Dear Rush Limbaugh:

I began to listen to you back in 1991…back when I was a rock-ribbed Christian Conservative Republican. Back then, my work schedule allowed me to listen to you every day, most days all three hours of your program. I could not get enough. You said all the things that I wanted to say…all of the things no one else dared to utter.

Then, in 1992, I moved to Cobb County, Georgia, into Newt Gingrich’s Congressional District. I joined the Cobb County Republican Party, the strongest Republican county party of Georgia. To me and to the other members, you were like a rock star. Then the Gingrich “Contract With America” swept Newt and others into leadership in 1994. Those were heady days in the 6th Congressional District of Georgia.

But I quickly became disillusioned by that close proximity to power. It became quite clear that the new Republican majority was only interested in consolidating power and controlling the Federal checkbook. During this time, I was reading Hayek, Spooner, Thomas Paine, Blackstone, The Federalist Papers, de Tocqueville, Bastiat…even Sun Tzu’s Art of War. I read everything I could find about history and the Constitution. The more I read, the more I could see the Republicans moving away from the Constitution.

So, I left the Republican Party and found the Libertarians. They seemed to have answers for all the deepest questions. But soon I discovered that they, too, were only seeking money and power. They simply wanted to supplant the Republicans and get their hands on the Federal checkbook. Plus, as Libertarians were more dedicated to liberty, they were also not prone to either compromise or cooperation. So organizing Libertarians is like herding cats.

I’ve kept reading and studying, and have moved into what could be known as Anarcho-Capitalism. I even took a break from listening to you for a few years, since my perception of you was that you became a caricature of yourself. I was also no longer interested in hearing the Republicans defended when the Party had clearly abandoned classical liberalism…the foundation for Conservatism.

For over a year now, I have been writing a blog entitled I have been following the growing secessionist movement in the United States.

And lately, I’ve been listening again. During the week of July 19th, you dedicated an entire program to the American Spectator article by Angelo M. Codevilla entitled ”America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution.”

Your comments on that day, and all the days since…show me that the Codevilla article was a kind of epiphany for you. You seem to have moved philosophically from support for the Ruling Class to the Country Class. And you agree that both Republicans and Democrats comprise that Ruling Class, and the Country Class is on the outside looking in. The Country Class and the Ruling Class hate each other, and will never able to come together.

I understand how excruciating it can be come to the realization that deeply-held beliefs must be cast aside. I am still making that journey, and I perceive that you are making that journey also.

You seem to be facing the realization that the American Federal Government, run by the Ruling Class, can never be fixed. Then you expressed the opinion that the Republicans are as threatened by the Tea Parties as the Democrats, since it is outsiders versus insiders.

But at this point, you still seem to think that the solution lies in electoral victories. You still preach that voters should fire the bums in Washington and replace them with more principled men and women who will keep their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.

Mr. Limbaugh, the Constitution created the US Federal Government. The Federal Government is being operated exactly as the Framers intended it to operate. The US Constitution was designed to be ambiguous, to protect the Federal government from the citizens, and to perpetuate the Federal government into the future.

Further, the US Constitution has no legal standing. It is neither contract nor treaty. Though it may wish to be a perpetual pact, it cannot legally be handed from one dying generation to another without a legal document signed by all parties. I don’t know about you, Sir, but no one has ever asked me to execute a legal document in which I accept subjugation to the US Federal Government.

You are a very intelligent man, blessed with a keen mind and a rapier wit. You MUST be alarmed by the apparent and obviously irreparable state of the United States. You comment on the hopelessness of ever paying off the Federal debt load. You note the actions of foreign nations as they struggle with their own fiat currencies, and carefully try to sell off US Treasury debt while it still has nominal value. You comment that the Middle East wars are interminable and unwinnable.

Fixing Washington is a hopeless, quixotic quest, destined for abject failure.

Mr. Limbaugh, there is only one hope for mankind. There exists only one solution to the breathtaking tyranny being visited upon America by its own Federal Government.

