The Constitution Is Too Small

January 31, 2016

The Constitution Is Too Small

by Russell D. Longcore

The premise I am presenting is that the United States population has outgrown the US Constitution. By offering this premise, I wish to lead you to the conclusion that secession is the answer to the failure of the DC government to serve the American population. There are myriad reasons why the Constitution fails America. This is but one.

In Article I, Section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution, apportionment of Congressional seats was stated in two sentences: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

“The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative.”

After the War of Northern Aggression, the Fourteenth Amendment superseded the original intent of the Constitution. Apportionment exists today because of these changes.

In 1776, the population of the thirteen states was 2,090,619. The states had the following numbers of citizens:

1. Virginia               447,016
2. Pennsylvania       240,057
3. Massachusetts    235,808
4. Maryland            202,599
5. North Carolina    197,200
6. Connecticut        183,881
7. New York           162,920
8. South Carolina    124,244
9.  New Jersey        117,431
10. Rhode Island      58,196
11. New Hampshire   62,396
12. Delaware            35,496
13. Georgia              23,375

In 1789, there would have been 70 Congressmen and 26 senators. That is a manageable ratio of representation. Perhaps it is not ideal, but remember that the Constitution was a document created by negotiation and compromise.

Fast forward to today. As of 2008, the US population was 320,746,592.

Since 1789, when the new Federal Government began functioning under the new Constitution, the number of citizens represented per congressional district has risen from an average of 33,000 in 1789 to nearly 700,000 as of 2016.

The same premise holds for the Senate. 26 senators for 13 states in 1789, representing about two million citizens. In 2008, 50 senators represent 320 million.

Even if Congress and the Senate were as pure as the driven snow, its present apportionment is entirely unmanageable. No American could expect adequate representation when there are so few Congressmen and Senators for such a large population here in America. If the old ratio was still in place, there would need to be about 10,700 Congressmen to provide adequate representation.

So to few Congressmen is a problem, and ten thousand Congressmen would be a disaster.

State secession can fix this national problem. Instead of one nation of 320 million, secession takes the states back to national sovereignty. Even the most populous state, California, only has about 39 million citizens. The new government of such a state could create adequate representation.

This article addresses one issue showing that individual state sovereignty is superior to the United States of America. Secession is the only solution for a government that can protect individual liberty and property rights.


Secession, Immigration and Multiculturalism

January 28, 2016

Secession, Immigration and Multiculturalism

by Russell D. Longcore

Secession, Immigration and Multiculturalism will give rise to societal problems as states secede from the Union. Better to start discussing this now rather than wait until the days after secession.

We who live in the USA…and in all the West…have had multiculturalism forced upon us since the 1960s. And while it sounds nice and friendly toward people that are different than us, there is a problem with it.

The problem is that some people who come to the USA have no intention of assimilating into the American culture. Some never learn the English language. And government eases the way for this behavior.

Most recently, America is faced with the immigration of so-called “refugees” from North Africa and the Middle Eastern nations. In many instances, these people are Muslims FIRST, and as Muslims, they are taught in the mosques that Western culture must be eliminated because all non-Muslims are infidels.

So, now what?

In my writings about The Free Republic of North America (aka FRONA), I have taken positions that promote maximum personal liberty and property rights for individuals. But I will admit openly that this issue of multiculturalism continues to cause me philosophical nightmares.

My first default position is to welcome any human being above the age of 18 years old who can pay the fee of one ounce of .999 silver to purchase one share of FRONA common stock and sign the Charter.

I struggle with any other restrictions on citizenship. For example, should FRONA prohibit Muslims from citizenship or residency? We know up front that Muslims believe that all people that are non-Muslims are infidels, and that Islam should erase all other cultures from the earth. So every Muslim allowed to come to FRONA has either overtly or tacitly agreed with their religion’s teachings…else why be a Muslim? Therefore, knowing up front that every Muslim has the potential to take action against the FRONA government, the FRONA culture and the FRONA citzenry, should FRONA allow them to settle in our new nation?

One argument for unlimited immigration and citizenship could be that a person who has committed no offense against the People or the government is innocent, and should be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Another argument for unlimited immigration and citizenship could be handled within the Charter. The Charter could be written with a clause with restrictions built in.

