanent resident card, commonly called a “green card.” You can become a permanent resident several different ways. Most individuals are sponsored by a family member or employer in the United States. Other individuals may become permanent residents through refugee or asylee status or other humanitarian programs. In some cases, you may be eligible to file for yourself.

Any person that enters the USA without a visa has committed a crime. I do not know of any exceptions to that law.

So…person in USA with visa…legal.

Person in USA without visa…criminal.

Can it get any clearer?

Law ENFORCEMENT only makes sense. Arizona’s new law requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

It also makes it a state crime (a misdemeanor) to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.

Any of you readers that have traveled in ANY foreign country (except Canada) know that you are crazy not to carry your passport on your person at all times. Arizona is the first American state to demand that immigrants meet EXISTING federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil. Yet the radical fringe here in America believes that it’s “Nazi” or “racial profiling” for law enforcement personnel to ask to see any person’s documents.

The leftists blather on about “racial profiling” like it’s a bad thing. But how many blue-eyed blondes are coming across the border from Mexico into Arizona? Of course cops are going to consider the ethnicity of persons suspected of violating immigration law. They have eyes and can see.

Cops could go in the other direction in order to appear that they are not racial profiling. They could begin setting up check points and checking the papers of EVERYONE, including 80-year-old white Grandmas, blacks and Asians. After all, isn’t that EXACTLY what the Transportation Safety Administration is doing at all America airports? Is that what the leftists want…everyone having to produce some government ID upon demand?

“Governor Brewer caved to the radical fringe,” a statement by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said, predicting that the law would create “a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions.”

I’m throwing the bullshit flag on this play. The “increased crime” is nothing more than enforcing immigration law. Let’s say that Arizona had a legal statute against bank robbery that they had not enforced in the past. After today, they will enforce that statute. Simple enforcement will make the crime statistics APPEAR to shoot upward. Crime did not increase…enforcement did.

But consider this tempest in a teapot. The new Arizona law only makes violation of the law a misdemeanor…the same as a traffic ticket. I guess misdemeanors are crimes in the strictest sense, but no one would call you a criminal for your speeding tickets. So, I’m thinking some perspective is required here. If this is the “toughest immigration law” while only creating a misdemeanor offense, Arizona has perpetrated a very successful perception of toughness that exceeds reality.

The bottom line here is that it is Arizona’s responsibility to keep its own borders with Mexico. Governor Brewer announced a plan urging the federal government to post National Guard troops at the border. But I thought that the Arizona National Guard answered to the Governor first, not the President. If she thinks that troops are needed to secure the Arizona border, she should be the one signing the order.

And finally for you US Constitution fans, a cursory glance at the old document finds no authority to pass immigration law, anyway. Immigration law should be entirely the purview of each state. For any state that eventually secedes, immigration is just one more issue that will be addressed as that state becomes a new nation.

Secession is the hope for humanity. 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.

Obama’s Eligibility: Here’s Your Sign

April 27, 2010

by Timothy Baldwin, Esq.

(Editor’s Note: This is the first article I’ve posted about the “Birther” controversy. Tim has written a terrific piece here. But it begs an even larger question: Why is anyone surprised by this? In a Washington DC that purposefully ignores the old Constitution, knowing full well that it has no authority over their machinations, why should the constitutional eligibility of the President have any more weight than any other article of the Constitution that is being totally ignored? DC knows that they can do anything they choose. Further, these kinds of articles, the millions of dollars spent, and the countless hours wasted by the “birthers’ are a perfect way for DC to distract Americans away from the foundational issues of liberty and legal governance. Said another way, if you “birthers” will continue obsessing over this, you won’t secede any time soon. DC wins!)

In a recent article written by JB Williams entitled, “DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office,”[1] Williams highlights some facts signaling that the federal government, the main-stream media and those closely related to both know that Barak Obama is ineligible to be the President of the United States of America under the U.S. Constitution.

Williams cites these facts in support of his assertion:

-Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party did not certify that Obama qualified to run as a candidate for President of the U.S., but only that Obama was the Democratic Party candidate;

-the news media previously and numerously referred to Obama as “Kenya-born” before he ran for President. Afterwards, “Kenya-born” was dropped;

-Obama has spent over 2 million dollars in hiding what they say exists (his birth certificate) and supposedly have in hand;

-the Justice Department is doing everything they possibly can to keep Americans from pursing Obama’s eligibility in court;

-federal judges have dismissed over 400 hundred court cases on Obama’s eligibility, ruling that these citizens do not have standing to know who is acting as President of the U.S.;

-Michelle Obama has described Barak’s home as being the country of Kenya;

Williams is not alone, of course, in the conclusion that Obama is an illegitimate President and that his illegitimacy is being covered up by Congress, the federal courts, those in the Republican and Democratic national parties and others. Ever since Obama campaigned for U.S. President, millions in America have raised his eligibility as a fundamental concern for the integrity of the U.S. Constitution and rule of law, all to no avail.