That hope…that solution…is Secession.

I see you, Sean Hannity, Fox News, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Neal Boortz, Mark Levin and most other talk radio hosts all valiantly trying to rally Americans to be properly horrified by the events happening all around us each day. (Mike Church seems to stand alone screaming for secession.) But that’s where it seems to end. We are bombarded by you folks with the myriad symptoms of the deadly disease, but the best cure for the disease is never tendered to us. It’s almost as if the name of this cure cannot be spoken…kind of like the name of Voldemort in the Harry Potter books or Sauron in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

There is a cure that is readily available. Secession is the cure for statism and Federalism.

Why is secession the new third rail of politics? Why is there such a noticeable silence about secession?

The new cure-of-the-day is the concept of Nullification. Books are being written about nullification by Harvard-educated scholars like Thomas Woods. Organizations like the Tenth Amendment Center and Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty get all excited about nullification as if it is the new cure for cancer on the body politic. But Nullification begins with the premise that there is a substantive benefit to maintaining the Union. Then it naively posits that Washington will not resist nullification, rather would simply obey the wishes of the States.

Some are on a quest for a Constitutional Convention, believing that if We The People could just rewrite the Constitution, the Ruling Class would cease to rule.

Mr. Limbaugh, I do not see you in those new camps. But I still see you in the camp that believes that electoral victories will be sufficient to rein in Washington’s unchecked power. The Republicans and Democrats are the right and left wings of a dreadful bird of prey named Tyranny. Trading out old feathers in the wings of the Ruling Class for new feathers still maintains the Ruling Class. The bird still flies and still preys on the American people.

Secession seeks no overthrow of the United States, desires no further amendment, begs no permission. It is the embodiment of the natural law of freedom of association.

Secession instantly ends the tyranny coming from Washington to the seceding state. They are no longer subject to paying Washington’s bills, servicing its debt, obeying its draconian laws and regulations and bowing their knees to DC.

I suspect that the reason that talk radio and talk TV will not whisper the name of secession is that your employers consider secession “a bridge too far.” The main stream media still wishes to be blessed by the Ruling Class, and secession is a direct threat to the Ruling Class. Further, those in Washington who grant you access to power might rescind that access if you were to even begin discussing secession as a viable alternative to Federalism and the status quo. They might even consider you to be a threat to America, and label you a domestic terrorist. Then, advertisers from Corporate America might withhold advertising dollars, especially the advertisers who also suck at the Federal teat.

Perhaps that is the real reason. If the main stream media even began discussing secession, they could be placing ad revenue at risk. To actually promote secession as the only hope for liberty on the North American continent could be too risky.

I can think of no other reasons why secession is not discussed in an open and honest fashion. Secession is a big, revolutionary idea. Why not look at it from all sides? If secession has flaws, trot them out for all to see. If secession is not possible, prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

But don’t cower in fear at its mere mention.

I hold hope in my heart that you will be a man of principle who is honest within his own heart, Mr. Limbaugh. You hold sway over a gigantic American audience, and I’m sure you are keenly aware of the responsibility that comes with that.

A good friend of mine once expressed to me his frustration with American politics and the events that bombarded him daily from the air waves. I will say to you what I told him:

Stop thinking nationally. Think locally. Act locally.

In 1964, Ronald Reagan said, “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.” Mr. Reagan was wrong. The USA is not the last stand.

Secession is the last stand on earth for individual liberty. Who will be first?

Russell D. Longcore

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.

35 Responses to Dear Rush Limbaugh:

  1. mona says:

    I’m trying to keep an open mind here Russell but I’m wondering how succession will work? Do you have some kind of plan online with some details, a manifesto type list of all that would be needed to accomplish this task?

    Where will our money system start out? What happens to the pensions and retirement we’re all expecting to be living on or will we just have to start over?

  2. This should be addressed to Obamanation Obamanator Obamatron King-Maker Oprah Winfrey as well.

    Wouldn’t piss on any of them even if they were on fire though.