On the other side…would it be acceptable to simply prohibit ALL Muslims…Sunni, Shia or whatever…from residing in FRONA or becoming citizens? Doing so makes sure that people who are avowed to your destruction are not allowed to legally reside in FRONA. If FRONA prohibits Muslims, then a mechanism of a background check would have to be created to check out applicants prior to acceptance for citizenship.

If FRONA decides to ban Muslims from residency and citizenship, it would be necessary to remove all people of the Muslim religion from within FRONA’s territorial borders. Now we begin talking about deporting people who own property and/or businesses already existing in that state that becomes FRONA. This opens up another can of worms that is antithetical to individual liberty and property rights.

I do not see where FRONA can be pro-liberty and anti-liberty at the same time.

Therefore, at this time, I am re-stating my earlier position for FRONA, in which any person above the age of 18 years old who can pay the fee of one ounce of .999 silver to purchase one share of FRONA common stock and sign the Charter is eligible to become a FRONA citizen.

I am far more concerned with protecting individual liberty and property rights than any other single thing. I believe that if FRONA can be formed as the freest place on the planet, with sound money and a roaring economy…we will be so attractive to the rest of the world that many of the societal problems plaguing the rest of the world will be avoided and unknown in FRONA. And that includes the issue with Islam.

But if problems with Islam did arise, FRONA as a nation could handle it. Remember that there are plenty of nations around the world where roving men don’t rape women, blow themselves up in marketplaces, or set IEDs off that kill innocents. America has been so far immune to the sectarian war between Sunni and Shia Islam. Muslims seem to blow each other up in their own nations, not here.

Whenever there is a societal issue that demands attention, ALWAYS DEFAULT TO LIBERTY. Remember that NO ONE has ever lived in a place like The Free Republic of North America. Let’s try LIBERTY first.


Cowards And Criminals In State Government

January 26, 2016

Cowards and Criminals in State Government

by Russell Longcore

(Editor’s note: This article first ran in 2009.)

The United States was organized with a Federal structure. Under that structure the national government was supposed to have two overriding dicta: to safeguard the States from foreign invasion and domestic violence, and provide a Republican form of government to the States. (Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution)

It should have been pretty easy to protect the States. A wide ocean on the east and west, and peaceable borders on the north and south do the government’s job for them without spending a penny. So, they should have been focusing all their attention on providing the states with a Republican form of government. Instead, what we have now is a fascist police state.

I don’t think that qualifies as a Republic.

A republic is a representative democracy, as opposed to a direct democracy. The key word is “representative.” The states were supposed to be the pre-eminent players. In the beginning, the Senate chose who would be President of the USA, and the Senators were there in Washington to represent the interests of their states.

Over the past 200 years, Washington has turned the government we were promised into the government we were trying to prevent. Could any absolute monarchy or dictatorship be any worse than what we have now? King George didn’t lay on a combined tax burden nearing 50% and trillions in debt.

The states of the Union have become little more than big duchies, with a reigning Duke called a Governor, subservient geographic entities owned by Washington. For reasons too numerous to list here, the states allowed Washington to usurp nearly all of their power. The fecklessness of every state’s political leaders mocks the Constitiution’s Federal system, and has destroyed the most important checks and balances against Federal tyranny.

Make no mistake. No one truly expects the Federal Government to check and balance itself…where would be its motivation to do that? No, the final arbiters are supposed to be the states. The principals always direct the acts of an agent, and that is the proper role. States are principals and DC is the agent. But it has been turned upside down.

The states had many arrows in their quivers to control the Federal Government. One of the most effective should have been nullification. Simply put, if Washington enacts laws that the states interpret as unlawful, the states could ignore the new laws like they never happened. Today’s states are unwilling and afraid to use nullification against Washington.

Another strong arrow used to be withholding funds from Washington. But with the enactment of the income tax, that arrow was broken, and Washington takes much of the tax money directly from the people.

I say all of that about the states of the United States in general, but specifically as it relates to monetary policy in America. The US states have allowed…even empowered…Washington to destroy the monetary system of the USA through the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking.

The Federal Reserve, a consortium of PRIVATE banks, prints counterfeit currency for the Federal Government. Fractional reserve banking laws allow all the rest of the other banks to counterfeit by creating credit (money) out of thin air.

State political leaders are so clueless and visionless that they have laid down and allowed Washington to endanger the very economic security of each American state through the institutional counterfeiting of the Federal Reserve and all other American banks.