It is not only “average Joe” who believes Obama is illegitimate, but state governments are expressing the same notion. The state of Arizona has recently passed a law, expected to be signed by the governor, which declares that Barak Obama must prove his U.S. citizenship before being permitted to be on the ballot in 2012.[2] Many states are expected to follow Arizona’s lead of resistance to unlawful federal actions, just as so many states are doing lately on many different fronts (thankfully!).

Given these serious insinuations believed by many millions of Americans concerning Obama’s illegitimacy and concerning its cover up, that more serious deductions and conclusions are not being raised–at least publicly–surprises me.

Consider what is really implied about Obama’s ineligibility and the cover up by those in the federal government, the main-stream media and the two major political parties. The cut-to-the-chase conclusion underlying this whole ordeal is that the United States government is completely and utterly illegitimate and reeks of bad faith and intent. Any other conclusion is very difficult to believe, using logic and reason.

How can the people have any confidence, trust or loyalty whatsoever to a federal system of government that is covering up and perpetuating one of the most audacious and bold lies concerning one of the most simple and clear of constitutional matters? How can the people put any hope in restoring freedom by voting for any person associated with the two major parties that are intrinsically linked to the cover up of Obama’s eligibility? How can the people believe one word coming from any main-stream news source, which are in bed with both political parties? How can the states submit to any federal laws coming from such a government? How can the states remain in such a union under such a regime?

Do not be deceived: if Obama is an illegitimate President because he was born in Kenya or some other foreign country, it is not his dirty little secret alone. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who know and are in positions of the so-called highest power.

Insultingly so, this matter does not involve some complex legal issue for some “supreme” tribunal of life-term judges to decide. This is simply a matter of, SHOW ME YOUR CITIZENSHIP! This is simply a matter of providing what you say already exists. Any idiot is capable of doing this. In fact, most states now require that you provide proof of your birth certificate to be able to obtain a drivers license.

Yet somehow the President of the United States is exempt from providing America (those who “license” any person to hold office) the same proof when the importance of Obama’s proving the same is of much higher and greater importance that it is literally comparing a pebble to the Rocky Mountains. That a person would spend millions of dollars to conceal a document allegedly in hand and in existence reeks of dishonesty, corruption and conspiracy. That the Justice Department would spend thousands of man-hours and millions of tax-dollars to prevent a court from ordering Obama to provide this proof is the epitome of suspicion and presumptive proof of illegitimacy.

I dare ask the question: who in their right mind would desire to reconcile with a federal government of that sort, especially given the track record of the federal government since 1865? (No, this is not about the Democratic Party: it is about the federal system.) What person who desires a free government and society would hold the belief that such a government is worthy of anything other than your separation from it? This matter goes to the very heart of consent-of-the-governed and a free state and people.

Assume that Obama shows America his birth certificate, and come to find out, his birth certificate proves he is a natural born U.S. citizen. What is to be said of the hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars that were spent to keep America from seeing what they are entitled to see? What is to be said of the federal system that hid the proof from America for so long? What is to be said of the news media who mocked all of you “crazy ‘birthers’” as conspiratorial nut-jobs for making such an issue of Obama’s citizenship? What is to be said of the two major political parties (on the national level) that only perpetuated the mystery and contributed to the shamefulness of the cover up?

However, that Obama is legitimate is not the assumption at this point. The assumption held by literally millions of Americans–and now, state governments–is that the person sitting as President of the United States of America is illegitimate–and consequently, implying the corruption, degradation and tyranny of the federal regime. This assumption necessarily carries with it the presumption that the entire federal government is complicit in Obama’s unlawful command of the executive branch.

We know that Congressman Bill Posey (FL – R) introduced a bill[3] (along with eleven co-sponsors) that would require any future candidate for President to prove his eligibility under HR 1503, which states:

“in the case of a principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President, a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under section 5 of article II of the Constitution.’”

But, we have yet to see what shall come of that bill. Meanwhile, Obama still acts as President. Troops continue to be deployed. Wars fought. Lives lost. Taxes spent. Laws passed and signed. Freedom lost. All the while, the States are, through their independent state sovereignty actions, having to spend billions of dollars in justifiably resisting the horrific demonstrations of federal tyranny, as if the people of the states are not suffering economically enough as it is.

Moreover, this matter of Obama’s eligibility reaches deeper than even the conspiracy of cover up by the federal government and others: it reaches to the roots of society itself. Consider that some 64 million people voted for a man who presumably does not even qualify to be President. Yet, they do not even care. They celebrated in November 2008 as the man they voted for promised America a transparent federal government. There was now going to be “change we can believe in!”

Yet, when asked to produce proof that Obama is eligible to be President, 64 million people come to his defense, including those in the federal government and main-stream media, calling anyone who would dare broach the subject as a right-wing conspirator, psychopath. Truth be known, they do not care that Obama is or is not eligible, and they certainly do not care whether the U.S. Constitution is complied with according to its true meaning. The only concern is “might makes right.” He won, and that’s that. Now we have Obama-care and free health insurance! Oh! What a beautiful utopia we live in!