    Starving The Monkeys and Ending The Looterfest,
    John and Dagny Galt
    Atlas Shrugged, Owners Manual For The Universe!(tm)


  3. Bill Miller says:


    As you do so well, you are once again putting into words what many of us are thinking. As least we have a few substitutes coming off the bench when the great ones on taking leave. Walter Williams did recently speak favorably of secession while filling in for Rush as has Judge Napolitano on FOX—but as you know, the first string has not, dares not, made any mention.


  4. […] Rush Limbaugh: Posted on July 28, 2010 by Bill Miller This article by Russell D. Longcore on I see you, Sean Hannity, Fox News, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Neal Boortz, Mark Levin, Mike […]

  5. Matt says:

    This is a great article. I only have one problem with it. You included Mike Church in your list of hosts that won’t mention secession. I am not sure when the last time you listened to him was, but Mike Church screams secession from the top of his lungs on an almost daily basis. I got to the point of listening to him that I could not listen to the likes of Hanity or Limbaugh anymore because they would not bring up things like this. I actually heard of this website from Mike Church’s radio show. Please check him out again and I would guess you would no longer put him in the same category as the others.


  6. Jared says:

    I’m not sure I agree with this statement:

    “The Federal Government is being operated exactly as the Framers intended it to operate.”

    I think that may have been true for some framers, but certainly not the majority of them. I think most of the founding fathers saw the Constitution as a compact among the sovereign states and considered the enumerations within it to be specific instructions on what the federal government was allowed to do. The mistake they made was not making this point more explicit in the Constitution itself, and no doubt some men immediately saw how the Constitution could be “interpreted” to essentially make the Federal government all-powerful.

    I do not believe there was a cooperative effort on the part of the majority of framers to make the Constitution ambiguous so that over time the Federal government could twist it into a tool to destroy the sovereignty of the states and the people therein. And, in fact, that isn’t really what happened. The bayonet was used to crown Washington, D.C. king when the United States government successfully waged war to deny 11 states the right of secession. That was the turning point.

    The framers, in my view, are only guilty of taking the prevailing attitude of liberty for granted when the Constitution was written. Despite a general distrust for big government being commonly shared among most founding fathers and the American people at large, they lacked the foresight to explicitly build this sentiment into the Constitution itself.

    However, again, I go back to the War for Southern Independence as the catalyst that set the stage for the Federal Leviathan we have today. Only with the conquest of the Southern people and the did it become possible for the victorious Radical Republicans to destroy liberty through the Constitution beginning with the passage of the 14th Amendment. It was all downhill from there. With the threat of secession eliminated for the foreseeable future, the Feds seized the opportunity to consolidate and solidify their power.

    The Constitution is not a perfect document; that is true enough. However, I don’t think it is really accurate to say that the shortcomings of the Constitution or the founding fathers are much to blame for the tyranny in Washington exercised for the last century and a half. Even if the Constitution had more rigid and explicit limits placed on the Federal Government, the Radical Republicans in control after the “Civil War” could have easily passed an amendment to get rid of the restrictions. One only needs to study how they got the 14th Amendment ratified to realize that they could have pushed through any amendment they wanted to. The 14th Amendment is a fraudulent abomination from start to finish. Only by blatant disregard of the Constitution itself was it able to be ratified. Since then, the 14th Amendment just by itself has been used for countless expansions of Federal power and infringements of liberty.

    • Dear Jared-

      Let us remove, forever, the faux constitutional cataracts that inhibit your progression to Philosophical Maturity inherent in the Non-Aggression Principle.

      Indeed the constitution was intentionally flawed, as one need only visit the glaringly clear omission of the exact number of supreme court justices. The constitutional creators knew exactly what they were and weren’t doing by leaving the barn door wide open for a subverted and tyrannical judiciary.