These are some of the reasons that I am not encouraged and excited to know that 39 states have passed some type of 10th Amendment resolution, thereby taking a position that they might just do something in the future, by God. The steely resolve is inspiring, isn’t it?

But where is the state legislature and Governor that will notify Washington that there is a new “nullification sheriff” in town? When will some state begin nullifying the laws coming out of Washington, and refusing to allow them to be obeyed in that state? When will a state refuse to enforce Federal legislation? When will a state slap the cuffs on a Federal law enforcement officer who is trying to enforce Federal law in a state that has nullified Federal law?

Where is that state that will be true to its origins, and allow nothing but gold and silver coin (specie) as tender in payment of debts (Article I, Section 10)?

As a beginning step, how about if a state stops tax withholding and makes the payment of state income and property taxes mandatory in gold or silver coin or electronic gold? That would begin inculcating the citizens in a small way to once again consider gold and silver coin as money. I realize this idea doesn’t work in Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming, since none of them have a state income tax. But it would work for their property taxes, and both will work everywhere else in America.

Any state could facilitate the exchange of Federal Reserve Notes for specie by making such transactions exempt from sales tax. The exchange of FRN currency for specie, which are both legal money, are in essence a “currency exchange,” no difference substantively from changing dollars to Euros, Yen or Pesos.

One of the reasons that a gold/silver monetary standard would work so well for Texas is its petroleum exports. A New Texas with a gold standard would demand gold or silver specie as the only settlement of petro and natural gas transactions from any other country.

But you see, taking a position like that would directly challenge the power of Washington and the Federal Reserve. The paper money they issue says “this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” If a state refused to accept Federal Reserve Notes for payment of state income or property taxes, they might have a fight on their hands.

A principled stand like this over money might also help repudiate the scurrilous IRS case of Robert Kahre in Nevada. Mr. Kahre is now serving a Federal prison term for paying his employees’ wages by using legal tender gold coins. Kahre was acquitted on all 161 counts of tax law violations back in 2007. But the IRS tried him again (double jeopardy, anyone?) and a jury convicted him in 2009. Keep in mind that gold and silver coins are legal tender in the United States, just like Federal Reserve notes. But no one embarrasses the IRS, and Kahre has now paid the price. His life as a free man is over.

State political leaders have no stomach and no backbone for a fight with Washington. Those American citizens in favor of state secession might look to these issues as a barometer of how their state political leaders would react to a political or economic meltdown. If a state won’t protect itself now, why should anyone believe that it will take principled stands later?

And of late, many are beating the drum for a so-called “Article Five” Constitutional Convention, wherein the US Constitution could be amended. I am diametrically opposed to a Constitutional Convention. I trust no one at either the State or Federal level to amend the Constitution.

There is craven cowardice in the halls of state government in every state in the United States of America. Legislators and state executives go along to get along. Many look at state office as a springboard to Federal office. Few serve their constituents…most serve Washington, the Federal Reserve and banking interests.

State secession would end the tyranny of DC and return the states to the status of sovereign nations.

“So that’s how liberty dies…to thunderous applause.” Princess Padme, watching the Senate in Revenge of the Sith

Copyright © 2016, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


Liberty or Utilitarianism: Which Do You Choose?

December 30, 2015

By Russell D. Longcore

(Editor’s Note: I wrote this in 2009, and it was the first article I posted at DumpDC.)

I read an essay by the late Murray Rothbard recently, taken from his book “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature.” In the essay, he focuses on the reasons that people choose to be Libertarians, and the reasons others choose Utilitarianism. (note that he  wrote “Libertarians,” not “liberty.” One can love liberty without becoming a Libertarian.)

I admit that I did not have a clear understanding of the definition of the word “utilitarianism.” So, I looked it up in a few dictionaries. To my utter shock, I discovered the philosophical underpinning of our US Federal Government.

Webster’s Dictionary defines “utilitarianism” thus:

“1. The doctrine that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the end and aim of all social and political institutions. –Jeremy Bentham.

2. The doctrine that virtue is founded in utility, or that virtue is defined and enforced by its tendency to promote the highest happiness of the universe. –John Stuart Mill.

3. The doctrine that utility is the sole standard of morality, so that the rectitude of an action is determined by its usefulness.”