How can freedom survive in that climate? It is already gasping for air as it is being drowned in the ocean created by indifference, lethargy, self-interest, corruption, ambition and greed. How can a union of fifty states so divided remain in such an opposed and depraved state? It is being held together now only by the fear that the federal government will seek and destroy any state who secedes. (Oh, what a benevolent master we serve!) How can a Republic stand for the principle of self-government in that environment? As the evidence is unfolding, the conclusion is freedom cannot survive, such a union will not remain, and a Republic will not stand in the current conditions. (See my article, Plan For Freedom, for further discussion on, “Will America breakup?”)

So, when you consider Obama’s eligibility, look beyond the birth certificate and look at the actual sign: the federal government and system is as illegitimate as Obama is.
[1] JB Williams, “DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office,” Canada Free Press (April 20, 2010), found at For a follow up article by the same author, see, JB Williams, “The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen,” Canada Free Press (April 21, 2010), found at

[2] AP Report, “Ariz House: Check Obama’s Citizenship,” Phoenix News, (April 19, 2010), found at

[3] H.R. 1503: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act, 111th Congress, 2009-2010 Session, found at

A Rich Fool Enters The Governor Race in Georgia

April 26, 2010

(Editor’s note: The Monday AJC reports that Boyd has been barred from entering the race as a Republican. Karma is a bitch.)

In Sunday’s Atlanta Journal Constitution was an article about Raymond Boyd, a millionaire who has self-funded his candidacy and announced that he is running for Governor of Georgia on the Republican ticket. I went to his website and looked around. There’s a lot or rah-rah at the site, but not a lot of meaningful content. But who cares? He’s financing his own race, so he cares not about content. He actually threw $2 million on the election table to place himself in the #2 money position of candidates behind Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine.

I sent him an email at his “I’m Listening” comment page. In my email, I asked about his position on secession. I also made a business proposition to help him with TV and radio media.

I’ve copied the exact email exchanges below for your review. The only changes I’ve made are to remove my email address and phone number.

This is the quality of candidate that the status quo electoral system attracts, Ladies and Gentlemen. Could we possibly embrace the concept of states secession soon enough?

Below is the exchange. Your comments are welcome.

* * * * * * * * * * *

From: “Russell”
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 12:47 PM
Subject: Submission from – I’m Listening Page-

Submission from the I’m Listening – Let’s Talk Section of .


Your Message:

Dear Mr. Boyd:
I am president of Abigail Morgan Austin Publishing Company here in
Marietta. I have a political website at, which advocates for state’s rights and state secession. This is a very well-known website around the USA.

What is your position on secession from the Union, and the sovereignty of the State of Georgia?

I’m very interested in your candidacy, only learning of it in today’s AJC.
My friend John Oxendine leads the race, but I’m not convinced he is the best for Georgia.

Finally, my wife and I are both professional voice talents. You’ll be
doing a bunch of radio and TV ads in the comings weeks that will require voiceover talent. Many advertisers will use one or two voices exclusively to bring a familiarity to their ad campaign. We would be delighted to discuss this idea with you as you move forward.

Best to you,
Russell Longcore

—– Original Message —–
From: “Ray Boyd”
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: Submission from – I’m Listening Page-

Russell, I have trouble believing any sane person would even consider the idea of Georgia succeeding from the Union (or any other state or group of states). We are a United States of America. We are indivisible. You must be talking to Karen Handel and Ray McBerry. What would you do – put a tall fence around Georgia? Governors of all the states have sat on their ass for the last 40 years while the federal gov’t stripped away states rights as granted in the Constitution, but succession is NOT THE ANSWER. As Governor, I will unite the other Governors to correct the situation quickly. It will seem radical at first that the states want back, all at once, what took years for the federal gov’t to strip away. I hope you come to your senses soon. I do not want the vote of an ignorant man who would seek to destroy this Republic……….Ray Boyd

—– Original Message —–
From: “Russell Longcore”
To: “Ray Boyd”
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Submission from – I’m Listening Page-

Mr. Boyd:


I am not accustomed to being insulted by personal denigrations coming from any person who seeks office. Guess there’s a first time for everything. To paraphrase a line in Shakespeare’s “Hamlet, “thou dost protest too much.” Make me wonder what you’re afraid of.

That “indivisible” crap came as a result of a Communist named Francis Bellamy who invented the Pledge of Allegiance. Read my article One Nation? Under God? Indivisible?” to learn more…that is, if you actually want to know the truth. Don’t despair, Ray. Millions of Americans mindlessly recite this travesty without knowing what it actually means or from whence it came. You may thank the government schools for that.

The nation has never been indivisible. When the colonies belonged to King George, there was no nation. And the 1776 revolution was a secession…a secession from Britain.

Next, I have never spoken to either Handel or McBerry, nor do I support their candidacies for any office. So, your assumption is incorrect.

Next, your kneejerk reaction to the concept of secession tells me that you have done very little study of either the Constitution or US history.

No fence is necessary, Ray. Georgia borders five states and the Atlantic Ocean. Look at Europe. Damn few fences between nations there, are there? I do agree that the states have allowed themselves to be subsumed by Washington, but it’s been going on since Lincoln, not just the last 40 years. What is necessary is resolve…exhibited by patriot statesmen, not politicians. May God please save us from more politicians ( like YOU) who have no grasp of liberty and sovereign governance.