      Starving The Monkeys and Ending The Looterfest,
      John and Dagny Galt
      Atlas Shrugged, Owners Manual For The Universe!(tm)


      • Jared says:

        The fact remains that it was the outcome of the War for Southern Independence that opened the biggest door for Federal tyranny. If secession was recognized by the Federal government as a real threat, as it obviously would have been if the South had won, you surely don’t believe that the Feds would enjoy the same power they have come to possess and wield today.

        We can disagree all day long about the intent of the framers and the quality of the Constitution. What is indisputable, however, is the direct impact of the “Civil War” in terms of the Federal government’s rise to be the sole judge of its own powers. Also, once again I declare that it really doesn’t matter what the framers of the Constitution intended because the Radical Republicans and the victorious North had free reign to mold the government in their own image because the consent of the governed and secession had been defeated. Much of the Constitution was ultimately irrelevant throughout the war and during the aftermath.

        Almost every single significant long-lasting power grab and infringement of liberty at the hands of the Federal government has taken place AFTER the War for Southern Independence. The draft, the income tax, the Federal Reserve, social security, welfare…and the list goes on and on. There’s no way you could come up with a list of Federal acts before the war that could come close to matching the magnitude of these.

        Look, I’m not saying that we should uphold the Constitution as a holy document without reproach, and it is quite obvious today (as it was in 1860) that the document and the union it created is a failure. I’m just saying it is simply not accurate to point to the generation of the American Revolution as the ones who paved the way for Uncle Sam to become Leviathan. It is especially false to claim that the deficiencies of the Constitution and the founding fathers are anywhere close to being more responsible for shaping modern America than the outcome of the war that ended in 1865.

        I can see that the Wiki page you link to for “No Treason” pretty much validates my position, so I’m sure while you and I may disagree on the intentions of the founding fathers, we certainly must agree on everything else I have said.

    • dumpdc says:


      Please take the time to read “Hologram of Liberty,” mentioned in the article. It will dissuade you from your beliefs about the Framers and the constitution. By the way, the Fourteenth Amendment is the least of our worries.

    • carroll price says:

      Thanks for stating very clearly that the central government got the power it now has at the point of a bayonet. I have become terribly discouraged and disgusted by excellent writers, such as Mr. Longcore, who cannot bring themselves to admit the simple fact that the South was right and the North was wrong. As you so well stated, the root of our troubles began in 1865 with the defeat of the Confederate States of America. Historians and scholors can debate and discuss the fine points of Constitutional law until they are blue in the face, but in effect, the Constitution ceased to exist the moment General Lee surrendered his army at Appomattox Court House. Since that tragic date in our history, the Constitution means exactly what the central government says it means.

      • dumpdc says:

        My heavens, Mr. Price! Have you read the stuff I write? No one has been more clear than me about the rightness of the Confederacy and the evil of the North. For me to agree with Jared about the 1865 troubles, I would have to agree that the Constitution had any authority prior to that, which I do not. I care not about the finer points…it is absurd (one of my new favorite words) to keep debating the validity of a document with no authority. The Constitution has ALWAYS meant exactly what the central government says it means.

      • Jared says:

        You have it exactly right, Carroll, as do I. The problem is, I think, a some liberty-loving people do not want to properly recognize the War for Southern Independence as the launching pad for the tyrannical Federal government we have today, because that would mean sympathizing with the Confederate South, for which the issue of slavery played such a prominent role in their reasons for seceding (at least for the first 7 states, the next 4 only seceded after Lincoln declared war on the Confederacy. So instead of pointing to the “Civil War” as the plainly obvious turning point when the Feds became all-powerful, they shy away from it because they don’t want to be called racists, despite the fact that in reality as advocates of liberty and self-determination they must know the South’s cause was just.

        I understand that a case can be made that the framers conspired from the very beginning for Leviathan central government. However, it simply cannot be denied that their supposed dream did not begin to fully manifest itself until after the War for Southern Independence. Will anyone seriously deny this?

        I know we’re all on the same side here, but as a Southerner I just get irritated when people who preach the message of secession and government by the consent of the governed don’t give due respect to the great generation of American Southerners that sacrificed and fought so valiantly for precisely the same principles they stand for today.