A few thoughts have percolated through my gray matter in this regard:

A. Every person has a worldview. It is a compilation of experience and education. It is the filter…the eyeglasses, so to speak…through which we evaluate our world and the cosmos. Many people go through their entire lives unaware of their own worldview, but it’s always there. It may change as life passes, or it can remain calcified for a lifetime.

Your worldview will either draw you to, or repel you from, certain things. But your worldview is the yardstick with which you measure all things. So, in this context, a person that believed strongly in individual rights, natural law and property rights would be repelled by strong government. Conversely, a person who believed in the efficacy of government would be drawn to Utilitarianism.

Capitalism, and the US Constitution, were built on absolutes, an iron stake driven into frozen earth. Utilitarianism is as fluid as water, seeking its own level, and taking the shape of its container. Capitalism has inviolable principles, and the Constitution strictly limited the scope of the Federal Government. Utilitarianism goes along to get along, and forsakes absolutes.

Utilitarianism is an existentialist manifestation of “situational ethics.” If one promotes the greatest good for the greatest number, one must also accept that the “greatest good” will change from issue to issue. One must also accept that the “greatest good” is defined by those with the power and the guns. So Utilitarianism can’t stand absolutes.

B. Utilitarians are kindred spirits with Socialists. Socialism is a kind of political midpoint on the journey from Capitalism to Communism. The USA began with a Capitalist worldview combined with fierce protection of individual property rights. Utilitarian politicians have, over time, eroded those property rights with laws supposedly promoting the greatest good for the greatest number. But Capitalism has now become Mercantilism in America. The government oppresses the masses to create competitive advantages for a select few. Naturally, those laws would require ever-creeping governmental control over property rights. Socialists can tolerate Capitalism so long as the government has primary control over the economy, citizens and their property rights. So, Socialists are all Utilitarians, but not all Utilitarians are necessarily Socialists.

C. Nature abhors a vacuum. As Capitalist/Constitutional absolutes have been forsaken, Utilitarian doctrine has rushed into the void. We now have a Federal Government filled with people that believe that utility is the sole standard of morality, so that the rectitude of an action is determined by its usefulness. That is the very reason why Congress could vote in favor a multi-billion dollar bailout of the financial markets when the bailout is clearly unconstitutional.

Finally, in the tragedy and comedy which is the US Federal Government, they prove, once again, that they cannot even make Utilitarianism work correctly. They turn it on its head, and the greatest number become the sheep, sheared to bring the greatest good to a small special interest who are generous with their campaign contributions.


Gun Control And The Well-Regulated Militia (updated)

July 26, 2015

By Russell D. Longcore
Owner and Editor, DumpDC

(Editor’s Note: This is an updated article I wrote in 2009. Never more timely than today.)

Gun control is today’s subject. With the recent spate of mass murders here in the USA, you can be assured that the statists will use these crises to their advantage. Those who would outlaw gun ownership are undaunted and patient. They know that another school, church or theater shooting or other mass murder will eventually occur in the United States, and that event will propel this issue back onto the front pages and lead stories in the news media. So, let us examine the issue of gun control in light of history and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Any State with a well regulated Militia would be capable of defending itself from Federal tyranny. Over the past two hundred years, the individual States have forgotten that their security as a free State relies upon a well regulated Militia. The first two phrases in the Amendment shed light on today’s power structure in the United States. The Federal government now has standing armies, navies and an air force that far outnumbers any state militia. So, state sovereignty has been destroyed. Now states are more like counties…no sovereignty, only slave territories of a cancer-ridden Federal system.

Let’s consider the definition of the word “arms”.

The Second Amendment does not define the word “arms” but leaves it open to definition and expansion in the future. “Arms” were not only firearms, but any weapon that could be used to defend one’s life or property. Why then do the anti-gun advocates only single out firearms as the focus of their desire to disarm Americans? Why not archery equipment, swords, or knives, or sharpened sticks?

Next, let’s look at the word “infringe”. The Webster’s Dictionary defines “infringe” in two ways pertinent to this discussion; from the Latin “infrangere”:(1)”to break; to violate or go beyond the limits of: (2) to encroach upon.” In order to further explain the Second Amendment, the definition of the word “right” must also be considered, and is: “something due to one by law, custom or nature.” The “right” is the thing not to be infringed by government. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson writes of mankind being “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” The definitions above speak directly to rights endowed to humans by natural law, and to the nature of man as a created being subject to God’s authority. These rights were among those enumerated as “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” (For a GREAT article about Unalienable Rights, CLICK HERE.) Therefore, the Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms is one that is endowed by our Creator under natural law and shall not be broken, violated or encroached upon. It validates the concept of personal property ownership, in this case one’s own person, and the principle of self-defense.