Next, the word is spelled S-E-C-E-S-S-I-O-N, not “succession.” I’m not sure you know the difference since you used “succeeding” and “succession” in the same paragraph. Here’s a free tip. If, in your many travels around our fair state, someone from the audience at a political gathering asks you your position on secession, do yourself a favor and at least pronounce the word correctly. Ben Franklin said “It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”

You are living in a fool’s paradise if you think you (a) will be elected Governor, and (b) would be able to unite the other 49 Governors to “correct the situation quickly.” I don’t believe that the Governors are looking for a lightning rod of gubernatorial leadership to fight Washington. Many of them want to be President themselves, and have been in politics for their lifetimes. And you really believe that they would listen to YOU…a neophyte with no political skills or experience? What’s the weather like in that magical place that you live?

If your mind has not been hopelessly welded shut by ignorance and hubris, I recommend that you read Lysander Spooner’s book “No Treason, which can be read online at Then read Thomas Paine’s works, “Common Sense” and “The Age of Reason.”

Mr. Boyd, I am proud to state that I will not be casting a vote for you.

For Liberty…not simply more tyranny,
Russell D. Longcore
Marietta, Georgia

PS: I’ll be writing an article at, which will include this email exchange VERBATIM. It will appear this coming week.

—– Original Message —–
From: “Ray Boyd”
To: “Russell Longcore”
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: Submission from – I’m Listening Page-

Russell, You are an educated nut case. I will be a public servant, not a
politician. Fortunately, I do not need your vote to become YOUR governor.
Thanks for the educational ride you intellectual basket case…..Ray Boyd
(put this in your sick diatribe to your “follows” – all 3 of them)

* * * * * * * *
OK, all of you “follows”…you who read this website. I invite you to send an email to Raymond Boyd (his email address is: and express your outrage at his vitriolic outburst to a simple question about secession. That should be an interesting outcome to this article. Thanks, Friends.

Secession is DEFINITELY the hope for humanity!

DUMPDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore.

Lone Star: Why Texas is doing so much better economically than the rest of the nation

April 25, 2010

By Daniel Gross

(Editor’s Note: This article shows just a few reasons why Texas is my odds-on favorite as the state most likely to pull off a successful secession.)

Once a separate nation, Texas has recently been behaving more like an independent economic republic than a regular state. While it hasn’t been immune to the problems plaguing the nation, the Texas housing market, employment rate, and overall economic growth are relatively strong. Chalk some of this up to accidents of geology and geography. But Texan prosperity also reflects the conscious efforts of a once-parochial place to embrace globalization.

On several measures of economic stress, Texas is doing quite well. The state unemployment rate is 8.2 percent—high, but still one many states would envy. (California’s is 12.5 percent; Michigan’s is 14.1 percent.) It entered recession later than the rest of the country—Texas was adding jobs through August 2008—and started slowly adding jobs again last fall, thanks mostly to its great position in the largely recession-proof energy industry.

The Texas housing market also has fared better than many. The mortgage delinquency rate (the portion of borrowers three months behind on payments) is 5.78 percent, compared with 8.78 nationwide, according to First American CoreLogic. That’s partly because relaxed zoning codes and abundant land kept both price appreciation and speculation down. “House prices didn’t experience a bubble in the same way as the rest of the nation,” said Anil Kumar, senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. But it’s also because of two attributes not commonly associated with the Longhorn State: financial restraint and comparatively strong regulation. Unlike many of its neighbors, Texas has state laws that prohibited consumers from using home-equity lines of credit to increase borrowing to more than 80 percent of the value of their homes. The upshot: Dallas housing prices have fallen only 7 percent from their 2007 peak, according to the Case-Shiller index.

As it has for decades, energy is driving Texas’ economy. But it’s not because the state’s wells are gushing crude. In November 2009, Texas wells produced 1.08 million barrels per day, about half as much as they did in the late 1980s. In recent years, natural gas has been undergoing a renaissance. The state’s production rose about 35 percent between 2004 and 2008. And Texas has received a big boost from a different, renewable source of energy: wind.

In this area, Texas’ size and history of independence has enabled it to jump-start a new industry. The state has its own electricity grid, which is not connected to neighboring states. That has allowed it to move swiftly and decisively in deregulating power markets, building new transmission lines, and pursuing alternative sources. “We can build transmission lines without federal jurisdiction and without consulting other states,” said Paul Sadler, executive director of the Austin-based Wind Coalition. Ramping up wind power nationally would require connecting energy fields—the windswept, sparsely populated plains—to population centers on the coasts and in the Midwest. Texas’ grid already connects the plains of West Texas with consumers in Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and Houston. Texas recently surpassed 10,000 megawatts of capacity, the most by far of any state and enough to power 3 million homes, Sadler says. Wind energy is also powering employment—creating more than 10,000 jobs so far. And it and has attracted foreign companies, including Danish turbine maker Vestas, Spanish renewable-energy giant Iberdrola, and Shell.

Texas today is more suburban engineer than urban cowboy, more Michael Dell than J.R. Ewing. Austin, home to the University of Texas, the state government, and Dell Computer, has a 7 percent unemployment rate. Yes, ExxonMobil is based in Irving. But the state’s energy complex is increasingly focused more on services and technology than on intuition and wildcatting. And it is selling those services into the global oil patch. Russian, Persian Gulf, and African oil developers now come to Houston for equipment, engineering, and software.

While its political leaders may occasionally flirt with secession, Texas thrives on connection. It surpassed California several years ago as the nation’s largest exporting state. Manufactured goods like electronics, chemicals, and machinery account for a bigger chunk of Texas’ exports than petroleum does. In the first two months of 2010, exports of stuff made in Texas rose 24.3 percent, to $29 billion, from 2009. That’s about 10 percent of the nation’s total exports. There are more than 700,000 Texan jobs geared to manufacturing goods for export, according to Patrick Jankowski, vice president of research at the Greater Houston Partnership. “A lot of it is capital goods that the Asian, Latin American, and African [countries] are using to build their economies.”

Thanks to that embrace of globalization, the Texas turnaround may help lead the nation in its economic turnaround. Texans have always had the ability to think big. Now that their state has become a player in the global economy, we can expect a new kind of swagger.

Copyright 2010,

Plan For Freedom

April 24, 2010

By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD

In a recent article, radio talk-show host, columnist for the Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, Jeffrey Kuhner, asks the question, “Will America break up?”[1] Kuhner is not the only intelligent and reasonable person asking this question and predicting its reality. Igor Panarin, a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian foreign affairs ministry, predicts that given the way the federal government handles its finances and given the unrecoverable deficit of the U.S., the U.S. is undoubtedly bound for “extinction in its present form,”[2] not even mentioning the political, cultural, religious, moral and foreign-entanglement turmoil of the U.S.

The question is rightfully being asked more, and as such, the question should be defined and understood more precisely and constructively so that people are aware of what “breakup of America” really means.

First, by “America,” we mean the United States of America comprised of fifty states under the political association of the U.S. Constitution.

Second, by “breakup,” we must determine if this is meant to be a negative or positive action. “Breakup” could mean collapse, destroyed, annihilated, etc., all of which would be construed negatively and thus rejected in theory by the readers. However, “breakup” could also mean independent, separate, sovereign etc., all of which could be construed in a positive fashion and thus accepted in theory by the readers. Perspective is determinative here.

Third, we must determine if the question refers to the people of the states in their individual capacities as bodies-politic; the state governments as agents of the people under their state constitutions; and/or the federal government as created by the states under the U.S. Constitution.

When one analyzes the foundations of society and government in the United States, the conclusion that the U.S. will “breakup” should not be surprising, considering the cycles of human history and experience, not to mention the study of political science. Thus, the question should be raised, “should the states breakup/secede/separate from the federal government as formed under the U.S. Constitution, and if so, in what manner?”

For better or worse, many in the United States have literally idolized the union of the United States, as formed under the U.S. Constitution from 1787 to 1791, during which time thirteen states ratified the constitution separately and independently of each other. Suggesting that the United States “breakup” leaves a sense of shock in their minds and hearts, for they cannot imagine a life without a union of fifty states under the power and control of the federal government. (The reasons for this are not subject to this discussion.)

That the United States procured its sovereign and independent political and societal existence through secession from Great Britain–a breakup of its own–does not seem to enter into their minds concerning a “breakup” of the United States in its current form. Some seem to think that if the union “as is” goes, so goes freedom, although history has proven otherwise. People with this mindset automatically conclude that “breakup” will be perpetually and everlastingly detrimental to freedom and that union as is must be preserved at all costs.

“Is it because you do not believe that an American can be a tyrant? If this be the case you rest on a weak basis; Americans are like other men in similar situations…[and] your posterity will find that great power connected with ambition, luxury, and flattery, will as readily produce a Caesar, Caligula, Nero, and Domitian in America, as the same causes did in the Roman empire.”[3]

However, many in America adamantly believe that the freedom and ideals fought for in 1776 have been all but completely attacked and killed under oppressive control of the federal government and the demoralization of society throughout the states over the past many generations–all the constitutions in America notwithstanding. They cannot reasonably foresee a restoration of freedom in their state through the political process in Washington D.C. under the current union, regardless of which political party controls the federal government.

Others are caught between two worlds that they either do not want or do not understand.

So, can the states in America be more proactive in their planning to restore freedom? Or should they wear their Kevlar helmets just waiting for the inevitable collapse and then attempt to “rise from the ashes” during the chaos and God knows what else?

America’s founding generation believed that a proactive approach to an obviously tyrannous government (despite the existence of the greatest and freest constitution in the world at that time) was necessary to preserve their freedom. They did not wait for the ashes and ruins to fall upon them through the natural consequences of ill-administered government. Instead, they used the tools of hindsight, insight and foresight to calculate the measure of their survival and freedom. In that case, independence was necessary.

A body of people gathered together to govern themselves (i.e. a body-politic/state) have a natural right to preserve, protect, perpetuate and perfect their existence. They are not morally, constitutionally or ethically obligated to severely suffer more than if they had not entered into that particular society or that government in the first place. They have the power to govern themselves according to the principles derived from the very purpose of society and government.

The states are not obligated to wait until the hammer falls upon them, their families, communities, businesses and property before they have a right to act accordingly, just as a husband does not have to wait for another man to actually rape his wife before he terminates the would-be rapist when the threat is apparent to the husband and wife.

In fact, societies that wait too late rarely have the opportunity to restore freedom without immense pain and suffering: they are mostly oppressed to the point of voluntary submission to slavery. John Locke observes as well that self-government must happen sooner, rather than later: a preventative measure, not a reactionary measure:

“This is in effect no more than to bid them first be slaves, and then to take care of their liberty; and when their chains are on, tell them, they may act like freemen. This, if barely so, is rather mockery than relief; and men can never be secure from tyranny, if there be no means to escape it till they are perfectly under it: and therefore it is, that they have not only a right to get out of it, but to prevent it.”[4]

Therefore, when that State sees the danger approaching or it recognizes its own enslaving conditions, it has every right to judge the situation as it discerns and to act accordingly. These are the principles expounded by our founders in the Declaration of Independence, and these are the ideas expressed by western-world jurists before 1776, which equipped our founders for the penning and signing of the Declaration of Independence. In essence, the thirteen colonies prevented the inevitable collapse of freedom, security and happiness by preemptively eliminating the source of their demise: their “central government” in Great Britain. Reconciliation would have been nice, perhaps; but freedom was nicer.

Ultimately, where there are two competing fundamental notions of governance, one must prevail and the other must fail. In a country as large and vast as the United States has become, this is very problematic when considering the fundamental maxims of freedom expressed in the Declaration of Independence: the larger the territory and number of people, the less likely a republic will remain free. This was recognized by jurists and philosophers for hundreds of years before 1776: “It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist.”[5]

Kuhner expresses the conflict this way: “We are no longer one nation or one people. Rather, there are now two Americas: one conservative, the other liberal. Increasingly, we no longer just disagree but we despise each other.”[6] In such an environment, freedom within a large union never remains. The consent of the governed becomes oppressed by those who do not share their values, beliefs and morals. The union is held together not from the voluntary bonds of likeness, similarity, loyalty and friendship, but from brute force.

Human nature and experience prove that as a body of people or states regard their God-given freedom and rights as stolen or trampled and as “peaceful” political process effects no restoration of those freedoms and rights for generations, “breakup” is not only inevitable, it is necessary. America’s founders believed the same: “[I]n the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands.”[7]

Do not be deceived into thinking that this necessity will not occur, is impractical or is foolish. The course of events in the United States has proven one thing: the federal government is out of control and has been for generations. Freedom is always a worthy goal, even when the chances do not humanly appear favorable. There were many throughout the colonies in 1776 that saw no hope in the breakup from Great Britain; but to their surprise, the breakup was successful.
Moreover, despite that the colonies appeared to be wholly inadequate to backup their breakup from Great Britain, their secession produced the freest and most successful country the world had ever known. Those who advocated for reconciliation with Great Britain were terribly wrong and would have only perpetuated what was destroying the security, happiness and freedom of the colonies.

We the People of the States should not simple-mindedly and passively wait for a “collapse” of the U.S., as if our existence consists of nothing more than being cattle, wondering if we are going to the slaughter today or tomorrow. Instead, the States should proactively plan, engage and prepare in the political understanding, knowledge and truth that make people free, just as America’s forefathers did. In the end, free people are only those who plan for freedom.

© 2010 Timothy N. Baldwin, JD – All Rights Reserved
[1] Jeffrey Kuhner, “Will America Break Up?”, Right Bias, (March 25, 2010), found at
[2] Tom Leonard, US will collapse and break up, Russian analyst predicts,, (November 25, 2008), found at
[3] Brutus and Ralph Ketcham, ed., The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates, (New York: Signet Classic, 2003), 319.
[4] John Locke and C. B. Macpherson, ed., Second Treatise of Government, (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1980), 110–111, (emphasis added).
[5] Charles de Baron Montesquieu and Julian Hawthorne, ed., The Spirit of Laws: The World’s Great Classics, vol. 1 (London: The London Press), 120.
[6] Jeffrey Kuhner, “Will America Break Up?”, Right Bias, (March 25, 2010), found at
[7] Declaration of Independence (emphasis added).

Is Secession an Act of Sedition?

April 23, 2010

Time Magazine columnist Joe Klein appeared on NBC’s “The Chris Matthews Show” on April 18th and stated that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck were close to committing acts of sedition.

The moronic talking heads of the Main Stream Media, like Joe Klein, just throw around incendiary words to create controversy and keep people talking about THEM. They also serve as propagandists for the government, offering up not-so-subtle hints of Federal retaliation at some future point.

Klein provided the legal definition of sedition, which is “a revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority.” And, because sedition has been declared a felony in Supreme Court opinions. the accusation could be considered pretty serious.

Seems to me that the legal definition needs some further examination.

The legal definition of revolt is defined: “the offence consists in the endeavor of the crew of a vessel, or any one or more of them, to overthrow the legitimate authority of her commander, with intent to remove him from his command; or against his will to take possession of the vessel by assuming the government and navigation of her; or by transferring their obedience from the lawful commander to some other person.” But that definition is a maritime definition, not a government/citizen definition.

The dictionary goes on to say that “revolt and rebellion are nearly synonymous, and is the state of citizens who unjustly take up arms against the prince or government.” But that is just the opinion of the dictionary’s writers, not a legal definition.

Congress did define “sedition” in the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. The Sedition Act expired on March 3, 1801, coinciding with the end of the Adams administration. Makes for interesting reading, and could have been enacted by this present paranoid Congress in 2010. It stated “That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty; and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.”

OK, now consider the definition of the word “unjustly,” found in the dictionary’s opinion. The American Heritage Dictionary says it is “violating principles of justice or fairness.” So to unjustly take up arms against the government would require the citizens to violate principles of justice.

What’s justice? The same legal dictionary used above defines it as: 1) fairness. 2) moral rightness. 3) a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his/her/its due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal.

No honest person with two brain cells to rub together could call our system of law any form of “justice.” No American citizens are receiving ALL their natural and legal rights from the DC system. First, no natural rights flow from DC, but from God. Second, DC is stealing legal rights from citizens at a NASCAR pace.

The various “Patriot” groups around the country who are demonstrating, rallying and advocating for nullification and interposition against the Federal Government are indeed falling under the Supreme Court’s understanding of sedition, as Pennsylvania v. Nelson defers to Pennsylvania Penal Code § 207 for its definition of “sedition,” one clause which says (c) To incite or encourage any person to commit any overt act with a view to bringing the Government of this State or of the United States into hatred or contempt.

So, the Supreme Court says sedition is mutiny, but could also be inciting others to hatred or contempt of The United States. Congress said it was effectively any resistance to any Government action.

Is the act of secession an act of sedition? No it is not. Secession does not overthrow ships, nor does it foment the UNJUST taking up of arms against government tyranny (it would be good if secession did advocate the JUST taking up of arms to resist government tyranny. That is the function of a state militia.) It does not incite hatred or contempt.

It does, however, offer the perfect method of resistance to Federal tyranny. Secession does not in any way seek to overthrow or change the present Federal government. It simply seeks to opt out…leave…bug out…quit…fire its agent…or any number of other ways to state that the state seeks sovereignty.

And, please remember Klein’s definition. “Against established authority” is the phrase he hung his hat on. But the only lawful “established authority” for the United States is the US Constitution. All of the patriot groups are demonstrating for the United States government to stay within the strict authority of the Constitution. Seems to me that the US Federal Government is the one who is committing daily acts of sedition by exceeding their Constitutional authority.


Secession is not sedition. Secession is ending a dysfunctional relationship peacefully by leaving the relationship. In civil family law, it’s called a divorce.

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

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

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

Secession is Just Give and Take

April 22, 2010

There has been a lot of inane and silly talk floating around America about how states cannot secede. Edwin Vieira wrote a long dissertation about it, with lots of footnotes and other stuff that made his article look scholarly.

All poppycock, balderdash and piffle.

In the real world…the world in which you and I live…principals may hire agents to represent them. But principals also have the right to fire agents. The principal gives and the principal can also take away.

A “principal” is defined as a person or entity who authorizes another, as an agent, to represent him or her.

An “agent” is a person or entity (as an employee or independent contractor) authorized to act on behalf of and under the control of another.

If I am an actor and I hire an agent, I sign a contract in which both his and my responsibilities are stated. If he violates his terms or commits acts beyond his authority, I can fire him.

If I am an owner of real estate, and I hire someone to manage my real estate, I sign a contract in which both his and my responsibilities are stated. If he mishandles my real estate, I can fire him.

If I’m a partner in a real estate investment trust, I can both hire and fire a property manager who is managing the trust under a contract.

If I hire an attorney to represent me in a legal matter, we will agree on the terms and conditions of his representation. If he violates those terms, I can fire him.

If I am a manufacturer, and hire a manufacturer’s representative to sell my products, we will agree on the terms and conditions under which the rep will sell my goods. If he violates those terms, or mishandles my account, I can fire him.

So, by now you see that agents have no power other than that power granted to them by the principal.

In 1787, a group of men met in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia to draft a Constitution. The men were delegates, appointed by the states…the sovereign nations along the Eastern Seaboard of North America. They had just won their independence from Great Britain. The states were the principals in this example. They drafted a Constitution, and the management company named “The United States of America” (USA) was formed. The USA was the agent of the states, given strictly defined powers and duties by the principals. Further, the Constitution was later amended to assure the principals that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, and to the people” (10th Amendment).

We can argue about whether or not the Constitution had or now has any authority. But one thing that is not arguable is whether principals can fire agents. And the sovereign states that are the principals here in America can and should fire “The United States of America” for gross misfeasance and malfeasance.

The states gave power to “The United States” in the late 18th Century. It is their natural right to take away any or all of that power anytime they choose. Further, because they created “The United States,” it is the right of the states to alter, abolish or simply dissolve it and start over.

So I’m confused by, and not a small amount irritated at all the Tenthers, Tea Parties and other so-called “Patriot groups” that wish to bring the “United States” back under the control of the sovereign states. The states are presently unprepared to assert that action. No state presently has their own currency, nor do they have their own state militia.

The states have neither the power nor ability to bring Washington to heel. The Congress members and Senators get their paychecks from the US Treasury, not state coffers. Congress has no incentive to bow to state demands.

In order to bring Washington DC to heel, states would have to somehow slash Federal spending while nullifying ALL Federal law affecting state citizens. At this point, I do not know of a single American state that is willing or able to perform these herculean tasks.

But do you know what act completely ends all the drama, and dissolves any and all political bands between any state and “The United States?”

The Act of Secession.

Any state can issue a Declaration of Independence TODAY.

Any state can follow that up with a formal Ordinance of Secession TOMORROW.


The seceding state severs its connection with the “United States,” subject to no power on earth other than “The Supreme Judge of the World.” Its sovereignty is the same as France, or China, or Brazil, or Russia or any other nation.

The seceding state repudiates the debt assumed by the United States. Therefore, all state citizens are likewise released from any obligation to pay the US debt or US taxes. They are no longer US citizens, and as such, owe nothing to the USA.

The seceding state repudiates all Federal regulation instantly. Imagine that!

The seceding state ceases sending ANY money of any kind to Washington.

The seceding state confiscates all Federal property inside its borders.

Friends, it is so very simple. For any state to continue as a slave state to the rogue government known as “The United States” is insane. The “United States” is the management company created by the states…a manager that has tried to convince the States that “The United States” is now the principal, rather than the hired agent.

One does not negotiate with criminals. The right path is to separate from the criminals and ignore their actions.

Secession is the hope for humanity. 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.

Are The DC Criminals Really Nazis?

April 21, 2010

If you follow the photo and video images of the various “Tea Party” or anti-government public events over the past year, you’ll inevitably see some person holding a sign calling someone in Washington a Nazi or depicting a president as Hitler. Then, you’ll hear the talking heads on the Mainstream Media making fun of the protester, or trying to whip up negative sentiment against those very protesters.

Obama is Hitler

But what if the signs were correct?

The term “Nazi” derives from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party). In German, the word “national” is pronounced “Naht-see-oh-nall.” Shortened to a sort of nickname, it became commonly known as the Nazi Party.

But stop right there. Is it fair to refer to the DC criminals as National Socialists? Would we be wrong if we called them Nazis? Let’s deconstruct the two words and see.

“National:” of, pertaining to, or maintained by a nation as an organized whole or independent political unit.

The people that occupy the elected and appointed positions of power in Washington DC are certainly an independent political unit. All of their actions pertain to their employer and their nation, which is the United States of America. And even though we can easily prove…simply by reading the old Constitution…that the several states NEVER intended that “The United States of America” be considered a sovereign nation…the DC criminals have an entirely different outlook on things national. They are vehemently opposed to dissolving the Union. They consider those American citizens who support secession as domestic terrorists and threats to national security.

So, the employees of The United States of America can certainly be known as “nationalists.”

Now…how about that Socialist part of the phrase?

“Socialism” is defined as:

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Washington doesn’t even recognize the community in its deliberations. Washington is the one that wants the ownership and control, and their procedures and practices prove their desires.

Over the past 75 years, the US Federal Government has blazed a course that tends more closely toward socialism than toward capitalism. Just look at some of the evidence:

The income tax
Social Security
The Federal Reserve
Protective tariffs
All of the three-letter Federal agencies that regulate American commerce
Federal ownership of General Motors
Bank bailouts
The New Healthcare Law

So, it’s easy to see that both Democrats and Republicans over time have enacted draconian laws that control the means of production and distribution of capital, land, etc. in America.

And, let’s not forget the next initiative of the Obama Administration…Cap & Trade legislation. There is wording inside this bill that will prevent a property owner from selling his real property unless it meets Federal standards for energy compliance. (See America, How Much More Will You Accept From the DC Criminals?)

Focus on that last part of the definition above. Socialism is the transitional period between capitalism and communism, in which collectivist principles are utilized. Collectivism is the principle of centralized social and economic control, especially of all means of production.

No honest person could look at the efforts of The United States of America over the past 100 years and make the case that the Federal Government has protected individual rights and property rights. No analysis, no matter how skewed or biased, could ever conclude that Americans are as free…or more free…than they were in 1800.

So, it is entirely proper and intellectually honest to state that the US Federal Government has continued down a path toward socialism, inevitably arriving at collectivism/communism.

The Federal Government is nationalistic, and it is socialistic. Therefore, it is proper to refer to the US Federal Government as a national socialist form of government.


The next time you see the word “Nazi” used to define the actions of the US Federal Government, or as a word meant to smear their character, you’ll know that the word has been used in its most proper use in the English language.

Final words about the matter. Surely you do realize that, if you support state secession, all of these examples of evil disappear when your state becomes its own sovereign nation. The US Federal Government’s intrusion in your life goes away forever.

Secession is the hope for humanity. 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.