        The Southern people endured unimaginable death and destruction at the hands of the United States military in their struggle to simply be left alone and to govern themselves. Contemporary American secessionists ought to openly and proudly acknowledge the Confederate generation as the real forefathers of the American secessionist movement, since they are the only Americans in history that actually attempted to do what they are calling for today. Instead, what many of them do is either commit the paradoxical act of actually denouncing the Confederacy or they chiefly ignore any mention of it in their rhetoric. And quite frankly, that annoys the crap out of me. Can you tell?

        I’m not saying the writer of this particular blog is guilty of that, but I’ve seen many others who are.

        As for the Constitution itself being a master plan from the very beginning for Federal Empire, perhaps that is true. However, once again I say that the debate on the integrity of the original Constitution is irrelevant in terms of identifying the root of Federal tyranny because the victorious North had total control to do whatever they wanted to with the central government after the South was defeated.

        You want to blame the Constitution and the framers for our troubles, but if the South was successful in its bid for independence and thereby establishing the legitimate threat of secession, would you still claim that we would have ended up with the same empire that exists today? My contention is no, because the South’s victory would have enforced the precedent that the Federal government is subject to the consent of the sovereign states, and the people of the states simply would not have allowed the Federal government to become as powerful as it is today. Even Northern states seriously touted nullification and secession at different times before the war, but never again afterwards.

        “The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form.” – C.S. President Jefferson Davis

        Deo Vindice

      • dumpdc says:

        You gentlemen need to go back into my Archive and read “South Wins!” to see my dream of what would have happened if Jeff Davis had moved more quickly in the first battle of the war.

      • Never argue with a rebel, colonial or otherwise.

        It’s all copacetic

        Starving The Monkeys and Ending The Looterfest,
        John and Dagny Galt
        Atlas Shrugged, Owners Manual For The Universe!(tm)


  7. Jeff Robertson says:

    The concern I have with secession is that the States are not prepared for it. They need their own money system and their own military, at a minimum. The way to obtain those things, whether we like it or not, is the process of nullification. We need to pass State laws that effectively divorce us from D.C.; i.e. gold and silver money, local militias, Sheriff First statutes, and the like. If the State has prepared itself and its residents with those types of local laws, then secession becomes the next logical step. We can’t get ready to seceed without some nullification first. I think we err when we simply dismiss nullification outright.

    • Silver, Gold, Guns, Ammo, Foodstuffs, and Water…

      No better time than the present…

      As Tom Baugh describes excellently in his book Starving The Monkeys, the longer it takes…the worse it is going to be for everyone.

      One brief supportive story, if you will…

      Title: Men, Mice, and Monkeys

      Men may, at their discretion, feed mice.
      Monkeys use gunpoint redistribution to take from men to feed mice.
      Mice reproduce equally well regardless of food origin.
      Sooner or later Men will be required to deal with both Mice and Monkeys.
      It’s all a matter of how many mice and monkeys you ultimately want to deal with.

      Who will the looters loot when looters are all that are left to loot?

      Regardless of when, where, or how…sooner or later things are going to get really, Really, REALLY, ugly.

      Good Luck to the Men, death to the mice and monkeys!

      Starving The Monkeys and Ending The Looterfest,
      John and Dagny Galt
      Atlas Shrugged, Owners Manual For The Universe!(tm)


    • dumpdc says:


      I defend your right to be incorrect in your thinking. Nullification is absurd if the state does not FIRST have the money and military to defend itself. Your paragraph is rife with contradiction. First you say nullification before secession, then say states should prepare themselves correctly prior to nullification. Read more in our Archives, please.