Many gun control advocates support, and have been successful in the criminalization of the ownership of certain automatic and semi-automatic weapons, the so-called “assault weapons”. They now seek to restrict the ownership of nearly all firearms by private citizens. Yet the issue of advancing technology was not an issue that the framers of the Constitution even considered worthy of mention. These were learned men, and were well aware of the technological improvements that were made in weaponry just in their lifetimes. They knew world history and knew that guns and gunpowder were relative newcomers to the art of war.

But please consider: at the time of the Revolutionary War, did not the Continental armies possess the same technology of armaments as the Redcoats? Yes.

Hadn’t the Colonial citizens owned and used firearms since the early 1600s? Yes!

Did the English soldiers have cartridges for their rifles while the Colonials had only musket and ball? No. Musket, ball and cannon were the leading technologies of the day. There were no cartridges. They came about 100 years later.

Did only the King have the ability to build ships, forge cannon and cannonball? No. John Paul Jones was a privateer, which is basically a government-sponsored pirate, preying on English ships. His first wartime command was aboard the ship Providence, owned by New England businessman John Brown. The Providence bristled with cannons.

Both of the combatants in the Revolutionary War had the same technology in armaments. The Continental armies consisted of fighting citizens, taking up their rifles and pistols, forging cannon and going to war against superior numbers in the British army and navy, but not against superior weapons.

Therefore, when it came time for the framers of the Constitution to consider the Amendments, they did not even mention the possibility that the private citizen should be prevented from owning the same weapons as the military. Could it be that they considered the threat of government tyranny greater than that of citizens owning military weapons?

One of the beauties of the Constitution is its simplicity. The Second Amendment is written with no ambiguity in clear, simple words. Words have meaning. For decades now, those who would subjugate our citizens with Federal and State tyranny have fought to redefine the words of the Second Amendment. They have been successful in passing unconstitutional laws that do in fact infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. The framers understood that with freedom comes responsibility, and that the ideas and acts of men have consequences. Yet they entrusted to future generations this simple Amendment. They possessed the foreknowledge that this newly formed government would have the same potential as governments throughout history to decline toward tyranny and totalitarianism. And it has indeed.

This Amendment, along with the other original Amendments, were their lasting contribution to the establishment of what would become…for a time…the mightiest nation in the history of mankind. They planted good seed in fertile ground, and a great nation grew from that seed.

Sadly, this nation is no longer great. It has gone from the beacon of freedom to the world to the greatest cancer on the world that has ever existed.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.


Gun Control And The Well-Regulated Militia Update

December 4, 2012

By Russell D. Longcore

(Editor’s note: I wrote this back in May 2009. I’m updating it today. Apparently, sportscaster Bob Costas and other mindless state-worshippers still cannot wrap their brains around the concepts of Natural Law. Of course, they would have had to actually learn the concept in order to forget or ignore it.)

Gun control is today’s subject. The issue has regrettably popped up onto the national radar screen after Jovan Belcher, a nobody NFL player, shot and killed his girlfriend and then did the criminal courts system a favor by killing himself. (In the USA, there are about 221 homicides EACH WEEK in which a gun is used.* But the rest of those people weren’t major or minor celebrities, so they must not count.) Those who would outlaw gun ownership are undaunted and patient. They know that another celebrity shooting, school shooting or mass murder will eventually occur in the United States, and that the event will propel this issue back onto the front pages and lead stories in the news media. So, let us examine the issue of gun control in light of history and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

For today, we will suspend the debate about whether the Constitution has any validity. Let’s just all stipulate that for this argument, it does.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Any State with a well-regulated Militia would be capable of defending itself from Federal tyranny or foreign invasion. Over the past two hundred years, the individual States have forgotten that their security as a free State relies upon a well regulated Militia. The first two phrases in the Amendment shed light on today’s power structure in the United States. The Federal government now has standing armies, navies and an air force that far outnumbers any state militia. So, state sovereignty has been destroyed. Now states are more like counties…no sovereignty, only slave territories of a cancer-ridden, predatory Federal system. So the very opposite of the Second Amendment has become true, stated thus: “A Well-Regulated Militia, being unnecessary to the security of a Serf State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall indeed be infringed.”

Let’s consider the definition of the word “arms”.

The Second Amendment does not define the word “arms” but leaves it open to definition and expansion in the future. “Arms” were not only firearms, but any weapon that could be used to defend one’s life or property. Why then do the anti-gun advocates only single out firearms as the focus of their desire to disarm Americans? Why not archery equipment, swords, knives, or sharpened sticks?

Next, let’s look at the word “infringe”. The Webster’s Dictionary defines “infringe” in two ways pertinent to this discussion; from the Latin “infrangere”:(1) “to break; to violate or go beyond the limits of: (2) to encroach upon.” In order to further explain the Second Amendment, the definition of the word “right” must also be considered, and is: “something due to one by law, custom or nature.” The “right” is the thing not to be infringed by government. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson writes of mankind being “endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights.” The definitions above speak directly to rights endowed to humans by natural law, and to the nature of man as a created being subject to God’s authority. These rights were among those enumerated as “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Therefore, the Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms is one that is endowed by our Creator under natural law and shall not be broken, violated or encroached upon by the Federal government. It validates the concept of personal property ownership, in this case one’s own person, and the principle of self-defense.

Read What Are Unalienable Rights? to grasp the concept of Natural Law and Unalienable Rights.

Many gun control advocates support, and have been successful in the criminalization of the ownership of certain automatic and semi-automatic weapons, the so-called “assault weapons”. They now seek to restrict the ownership of nearly all firearms by private citizens. Yet the issue of advancing technology was not an issue that the framers of the Constitution even considered worthy of mention. These were learned men, and were well aware of the technological improvements that were made in weaponry just in their lifetimes. They knew world history and knew that guns and gunpowder were relative newcomers to the art of war.

But please consider: at the time of the Revolutionary War, did not the Continental armies possess the same technology of armaments as the Redcoats? Yes.

Hadn’t the Colonial citizens owned and used firearms since the early 1600s? Yes!

Did the English soldiers have cartridges for their rifles while the Colonials had only musket and ball? No. Musket, ball and cannon were the leading technologies of the day.

Did only the King have the ability to build ships, forge cannon and cannonball? No. John Paul Jones was a privateer, which is basically a government-sponsored pirate, preying on English ships. His first wartime command was aboard the ship Providence, owned by New England businessman John Brown. The Providence bristled with cannons.

Both of the combatants in the Revolutionary War had the same technology in armaments. The Continental armies consisted of fighting citizens, taking up their rifles and pistols, forging cannon and going to war against superior numbers in the British army and navy, but not against superior weapons.

Therefore, when it came time for the framers of the Constitution to consider the Amendments, they did not even mention the possibility that the private citizen should be prevented from owning the same weapons as the military. Ladies and Gentlemen, the militias of the Colonies WERE the military!! Could it be that they considered the threat of government tyranny greater than that of citizens owning the latest, most advanced weapons? If the Continentals had the same technology in armaments as the British military, how is it that today’s politician has concluded that (a) semi-auto firearms are not necessary for a citizen to own, (b) full-auto firearms have mostly been outlawed, and that (c) firearms should be OK as long as they are used for hunting or sporting purposes? Where in HELL did this hunting and sporting idea come from?

One of the beauties of the Constitution is its simplicity. The Second Amendment is written with no ambiguity in clear, simple words. Words have meaning. For decades now, those who would subjugate our citizens with Federal and State tyranny have fought to redefine the words of the Second Amendment. They have been successful in passing unconstitutional laws that do in fact infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. The framers understood that with freedom comes responsibility, and that the ideas and acts of men have consequences. Yet they entrusted to future generations this simple Amendment. They possessed the foreknowledge that this newly-formed government would have the same potential as governments throughout history to decline toward tyranny and totalitarianism.

Finally, you might want to take a look at Ammo: Isn’t It Obvious? which is likely the next logical step for Washington to take to disarm America.

Liberty lovers, tyranny is usually not completed in one grand sweep. There is no single foreign enemy that is going to invade America and enslave its people. It is much more effective when the tyrants enslave people a tiny bit at a time. Tyrants are patient, and the people are usually too busy living their lives to care. It’s death by a thousand little cuts. And you still end up dead.

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms is yet another great reason that secession is the ONLY solution for individual liberty and property rights in North America.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

*CDC stats 2009

© Copyright 2012, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


Here Is How To Secede From The Union

November 28, 2012

Turn Your Smart Phone Into An ATM!!! Go to: INSTANT ACCESS!!

By Russell D. Longcore

(Editor’s note: This is an update of an article I wrote in 2010. I’ve learned some more things about secession since then.)

With all the furor in the Main Stream Media over the last couple weeks regarding those secession petitions lodged at the White House website, I think this article may be of service to those who love America but hate Washington.

A reader recently pointed out to me that I’ve provided most of the possible reasons why any state should secede at DumpDC. But she said I haven’t given a step-by-step procedure on how secession should work. I started this process in my article entitled Secession The Hope For Humanity, but I’m fleshing it out here. This is not complete by any stretch of the imagination. But it’s a place to start a lively dialogue about the steps to secession.

You may think that this article is too simplistic, and omits important issues. Perhaps. But I submit that if secession is not made so simple that a child can understand it, it will not happen in your state. Its logic has to be made so unassailable that only a fool would resist it.

So, here it is, my friends:

How To Secede From The United States of America

1. Philosophy

Each individual must come to his or her own conclusion that secession is the only way to regain liberty, and each state must make its secession decision independent of any other state.

2. Initiation

Secession should be solemnly deliberated by the elected representatives and the state citizens. Secession should be initiated at the moment that any state reaches the point at which it will no longer accept the despotic tyranny and laws coming from the US Federal Government in Washington, DC. Or, secession should be initiated upon a collapse of the Dollar, or the declaration of martial law by Washington DC in the event of social upheaval.

There is no written, formal method for initiating and completing an act of secession. If history can be our guide, we see that the states of 1860 completed their secessions by specially-elected conventions or by referendum. But the secession could also be initiated by a Governor and the State Legislature in assembly.

It would be excellent if a seated Governor would lead his state into secession. The easiest way for a state to secede would be for the State Legislature to draft a Declaration of Secession document and an Ordinance of Secession document. Then the Legislature should take a roll call vote and pass a Joint Resolution of Secession in legislature assembled, and have the Governor sign the Resolution instantly upon its passage. This process should be done on live TV, with all proceedings televised and recorded. Allowing the world to view this process in non-edited real time would be one of the most exciting and historic TV broadcasts ever made. The eyes of the world would be fixed on the TV feed and little else would be reported or discussed on its programming. Hell, run commercials and make some money for the state. Why should the networks get this historic event for free?

If the Legislature and Governor refused to support secession, a petition initiative could garner enough signatures of registered voters to force a referendum. Each state has statutes about petition initiatives for referenda. The Texas Nationalist Movement is doing a petition initiative right now, with the intent of presenting the petitions to the Legislature on day one of the 2013 legislative session. Follow the law in your state.

If there was a statewide referendum on secession it could be a simply worded ballot question like: “Shall the citizens of the State of XXXX repeal the 1788 ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America by the State of XXXX, and shall the citizens of the State of XXXX resume all the rights and powers granted under said Constitution?” A simple “Yes” or “No” vote will suffice.

If that’s too flowery for you, here’s an even simpler question: “Shall the citizens of the State of XXXX secede from the United States of America?” A “Yes” or “No” vote will suffice.

A simple majority of votes would pass the referendum.

The referendum should only be done with paper ballots that will be counted by hand, no machines, no electronic voting. Further, the referendum should not be scheduled for only one single day, but over at least three days, preferably a weekend…to facilitate the greatest possible participation by registered voters. Polling places should be open from 6:00 am to 12:00 midnight on voting days. Finally, a photo ID should be required as verification of identity for eligibility to vote. This ain’t the American way of widespread voter fraud…this is the state’s rights secession way. It’s also my article, and I can write the rules any way I choose.

Another method of moving secession along in your state might be to organize on a county-by-county basis. The County Commission could either call for a countywide referendum on the question of secession, or could nominate a delegate to participate in a Secession Convention.

3. Secession Convention

Each state’s Secession Convention, formed to contemplate, design and complete the process of secession, should draft a Declaration of Secession.

Many of the seceding states of 1860 wrote and ratified a Declaration of Secession, also known as a “Declaration of Causes.” Each Declaration enumerated that particular state’s reasons for secession, in like manner to the 1776 Declaration of Independence sent to King George by the Colonists.

Once the Declaration of Secession is prepared, the Chair of the Secession Convention or the Governor should see that signed original copies of the document are delivered to the Governors of all of the States that comprise the United States of America. The delivery of each Ordinance Of Secession to each Governor would make good TV.

As a mere gesture of courtesy and wry wit, copies of the Declaration of Secession should be sent by Federal Express (just for the irony) to the President of the United States, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, and the President of the Senate. You must remember that states do not have to ask permission of Washington to secede. Their compact, the US Constitution, is not between DC and the states. The Constitution is between the several States.

4. Ordinance of Secession.

Then the seceding states must prepare an Ordinance of Secession. Here below is the simple, succinct wording of the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession of 1860:

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled “The Constitution of the United States of America.”

We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the “United States of America,” is hereby dissolved.

Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.

That is the sum total of all the words necessary to complete the secession.

Once the Ordinance of Secession is prepared (televised live), the Chair of the Secession Convention or the Governor should see that signed original copies of the document are delivered to the Governors of all of the States that comprise the United States of America. The delivery of each Ordinance Of Secession to each Governor would make good TV also.

As a mere gesture of courtesy and wry wit, copies of the Ordinance of Secession should be sent by Federal Express (just for the irony) to the President of the United States, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, and the President of the Senate. You must remember that states do not have to ask permission of Washington to secede. Their compact, the US Constitution, is not between DC and the states. The Constitution is between the several States.

That is the process of secession from the United States of America. That was the easy part. Then the REAL WORK begins.

The first thing the new sovereign state should do is to form a Constitutional Convention, and create a new government. See how I would do it at The New Corporate Model of Governance.

Questions? Do I see questions?

Question: What if Washington files a Federal lawsuit or injunction in Federal Court to stop the state from seceding?
Answer:Once the state formally secedes, it is no longer subject to US Federal Court jurisdiction, is it? Is it not a sovereign nation after secession, just like any other nation of the world? So, the seceding state could answer any legal maneuver by rejecting the jurisdiction of the US Federal Courts. Remember, Washington doesn’t OWN your state. Washington was formed by the states to be an errand-boy for the states. Who runs who?

Question: What if Washington invades our state with military forces?
Answer: That is the reason that your state needs a well-trained state militia. And when I say “well-trained,” I do not mean trained to fight on a 3rd Generation battlefield (like WWII or Vietnam). I mean a militia trained to fight with guerilla warfare (4th Generation) tactics, with a heavy emphasis on the tactics of General Sun Tzu, author of The Art of War.

Question: What will we do for money?
Answer: The state must make sure that the free market determines what is money in the new nation. Any state that creates a new national money built upon the same system of debt, fractional reserve banking and fiat paper money is a state created by the same sociopathic criminals that ran the Federal Government, and perhaps even running your state government. The state/nation’s new Charter must prohibit a central bank and fractional reserve banking. The only thing that the national Charter should say about money is that (a) coins must show the weight and fineness, and that (b) the penalty for issuing counterfeit money or altering money is death.

Secession is little more than breaking up with your girlfriend or divorcing your spouse. It’s a lot like being a card player in a big card game, then folding your cards, cashing in your chips and leaving the game.

Isn’t the process of secession much like writing this short note to end a relationship?

Dear Washington: It’s over. We’re leaving. We ain’t asking your permission to leave. We ain’t asking for a legal divorce. We’re just ending this relationship right here and now. We’re rescinding the authority we gave you in the year we ratified the compact. Leave us alone. Goodbye.

In conclusion, try to envision yourself and your family in a new nation created by secession. All the people you meet are excited and breathless in their anticipation of the future. The general opinion of the populace is pure unbridled optimism. The new nation’s economy is booming, the money is backed by gold and silver, and there is no inflation. “Now Hiring” signs are in all the shop windows. The newspaper’s “Help Wanted” ads are packed full. People seeking liberty are POURING over the American border to settle in the new nation. Prices for goods and services are low, and the stores are loaded with goods. Manufacturers are streaming into the new nation to take advantage of the rare pro-business atmosphere. Wages are climbing steadily in manufacturing jobs as companies compete for the best and brightest for their employees. New businesses are being created at a fever pace. Residential and commercial construction is at a high level to meet the demand of the new residents.

All because one state recognized this historic opportunity and realized the dream of liberty through the process of state secession.

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

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2012, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,457 other followers