  8. Robert says:

    I don’t think I agree with this statement regarding the constitution: “[I]t cannot legally be handed from one dying generation to another without a legal document signed by all parties.” First, it isn’t a contract because it doesn’t exist within the framework of contract law. American contract law exists within a system of law, and above that system is the constitution, the “supreme law of the land.” The constitution can’t be subject to itself because it is that thing which sets out the framework for law. Second, why can’t whatever it is be handed down from one generation to another? The notion that it can’t be so passed along is a principle of contract law, but the constitution is above contract law. That is, if something violates the constitution but accords with contract law, the constitution trumps. The problem is that there is no “law” governing the relationship between America and its citizens’ and the constitution. The constitution isn’t subject to some other set of rules because there is no law above it. It’s an agreement on behalf of the people of the US, made by elected representatives, as to how the nation will be governed. It applies to you, even though you didn’t sign it, because it does. I understand that’s circular reasoning, but because there’s no higher authority (other than natural law, if you’re so inclined to make that argument), that’s the only answer there is. It will cease applying to you when it no longer applies to you. But if you doubt it (or any other law) has authority over you then try violating it. You may not believe the consequences are just, but where there’s compulsion, there’s authority. And as long as there are people willing to compel other people in the name of the constitution, it has whatever authority people are willing to give it.

    • dumpdc says:

      Dear Robert:

      I won’t be arguing this point. Lysander Spooner settled the discussion back in the 1870s. Read “No Treason.” You can read it online for free at

      • Robert says:

        I’ve read it, I just wasn’t convinced. I think his premise from the opening two sentences is incorrect: “The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man.” It’s not a contract, in fact, it can’t be since it’s by definition “above” contract law, and while it’s authority isn’t “inherent,” (and nothing’s authority is), it does have authority because we (through our governmental representatives) treat it as authoritative. As soon as there are enough people who don’t treat it as authoritative then it will no longer be authoritative. Really you and I agree on quite a bit. I just don’t think that there’s a “legal” way to discard/ignore/remove a constitution, because having a mechanism in place to do so presupposes a higher law than the constitution, and there isn’t any (again, with apologies to natural law). Suppose we decided to replace the current constitution with a new one; how would we do it? What’s the “law” for replacing the supreme law of the land with a new supreme law of the land? There isn’t any. You would just do it, and anybody who stayed in a place where the new constitution was to govern would be subject to it, not through any kind of consent but because the new government would be in a position to impose the new constitution upon them.

      • dumpdc says:


        If the Constitution is not a contract nor treaty, then what the hell is it? Are you saying that it is extra-legal? Does international law recognize it? Then it must have SOME legal standing somewhere, or this whole Constitution thing is just theater. Wow…I may have swerved into a new truth.

        You’ve provided even more convincing arguments for casting the Constitution aside and seceding. So, if there is no higher law like natural law, then the global playing field is level. Any state can declare its independence because their DOI is as valid as any other nation’s claims for sovereignty. Remember, right-thinking secessionists don’t want to change the Constitution or overthrow the USA…they simply want to leave.


      • Robert says:


        Thanks for replying again. I would probably say supra-legal rather than extra-legal since it is part of the law, it’s just above all the rest of it. But its mechanism might appear extra-legal since it’s not really “part” of the law that’s beneath it, or it is, but not to the extent that the law beneath it governs it. Nothing governs it, except itself.
        I wouldn’t say that international law recognizes constitutions. IL might recognize sovereignty, which might be reflected by the existence of a constitution, but I’m not sure I’d say that IL recognizes a constitution per se. Theatre is perhaps further than I would go but it’s the same idea, I suppose. The constitution is enforceable or authoritative because enough people in a position to enforce it agree that they’ll treat it as authoritative.
        I don’t know what you mean by DOA, but based on context I would agree that any state can declare it’s independence based solely on its desire to be independent. State X deciding that the constitution won’t apply to it is really the only way for State X to cut loose from it. Of course any state that did so would pass some kind of resolution like the states did in 1861, but I don’t think something like that would be of any real legal effect because we’re only subservient to the constitution by agreement to be subservient to it. There aren’t any provisions in the constitution or anywhere else about what happens when a state tries to sever ties from its constitutional brethren. All we have to do is stop being subservient to it and it no longer applies (unless someone else MAKES it apply, which is what happened the last time secession was attempted). It’s interesting too that the states made the “breach of contract” argument when secession was first attempted. Of course, this argument didn’t hold up to the point of a sword.

      • dumpdc says:

        The Law existed before the Constitution. The colonies lived under English law. My point is that there is law…and there is the Constitution. Two separate entities. The Constitution established a Federal court system, but did not establish common law. Even the Articles of Confederation were not THE law, but a pact between sovereign nations. The AOC was not a legal document in the sense of a contract. But it also was not a treaty, for the AOC says nothing of its being a treaty between nations. Where it gets mushy is the idea of a perpetual covenant or pact. It’s only perpetual in the sense that a bunch of people agree to it. But when another group decides to separate from a Constitution or an AOC, nothing prevents them from doing so. The other individuals of the pact may not like the dissolution and secession, but legally they have no remedy. So, then we get to the illegal remedy, which was Lincoln’s War.

        I’m having fun sharpening my mind on your whetstone, Robert. Good job.


      • Robert says:

        It is fun, isn’t it? I’m in complete agreement with your last response. There was law before the American constitution, e.g. the common law, which was part of the English constitution. (It occurs to me as an aside that if ever there were an argument for the “living document” idea, it’s there, since the English constitution isn’t written.) The exact nature of the constitution and even the AOC is pretty amorphous. Given the intelligence of the men who wrote them both, it would seem that they were deliberately vague. If Macon, Athens, Augusta, and Savannah decided to join together in some league of mutual assistance, it seems to be they would be a lot clearer about it than our forefathers were about the constitution. Maybe they just figured everyone would behave and that the 10th amendment made it clear enough what the respective roles of the states and the fed were, and it has taken 200 years of judicial contortions to render that amendment meaningless, but considering that there were already heated federalist vs. antifederalist arguments going on at the time, on the other hand maybe it’s as vague as it is through compromise between those two positions. I couldn’t agree more though that it’s time to drop it and try a new direction. Keep up the good work.

    • Dear Robert-

      You are indeed accurate in your observation that as long as constitutions, borders, and religions exist…some folks will use them to commit all manner of aggressions, assaults, and atrocities such as kidnapping, political imprisonment, rape, and murder.

      Starving The Monkeys and Ending The Looterfest,
      John and Dagny Galt
      Atlas Shrugged, Owners Manual For The Universe!(tm)


  9. Lashandra Waldock says:

    Excellent stuff.

  10. […] by Russell D. Longcore, DumpDC […]

  11. Saw your article first time on militant Libertarian this morning.The description of your journey which has led you to the point you describe is inspirational and impressive.
    In over 400 articles on my website I frequently remind the reader, we cant vote ourselves out of the mess we’ve voted ourselves into, but the lure and seduction of the voting booth has a strong hold on the majority. Along with a realization so many love the nanny state, as conditions worsen daily in this once great nation, its a sad day at OK corral.
    Thank you for writing this article.
    Anne Cleveland

  12. carroll price says:

    Mr. Longcore,
    Thanks for trying to convince Rush Limbaugh to advocate secession but you are wasting your time. There are lots of things Rush has been given permission to talk about and there are lot of things he has been told he cannot talk about. I suspect that secession would probably be one of the things he has been told he cannot talk about. Have you ever heard Limbaugh discuss how the Federal Reserve System works, and who owns and runs it etc? And have you ever heard him discuss the fact that Zionist dictate our foreign policy and are in total control of the main stream news media? You haven’t heard him discuss any of these things because he knows very well that if he ever tried to discuss them, he would be taken off the air by the same people who own the broadcast networks.

  13. […] Dear Rush Limbaugh: Dear Rush Limbaugh: […]

  14. HankandPeggy says:

    I am new to this organization and would like to know where the archives are. I am interested in knowing what is going to happen to Veteran’s benefits, SS benefits, welfare parasites benefits, ect. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: