The 2015 Declaration of Independence

August 30, 2015

The 2015 Declaration of Independence

By Thomas Jefferson and Russell D. Longcore

(Editor’s Note: I wrote this in 2009.)

I have long contemplated the imminent collapse of the US Federal Government. In light of the insane, unconstitutional spending of the Congress and Presidents (ALL will spend the same ways), the recession/depression that the nation is presently experiencing, and the simultaneous devaluation and inflation of the nation’s currency, collapse is the only consequence that makes sense.

Ask the Soviet Union. Oh…excuse me…they’re gone! The USSR collapsed from identical causes in 1991, and the Soviet states once again became sovereign nations.

So, what will individuals and states do? Will they preemptively forsake the Union, or wait to react once the Federal Government collapses? Common sense should dictate the serious debate of secession prior to collapse. However, I do remember that the legislatures of the States are filled with politicians. Reaction seems more likely than forward planning, especially from those who have long suckled at the Federal teat.

I took the original Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, and added wording to customize it for the present day. Please read it carefully and contemplate its meaning and its ramifications. My new version still needs more work, but it is a place to start.


When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for a people to dissolve the political and governmental institutions under which they have governed themselves, and institute new government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the institution of the new form of government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their liberty, safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these free citizens and sovereign states; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present United States Federal Government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these free citizens and sovereign states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

In 1861, the United States declared war upon the Confederate States of America, a confederation of sovereign states that lawfully seceded from the Union and formed a government to provide new guards for their future security. The CSA was defeated in that war by the armies of the United States and the Union was unlawfully maintained:

The US Federal Government has enacted unconstitutional laws and authorized unconstitutional spending and the creation and funding of unconstitutional Federal agencies. It has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. It has imposed taxes on us without our consent:

The US Federal Government has borrowed so many trillions of dollars that the amount can never be repaid.

The US Federal Government created the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Homeland Security Administration, which are unconstitutional usurpations of the powers of the people and the states guaranteed in the 10th Amendment:

The US Federal Government created the Transportation Security Administration, which is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. The actions of the TSA violate the 4th Amendment, which protects citizens from illegal search and seizure without warrant based upon probable cause:

The US Federal Government created the Internal Revenue Service to enforce the gigantic Federal Income Tax Code, violating Article I of the Constitution:

The US Federal Government has violated Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution in which Congress may raise and support an army, but no appropriation to that use shall be more than two years. The US Federal Government has established hundreds of military bases on American soil, quartering large bodies of armed troops among us, violating the 3rd Amendment. Additionally, it has established over one hundred military bases in other sovereign nations around the world:

The US Federal Government is at this time retaining large armies of domestic and foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the lawful government of a civilized nation:

The US Federal Government has deprived certain individuals of the benefits of trial by jury by transporting certain individuals beyond seas to be jailed and tortured for pretended offenses, violating the principle of Habeas Corpus and the 5th Amendment of the Constitution:

The US Federal Government has enacted laws infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, an overt violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution:

The US Federal Government, through enacting the Patriot Act of 2001, has violated the 4th Amendment’s strictures on privacy and protection against illegal search and seizure. It has violated the 5th Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law:

The US Federal Government, through enacting the Patriot Act of 2001, has violated the 6th Amendment guarantees that in criminal prosecutions, the accused shall the right to a speedy and public trial, be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and be confronted by the witnesses against him:

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007, places all governmental power in the hands of the President and effectively abolishes the checks and balances in the Constitution:

The US Federal Government established the Federal Reserve, a consortium of private banks, to manage and manipulate the currency of the United States. This violates Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which provides Congress authority to coin money and regulate its value. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional:

The Federal Reserve has created massive inflation since its inception in 1913 by issuing paper money that has no underlying value in gold and silver. Because of the attempts of the Federal Reserve to manipulate the American economy, it created an abnormal cycle of boom and recession:

In 2008, the US Federal Government approved trillion-dollar financial bailouts to financial institutions and private companies, a clear violation of Article I, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment of the Constitution:

The US Federal Government has prosecuted unlawful and unconstitutional wars, including wars in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan, violating Article I, Section 8, which grants the power to declare war only to Congress:

The US Federal Government created the Social Security Administration in 1935, a clear violation of the Article I, Section 8, and the 10th Amendment:

The US Federal Government, though its Judicial Branch, has altered legislation and created law, in violation of Article III of the Constitution:

The US Federal Government has obligated the United States to membership in the United Nations, and combined with other nations to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and superior by treaty to our laws; giving its assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

The US Federal Government has usurped the powers reserved to the States in the 10th Amendment as it relates to immigration and naturalization. It has obstructed the laws for naturalization of foreigners, refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and altered the conditions of lawful immigration of foreign persons:

The US Federal Government has altered fundamentally the forms of our government guaranteed to the free citizens and states by the Constitution of the united States of America. The Constitution guarantees a republic form of government, but the US Federal Government is a fascist mercantilist police state.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. An institution of government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define tyranny, is unfit to be the designated and chosen government of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches of the United States Federal Government. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their actions to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common citizenship to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt the quiet enjoyment of our citizenship and liberty. They have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the free citizens of the several, sovereign and united States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do solemnly publish and declare, that these States are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the presently established United States Federal Government, and that all political connection between them and the United States Federal Government, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. The free citizens of the several, sovereign states reject and absolve themselves from any and all bonds between themselves and any other sovereign state under the Constitution of the United States. Those free citizens and their representatives in the sovereign States do now and should immediately cease collecting and forwarding all Federal taxes, tariffs or fees of any and every kind to the United States Federal Government.

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.


DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

What If Democracy Is Bunk?

February 28, 2012

by Andrew Napolitano

(Editor’s Note: The answer to this entire article filled with questions is secession. Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Secession is the ONLY ANSWER to the tyranny that surrounds us like the air we breathe.)

What if you are only allowed to vote because it doesn’t make a difference? What if no matter how you vote, the elites get to have it their way? What if “one person, one vote” is just a fiction created by the government to induce your compliance? What if democracy is dangerous to personal freedom? What if democracy erodes the people’s understanding of natural rights and the foundations of government, and instead turns elections into beauty contests?

Andrew Napolitano

What if democracy allows the government to do anything it wants, as long as more people bother to show up at the voting booth to support it than to oppose it? What if the purpose of democracy is to convince people that they could prosper not through the creation of wealth but through theft from others? What if the only moral way to acquire wealth – aside from inheritance – is through voluntary economic activity? What if the government persuaded you that you could acquire wealth through political activity? What if economic activity included all the productive and peaceful things we do? What if political activity included all the parasitical and destructive things the government does?

What if governments were originally established to protect people’s freedom, but always turn into political and imperialist enterprises that seek to expand their power, increase their territory and heighten their control of the population? What if the idea that we need a government to take care of us is actually a fiction? What if our strength as individuals and durability as a culture are contingent not on the strength of the government but on the amount of freedom we have from the government?

What if we’re seeing civil unrest around the world precisely because government is out of control? What if the cocktail of big government and democracy brings dependence and destruction? What if big government destroys people’s motivations and democracy convinces them that the only motivation they need is to vote and go along with whatever the government does?

What if the Republican primaries we’re seeing unfold aren’t actually as democratic as they may appear to be? What if the results you have seen from the states that have voted thus far don’t match the composition of the delegates those states send to the Tampa convention this summer because the polls aren’t what counts, but what counts are the secret meetings that come after the voting? What if Joe Stalin was right when he said the most powerful person in the world is the guy who counts the votes?

What if the greatest tyrant in history lives among us? What if that tyrant always gets its way, no matter what the laws are or what the Constitution says? What if that tyrant is the majority of voters? What if the tyranny of the majority in a democracy recognizes no limits on its power?

What if the government misinforms voters so as to justify anything the government wants to do? What if the government bribes people with the money it prints? What if it gives entitlements to the poor, tax breaks to the middle class and bailouts to the rich just to keep all of us dependent upon it? What if a vibrant republic requires not just the democratic process of voting, but also informed and engaged voters who understand first principles of limited government and free-market economics, and the divine origin of natural rights?

What if we could free ourselves from the yoke of big government through a campaign of education and information and personal courage that leads to a revolutionary return to first principles? What if the establishment doesn’t want this? What if the government remains the same no matter who wins elections?

What if because of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, because he isn’t campaigning just for votes as his competition is, because he is educating the population and winning the hearts and minds of a once free people and inspiring them to fight for their freedom once more, freedom wins? What if we can be free again? What will it take to make that happen?

© Copyright 2012, Andrew Napolitano

Flash Editorials January 7, 2012

January 6, 2012

By Russell D. Longcore

The time for Secession is coming to your neighborhood very soon. Read on.

The Nation: The theater production called the Iowa Caucuses is over, with Romney winning by an eyelash over Rick “No Chance in Hell” Santorum. The vote tabulation was done in an undisclosed location, not in easy view of voters and vote watchers. Even though I suspect massive vote fraud, Ron Paul still got over 21%. The neocon leadership had been openly announcing for two weeks that they would not allow Ron Paul to win Iowa. They weren’t lying.

The Nation II: The right third party candidate could win this election. And I submit that the right candidate would be Ron Paul. It would be even better if he chose his son as his running mate, Senator Rand Paul. I also submit that any third party that does not offer a substantive anti-Washington choice would be a waste of time and money, and would likely place Obama back in the White House. But I believe that Ron Paul as a third party choice could beat both Republicans and Democrats. There is only one man that is an actual conservative, obey the Constitution, shrink the Federal government candidate available. Ron Paul. I believe that if a Ron Paul/Rand Paul candidacy emerged, they could take 35% in November 2012. The biggest problem is getting on the ballots. They could go write-in, but that’s unlikely. The state-to-state election rules have been written expressly to keep viable candidates out of the races. The other big challenge is the electoral college. Paul would have to take some pretty big states to win.

The Nation III: My prediction of the presidential election in November 2012 is that no matter which candidate the Republican Party chooses, the Republicans will win in an astonishing landslide. Barack Obama may not win in a single state. This will be the widest margin of victory in American history. In addition, a wave of Republicans will win in Congressional and Senate races. But don’t think for a moment that this will divert the American train from the economic derailment ahead. Just a different crew on the train when it crashes.

International: The insane nations of the West continue to threaten Iran with economic sanctions to punish Iran for having a nuclear fuel program. Of course, it’s OK for thirty other nations to have nuclear power reactors, and OK for 10 nations to already have nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Iran sells the West oil and natural gas. All Iran must do is to stop delivering to the West and sell it to China. Oil prices will quickly hit $400 per barrel and a gallon of gasoline will cost $15-$20.

International II: A Japanese restauranteur paid over $736,000 for ONE single Blue Fin Tuna caught off the Japanese coast this week. This 592 pound fish, once cut up, could cost 5,000 Yen per slice.

Business: Ann Barnhardt posted articles this week that showed how the MF Global debacle is beginning to cause huge waves in the commodities markets. Here’s the problem. A grain farmer sells his harvest to a grain dealer who keeps it in a grain storage facility, like a grain elevator. The farmer gets paid as the grain sells over time. And the grain broker sells or buys futures contracts, which are nothing more than bets on what prices will be like in the future. If the broker is right, he makes money. But if he’s wrong, he’s got to settle a margin call. Recently, futures brokers are finding it tough to find those who will play the game. And if a broker goes bankrupt, the farmer cannot just back his truck up to the elevator door and take back his harvest. The stored grain becomes assets of the broker to be liquidated. The farmer stands at the back of the line of creditors, hold his warehouse receipts and futures contracts in one hand and his balls in the other.

MF Global was one gigantic futures bet that they lost. And MF was using its own customers’ segregated funds to bet with, which is worthy of jail time or death.

The commodities marketplace is so leveraged that it will not be able to meet margin calls (or collateral calls) if futures contracts implode. This is yet another financial market that is likely to collapse, and with its collapse, could trigger the complete economic collapse of the US economy and the Dollar. It is inevitable, friends. When the system is built on debt, fiat money and fractional reserve banking, those three things will take it down. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Business II: More about MF Global. The Feds have turned the bankruptcy proceedings upside down, and set the stage for the confiscation of YOUR money in bank accounts, retirement accounts, and stock market accounts. In the MF bankruptcy, the Feds are placing the other big banks at the front of the line of creditors. The customers of MF who had their money invested through MF, and in escrow accounts, are not even being allowed to stand in line. That means the customer’s money is going to be used as assets to pay off the other big financial institutions, not the assets of the corporation. This sets a precedent previously unknown in Bankruptcy law. That also means that when the other big financial institutions fail, depositors and investors will have their assets confiscated to pay off other people’s debts. If you have paper assets in any financial instrument whatsoever, you now have a new market risk. That is the market risk of no Rule of Law. The very government agencies that you would run to for protection are now the agencies dedicated to screwing you. You will have no recourse. Your only option is to get your assets changed from paper to hard currency and take delivery at home or at a local depository.

Shameless Plug: Heard about SOPA yet? The Stop Online Piracy Act purports to protect intellectual property on the Internet, but critics say the bill will give the entertainment industry the power to censor your website if THEY deem that you are infringing somebody’s copyright. They could actually block your domain name or Internet Protocol (IP) address. Don’t expect your Congressman to read this bill. They don’t read bills anymore. Bob Parsons, Founder of, took an early position in favor of SOPA. But the “free market” spoke to him, and he pulled his support. We here at are completely opposed to SOPA, and we know that the law is unconstitutional. Come see us for all your domain registry and webhosting needs.

Economy: Friday night’s network news broadcasts were all a dither with the announcement that the unemployment rate had dropped to 8.5% just since last month. What they did not speak about is the 372,000 NEW unemployment claims in the last seven days, or the fact that the new unemployment claims numbers were above 400,000 WEEKLY for the last six months. Folks, if you do not see how stupid Washington thinks YOU ARE, you’re lying to yourself. These monthly unemployment numbers are entirely fabricated by this Administration. Remember that when an unemployed person’s weekly benefits expire, Washington stops counting them in the numbers. They also do not count persons who are unemployed but have part-time jobs. The REAL unemployment rate is above 18% nationally, and in certain places like Detroit, is FAR HIGHER.

Sports: I predict that the 2012 Superbowl will be the New Orleans Saints against the Green Bay Packers, and the Saints will win. But for this weekend…playoffs, Baby.

Entertainment: This weekend, I am filling out my final ballot for the Grammy Awards. Your editor has recorded 17 CDs on the Telarc label with the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and Chorus. Five of those CDs have won Grammy Awards. I am a First Tenor in the Chorus. I joined the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences in 1998 after winning the first Grammy and have been voting for the Grammy Awards ever since. Some hobby, eh?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2011, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

My Answers To A University Student

April 11, 2011

By Chuck Baldwin

(Editor’s Note: Also read Who Should Be The State’s Mortal Enemy?)

I often receive inquiries from college and university students.
Contrary to the thinking of most older adults, I find a sizable number
of today’s youth much more constitutionally aware than are their
parents. I’ve traveled all over America and spoken to thousands of
high school and college age young people. My observation is this: the
youth of America have not rejected the message of liberty and
constitutional government; they haven’t HEARD the message of liberty
and constitutional government. When they do hear it, as often as not,
they embrace the message enthusiastically. If the Ron Paul Revolution
of 2008 proved anything, it proved that!

Recently, a student from a prestigious university wrote me with a
short list of questions for a thesis he is writing, which is entitled,
“The Effect of the Evangelical Movement on the 2008 Presidential
Election.” He reads my columns and was motivated to ask me to
contribute to his report. I am using today’s column to answer his

Question: “What, in your opinion, is the best way for the
government and religious organizations to interact?”

Answer: The best way for government and religious institutions to
interact is the same way that government and virtually all
institutions should interact: by the government staying the heck out
of their business!

Unfortunately, government at every level has grown into a monstrous
Nanny State that intimidates, coerces, and almost controls practically
every institution and organization (public and private) in America.
The number of government bureaucracies and enforcement agencies at the local, State, and federal levels is so gargantuan that it is
impossible to accurately keep track of them all. And it seems each
agency and department’s sole job is to justify its own existence by
harassing, intimidating, and manipulating individuals and
institutions. Nothing is different regarding religious institutions.
In order to stay on the smiley side of government (especially the
IRS), religious institutions have largely become the sheepish slaves
of the state.

Question: “How do you think the government keeps religious
organizations from affecting policy?”

Answer: I KNOW how the government keeps religious organizations from
affecting policy: through the IRS 501(c)(3) non-profit corporate
tax-exempt status that practically every church in America submits to.

The now infamous 501(c)(3) section of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) goes back to 1936 (the seeds of this Venus Fly Trap date back to
1872). But then-Senator Lyndon Johnson was the Dr. Frankenstein who, in 1954, unleashed this monster upon America. His motivation was: he did not like the way pastors and churches were opposing his liberal agenda, and he wanted to use the power of law to silence them. He, therefore, introduced verbiage to the IRC that churches were
prohibited from influencing political legislation and supporting
political campaigns, or risk losing their tax-exempt status.

Over time, fear of offending the 501(c)(3) criteria of the IRC has
been used to intimidate pastors and church leaders to the point that,
for all intents and purposes, they are “scared silly” to try and
affect meaningful change to government policy. The result: 300,000
evangelical churches are almost totally impotent to impact or change
American culture, societal conditions, or the political landscape.

Question: “Do you think an evangelical Christian organization
should have a political extension (i.e. lobbyists) of itself on
Capitol Hill?”

Answer: There are numerous organizations associated with the
“Religious Right” that have political lobbyists on Capitol Hill.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this. The problem comes when
the organization and lobbyists themselves become part of the “good
old boy” network that seems to be intricately associated with
cavorting with the power elite. What normally happens is, in order to
maintain the organization’s “seat at the table,” it quickly
compromises the principles that originally created it. And pretty
soon, instead of influencing Capitol Hill, the organization finds
itself influenced and manipulated by Capitol Hill. In essence, that is
the sordid story of how the Religious Right, which was so powerful
back in the 1980s, has become the impotent entity that we see today.

Question: “How do you think Christians use their faith to make
political decisions?”

Answer: Most Christians would have you believe that their faith is
very instrumental in making their political decisions. However, just
the opposite is true: the average Christian’s politics is void of
any genuine Christian faith. It seems, therefore, most Christians base
their political decisions on the principles of “pragmatism,”
choosing the “lesser of two evils,” or based wholly on political
partisanship. The last two Presidential elections are prime examples
of this unfortunate reality.

Evangelical Christians overwhelmingly supported George W. Bush in his reelection bid in 2004, despite Bush’s egregious departure from
conservative, constitutionalist principles throughout his first
administration. They, then, continued to blindly support Bush
throughout his second administration as he continued to promote
globalist, big government policies and agendas.

During the election of 2008, Christians supported big government CFR
candidate John McCain, even though McCain has a career track record of betrayal to true conservative principles. Notable Christian leaders
such as Focus on the Family’s James Dobson supported McCain, even
after publicly promising to “never” support him.

Over and over, election after election, Christians prove that they
will not let their Christianity get in the way of their politics.

Question: “How did evangelicals and conservatives have an effect on
the 2008 presidential election?”

Answer: As noted above, Christian conservatives, on the whole,
supported John McCain, even though they knew he would never be
faithful to conservative principles. However, in spite of the support
of evangelical leaders, many grassroots conservatives and
constitutionalists could not vote for McCain in good conscience. For
example, many Ron Paul conservatives voted for third party candidates
such as Bob Barr or myself, or didn’t vote at all. And this was true
of many conservative independents, as well. As a result, Barack Obama
won handily.

Question: “Why do evangelicals typically align themselves with the
Republican Party?”

Answer: I was the Executive Director of the Florida Moral Majority
back in the 1980s, and I witnessed the marriage between the GOP and
Christian conservatives up close. Without a doubt, the two terms of
President Ronald Reagan is the single biggest reason why Christian
conservatives are so enamored with the Republican Party today. Before
Reagan, the GOP was seen (properly) as a political extension of Big
Business. The Democrat Party was seen (properly) as a political
extension of Big Labor. Christians were critical of both parties and
approached each candidate on a more individual and objective basis.
Example: without a doubt, Christian conservatives elected Democrat
Jimmy Carter in 1976. Ronald Reagan changed all that. He obtained
almost god-like status in the thinking of many evangelicals.
Therefore, ever since Reagan, GOP stands for “God’s Own Party”
in the minds of many evangelicals. As a result, no matter how liberal,
socialist, or globalist a Republican Presidential nominee might be
now, most evangelicals will support him or her, simply because there
is an “R” behind the name. Mark it down: if the GOP nominates the
big government globalist chameleon and serial adulterer Newt Gingrich
as its Presidential candidate in 2012, most evangelicals will support

Question: “In your opinion, do you think it’s wrong for clergy to
endorse politicians from the pulpit, or in another leading function
within the congregation?”

Answer: Absolutely not! A clergyman did not lose his American
citizenship when he was ordained to the ministry. Again, this goes
back to Johnson’s 501(c)(3) monstrosity. Pastors have been duped and
intimidated into believing that they have no right to express their
personal opinions or convictions from the pulpit. This is historical
and constitutional balderdash!

Can one imagine colonial preachers John Leland, Jonas Clark, or John
Witherspoon being told by any State official what he could or could
not say, or what his church could or could not do, or whom he could or
could not support? What a joke! These men explained, extolled,
extrapolated, and engrained the Biblical Natural Law principles of
liberty so deeply into the minds and hearts of their congregants, that
when the time came, those Christian patriots stood on Lexington Green
and Concord Bridge and fired that shot heard ’round the world.

Question: “Is there a way that a church can become both a spiritual
and political organization? If so, which path do you think is best?”

Answer: Churches are not political institutions; they should never
desire to be. However, they are promoters of truth. And truth is
truth, whether it finds itself in the political arena or any other
arena. Pastors and churches are obligated to be faithful to the truth,
and let the chips fall where they may! The problem is, many pastors
and churches have purposely avoided truth when it butts up against
politics. Their fear of the IRS, or of being considered “politically
incorrect,” or of, perhaps, offending church members has made
cowards out of many of them. And as a result, our country is in the
calamitous condition that we see today.

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren.

Wikileaks: a Big Dangerous US Government Con Job?

December 26, 2010

by F. William Engdahl

The story on the surface makes for a script for a new Oliver Stone Hollywood thriller. However, a closer look at the details of what has so far been carefully leaked by the most ultra-establishment of international media such as the New York Times reveals a clear agenda. That agenda coincidentally serves to buttress the agenda of US geopolitics around the world from Iran to North Korea. The Wikileaks is a big and dangerous US intelligence Con Job which will likely be used to police the Internet.

It is almost too perfectly scripted to be true. A discontented 22-year old US Army soldier on duty in Baghdad, Bradley Manning, a low-grade US Army intelligence analyst, described as a loner, a gay in the military, a disgruntled “computer geek,” sifts through classified information at Forward Operating Base Hammer. He decides to secretly download US State Department email communications from the entire world over a period of eight months for hours a day, onto his blank CDs while pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga. In addition to diplomatic cables, Manning is believed to have provided WikiLeaks with helicopter gun camera video of an errant US attack in Baghdad on unarmed journalists, and with war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Manning then is supposed to have tracked down a notorious former US computer hacker to get his 250,000 pages of classified US State Department cables out in the Internet for the whole world to see. He allegedly told the US hacker that the documents he had contained “incredible, awful things that belonged in the public domain and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington, DC.” The hacker turned him in to US authorities so the story goes. Manning is now incommunicado since months in US military confinement so we cannot ask him, conveniently. The Pentagon routinely hires the best hackers to design their security systems.

Then the plot thickens. The 250,000 pages end up at the desk of Julian Assange, the 39-year-old Australian founder of a supposedly anti-establishment website with the cute name Wikileaks. Assange decides to selectively choose several of the world’s most ultra-establishment news media to exclusively handle the leaking job for him as he seems to be on the run from Interpol, not for leaking classified information, but for allegedly having consensual sex with two Swedish women who later decided it was rape.

He selects as exclusive newspapers to decide what is to be leaked the New York Times which did such service in promoting faked propaganda against Saddam that led to the Iraqi war, the London Guardian and Der Spiegel. Assange claims he had no time to sift through so many pages so handed them to the trusted editors of the establishment media for them to decide what should be released. Very “anti-establishment” that.

The New York Times even assigned one of its top people, David E. Sanger, to control the release of the Wikileaks material. Sanger is no establishment outsider. He sits as a member of the elite Council on Foreign Relations as well as the Aspen Institute Strategy Group together with the likes of Condi Rice, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, former State Department Deputy Secretary and now World Bank head Robert Zoellick among others.

Indeed a strange choice of media for a person who claims to be anti-establishment. But then Assange also says he believes the US Government version of 9/11 and calls the Bilderberg Group a normal meeting of people, a very establishment view.

Not so secret cables…

The latest sensational Wikileaks documents allegedly from the US State Department embassies around the world to Washington are definitely not as Hillary Clinton claimed “an attack on America’s foreign policy interests that have endangered innocent people.” And they do not amount to what the Italian foreign minister, called the “September 11 of world diplomacy.” The British government calls them a threat to national security and an aide to Canada’s Prime Minister calls on the CIA to assassinate Assange, as does kooky would-be US Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin.

Most important, the 250,000 cables are not “top secret” as we might have thought. Between two and three million US Government employees are cleared to see this level of “secret” document, [1] and some 500,000 people around the world have access to the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRnet) where the cables were stored. SIPRnet is not recommended for distribution of top-secret information. Only 6% or 15,000 pages of the documents have been classified as even secret, a level below top-secret. Another 40% were the lowest level, “confidential”, while the rest were unclassified. In brief, it was not all that secret. [2]

Most of the revelations so far have been unspectacular. In Germany the revelations led to the removal of a prominent young FDP politician close to Guido Westerwelle who apparently liked to talk too much to his counterpart at the US Embassy. The revelations about Russian politics, that a US Embassy official refers to Putin and Medvedev as “Batman and Robin,” tells more about the cultural level of current US State Department personnel than it does about internal Russian politics.

But for anyone who has studied the craft of intelligence and of disinformation, a clear pattern emerges in the Wikileaks drama. The focus is put on select US geopolitical targets, appearing as Hillary Clinton put it “to justify US sanctions against Iran.” They claim North Korea with China’s granting of free passage to Korean ships despite US State Department pleas, send dangerous missiles to Iran. Saudi Arabia’s ailing King Abdullah reportedly called Iran’s President a Hitler.

Excuse to police the Internet?

What is emerging from all the sound and Wikileaks fury in Washington is that the entire scandal is serving to advance a long-standing Obama and Bush agenda of policing the until-now free Internet. Already the US Government has shut the Wikileaks server in the United States though no identifiable US law has been broken.

What is emerging from all the sound and Wikileaks fury in Washington is that the entire scandal is serving to advance a long-standing Obama and Bush agenda of policing the until-now free Internet. Already the US Government has shut the Wikileaks server in the United States though no identifiable US law has been broken.

The process of policing the Web was well underway before the current leaks scandal. In 2009 Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller and Republican Olympia Snowe introduced the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (S.773). IIt would give the President unlimited power to disconnect private-sector computers from the internet. The bill “would allow the president to ’declare a cyber-security emergency’ relating to ’non-governmental’ computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat.” We can expect that now this controversial piece of legislation will get top priority when a new Republican House and the Senate convene in January.

The US Department of Homeland Security, an agency created in the political hysteria following 9/11 2001 that has been compared to the Gestapo, has already begun policing the Internet. They are quietly seizing and shutting down internet websites (web domains) without due process or a proper trial. DHS simply seizes web domains that it wants to and posts an ominous “Department of Justice” logo on the web site. See an example at Over 75 websites were seized and shut in a recent week. Right now, their focus is websites that they claim “violate copyrights,” yet the website that was seized by DHS contained no copyrighted content whatsoever. It was merely a search engine website that linked to destinations where people could access copyrighted content. Step by careful step freedom of speech can be taken away. Then what?

[1] BBC News, “Siprnet: Where the leaked cables came from”, 29 November, 2010.

[2] Ken Dilanian, “Inside job: Stolen diplomatic cables show U.S. challenge of stopping authorized users”, Los Angeles Times, November 29, 2010.

F. William Engdahl is Author of Gods of Money: Wall Street and the Death of the American Century and Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order. His other books include Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation and A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order.

Copyright 2010

Wave Goodbye To Internet Freedom

December 4, 2010

Courtesy The Washington Times

(Editor’s Note: The longer we stay with Washington, the more intrusion into our lives we can expect. There is no surprise here. Washington cannot abide the concept of any human activity outside their power to regulate and tax. And they will move to subsume any human activity to their rule.)

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to add the Internet to its portfolio of regulated industries. The agency’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, announced Wednesday that he circulated draft rules he says will “preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet.” No statement could better reflect the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama administration policies.

With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the “freedom” of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski’s draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped “non-public, for internal use only” to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled Dec. 21 vote. So much for “openness.”

The issue of “net neutrality” is nothing new, but the increasing popularity of online movie streaming services like Netflix have highlighted an area of potential concern. When someone watches a film over the Internet, especially in high definition, the maximum available capacity of the user’s connection is used. Think, for example, of the problems that would arise at the water works if everyone decided to turn on their faucets and take a shower simultaneously. Internet providers are beginning to see the same strain on their networks.

In some cases, heavy use of this sort slows the Web experience for everyone sharing the same lines. That has prompted some cable Internet providers to consider either charging the heavy users more or limiting access to the “problematic” services. Of course, if cinema buffs find themselves cut off from their favorite service, they’re going to be mad. If companies don’t act, they’re just as likely to find irate customers who don’t want their experience bogged down by others.

It’s not clear why the FCC thinks it needs to intervene in a situation with obvious market solutions. Companies that impose draconian tolls or block services will lose customers. Existing laws already offer a number of protections against anti-competitive behavior, but it’s not clear under what law Mr. Genachowski thinks he can stick his nose into the businesses that comprise the Internet. The FCC regulates broadcast television and radio because the government granted each station exclusive access to a slice of the airwaves. Likewise when Ma Bell accepted a monopoly deal from Uncle Sam, it came with regulatory strings attached.

No such rationale applies online, especially because bipartisan majorities in Congress have insisted on maintaining a hands-off policy. A federal appeals court confirmed this in April by striking down the FCC’s last attempt in this arena. “That was sort of like the quarterback being sacked for a 20-yard loss,” FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell told The Washington Times. “And now the team is about to run the exact same play. … In order for the FCC to do this, it needs for Congress to give it explicit statutory authority to do so.”

Freedom and openness should continue to be the governing principles of the Internet. That’s why Mr. Genachowski’s proposal should be rejected and Congress should make it even more clear that the FCC should stop trying to expand its regulatory empire.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC.

The Ground Zero Mosque Flap: Masterful Prestidigitation

August 21, 2010

So some Muslims want to open a Muslim community center near the World Trade Center site…now reverently called “Ground Zero.” Both left and right are using this topic to inflame emotions of the American sheeple. It’s working beautifully. Both sides are shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theater, so to speak. And when sheeple’s emotions are inflamed, it cancels out objective thought, and turns eyes away from tyranny to the most recent magic trick performed by DC and their media.

“Ground Zero.” Where have I heard that term used before? Oh, now I remember. Wikipedia says “The Oxford English Dictionary, citing the use of the term in a 1946 New York Times report on the destroyed city of Hiroshima, defines “ground zero” as “that part of the ground situated immediately under an exploding bomb, especially an atomic one.”

In Hiroshima…then in Nagasaki. When Harry Truman authorized the vaporization of hundreds of thousands of Japanese CIVILIANS at a time when the Japanese diplomats were BEGGING Washington for terms of surrender other than unconditional surrender.

Did the “Ground Zero” chickens come home to roost?

Don’t you have to wonder WHY Muslims want to place a Muslim Community Center in a commercial area where nobody lives? How many other Muslim Community Centers in the New York area are comparatively placed outside neighborhoods? But how many blocks away is a Muslim presence acceptable? If four blocks away is still on “hallowed ground,” just where does the hallowed part end?

Certainly, if property rights mean anything (and they mean less in New York than anywhere I can think…think “rent control”) one should be able to use one’s property any way one chooses. But the Muslims know how this is being “spun” here in America. So why push forward with an “in your face” challenge that will engender such animosity? Even if the animosity is not founded in reality? Is that the message of the Quran? I’m told Islam is all about peace.

Ever read the Quaran? It’s on my reading table right now. I find it hard to read and unfamiliar in style. And, some of those verses we hear about concerning the treatment of women and dealing with infidels are in there. But the Bible has some pretty gruesome stories in it, like all the times the children of Israel wiped out other tribes…men, women, children and their animals…all because God didn’t like them. So, Christians ought to be a little more tolerant of Muslims and the book upon which they founded their religion, since allegedly Christians, Jews and Muslims ALL serve the same God…and the Christians and Jews both revere the Old Testament, which contains all that premeditated murder and gore.

The Catholic Church…”Ground Zero” of all Christian faiths…doesn’t have a really great track record for religious tolerance over its history. Remember the Crusades…against Muslims? Remember the Inquisition…against heretics?

“Xenophobia” is the uncontrollable or unreasonable fear of foreigners. This is a curious fear, especially when practiced by the citizens of a country founded by and built by foreigners. We Americans have become xenophobia specialists.

Look what we did over time to the Native Americans that were here when we arrived in North America. Hell, we started that a century or more before the US became a nation. Remember the French and Indian War of 1754? Remember the 1838 Trail of Tears? Washington still has a Bureau of Indian Affairs that manages Native Americans like a day care center gone horribly wrong.

Look what we did to African blacks that we imported as slaves over a span of over 150 YEARS. And don’t tell me it was a Southern thing. Many of the ship owners ferrying blacks between Africa and America were from Northern colonies.

Look what Washington did to the island kingdom of Hawai’i in 1893. Washington rolled in military troops and overthrew the royal family of Hawai’i and stole the whole chain of islands. President Bill Clinton issued a formal apology in 1993, but Washington didn’t give back the islands.

Look what we did to the Japanese Americans here in 1941. Washington rounded them up and placed them in concentration camps for the duration of WWII. Their property was seized and not returned to them. This little atrocity happened a mere 69 years ago.

The building at 45 Park Place, New York, is a thirteen story building. It is not ON or NEAR the WTC site. It’s nearly four blocks away. But there is a church DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET from the WTC property…St. Paul’s Chapel…and The Catholic Church of St. Peter (at Church and Barclay Streets) is closer to the WTC than the Muslim property. Apparently, it’s OK with Americans that Christian churches are near Ground Zero, but not any other flavors.

It is not a mosque. It will reportedly have a culinary school and a basketball court, along with a prayer hall. Find me another Muslim mosque with backboards, hoops, ovens and stand mixers.

9-11 Facts

What was the reason we invaded Iraq and presided over the execution of our former puppet dictator, Saddam Hussein? To avenge the 9-11 attack…even when that excuse was an overt lie by the Bush Administration? Over 4,000 of our young people got killed in Iraq, and tens of thousands were wounded…allegedly avenging the deaths of 3,000 at the World Trade Center. And CONSERVATIVE estimates from around the world say that over 1 million Iraqis died as a result of our acts of vengeance. And America is STILL paying $3 a gallon for gasoline. Someone tell me the logic of that Washington decision.

DC is so incompetent, it can’t even invade a country and steal their oil correctly. But it’s the best in the world at filling body bags.

Osama bin Laden issued two fatwas (an interpretation of the Quran) — in 1996 and then again in 1998—that Muslims should kill civilians and military personnel from the United States and allied countries until they withdraw support for Israel and withdraw military forces from Islamic countries.

Now it’s nine years later. We still have military boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia, but now also in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. I don’t think Washington has grasped cause and effect yet.

There may have been radical Islamists on the airliners that struck the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. There may have been radical Islamists on board the other two planes that crashed…one in Pennsylvania and one into the Pentagon.

But hear me loud and clear.

Never in human history has a multi-story building collapsed into its own footprint without the use of high explosives. Towers One and Two came down into their own footprints. Then, later in the same day, Tower Seven…a 47-story skyscraper not struck by either plane…collapsed into its own footprint. Didn’t tip over. Straight down at the speed of gravity.

If a building is damaged and begins to collapse, it will fall in the direction of the weakest structural members. The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute, and it is generally the safest way to go. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first, in the same way you would chop into a tree from the north side if you wanted it to fall in that direction. Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble.

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

I’m not directly going to state exactly WHO destroyed the World Trade Center buildings. I do not know exactly who did it. But I will emphatically state that something OTHER than jets hitting Towers One, Two and Seven caused their collapse. It takes MONTHS, not hours…for a highly trained demolition company to rig a building to be “pulled,” the term for explosive demolition. So, no matter who pulled these three buildings…they planned it months ahead of 9-11-01.

Washington and its lapdog media have successfully laid the 9-11 attack at the feet of Islam, all the while knowing that they did not do it. And every time DC needs to divert the attention of the American sheeple from its truest agenda, it trots out a new anti-Islam story that pisses off the populace. And look at all the talking heads that inflame this newest story. They are either (a) too stupid to know the truth, or (b) complicit in the perpetuation of a lie. So the media gives a hummer to Washington while humming the National Anthem. And Washington does a reach-around on the media as their reward. The parties raise a bunch of money on a bullshit story, and the media sells a bunch of advertising. And the nation only gets to watch.

If you still believe in the US Constitution, you still believe that the words of the First Amendment are true. That says that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof.” So that allegedly limits Washington from interfering in religious matters. But if the states want to make laws respecting the establishment or prohibition of religion, they are entirely within their rights to do so.

Is it too much to ask of Americans that they practice what they preach? Tolerance includes putting up with viewpoints diametrically opposed to your own. As long as Muslims are not issuing a call to action to murder infidels, Islam is all talk. As Jesus said, “first take the speck out of your own eye rather than pointing out the beam that is in your neighbor’s eye.”

Finally, here is how all this folderol ties to the topic of Secession. Any state that secedes will not be invading other nations. It will mind its own business. The new nation will be able to break its ties with the criminal elements in Washington DC and forge new friendships with the nations of the world…even Muslim nations.

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

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

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

Don’t Send That Outraged E-Mail

July 17, 2010

by Dr. Gary North

Blog it instead, I’m going to show you how. It’s free. It’s fast. It’s the way to go. Ask Matt Drudge. He didn’t send an email to Newsweek deploring the spiking of an article. He posted his report – without objections – on his blog in 1998. This eventually got a President impeached. His site gets 6 million visits a day. Meanwhile, Newsweek is up for sale. Here is the great irony: (two employees) is worth more than Newsweek.

So, you read a bonehead article. You’re convinced that what that author really needs is a piece of your mind. You think you can spare it. You have decided to sit down and write him an email.

Here are ten good reasons not to do it.


This seems obvious. The author is someone famous. He doesn’t list his email address. You will have to find ways around this.

One way around this is to post your email as an article on your blog site.

What’s that? You don’t have a blog site? Stick with me. You will have one by this afternoon – tomorrow morning at the latest.

Anyway, back to my strategy. If you post your critical letter on your blog, Google is likely to pick it up and list it.

Famous people tend to be egomaniacs. They use Google searches on their names to see what people are saying about them. If your critical response to his bonehead article is posted on your site, he may find it.

If he sees it on a public forum, he is more likely to read it than read an email from a stranger. When our ideas are online, they can do him more damage.


Famous people use spam filters. These filters are digital. They screen out a lot of spam, but emails from people not on the author’s list of accepted contacts get forwarded to the junk email box. You probably have such a box in your email. Your ISP may have one, even if you don’t have one in your email program.

If you sit down and spend time writing your list of corrections, and then send it as an email, you will have no assurance that the author will ever read it. You have gone to a lot of trouble. The result is questionable. Your brilliant observations may be sitting in a junk mail folder. Then, one of these days, he will click the EMPTY JUNK MAIL option, and your brilliant observations are gone forever, except in your SENT folder.

3. NUT-CASE . . . BLIP!

The famous author long ago learned that the world is filled with jerks, big-mouths, ill-informed blow-hards, and nut cases. These people have these things in common:

1. Time on their hands
2. Strong opinions
3. An inflated self-opinion
4. A desire to show off
5. A limited audience, constantly shrinking

Their friends have grown tired of listening to them. They find that nobody takes them seriously. This does not produce self-examination on their part. Rather, it produces a growing resentment against all those people who do not share their views and listen to them. This persuades them to go looking for other people who will pay attention to them. Any famous author becomes a target.

Famous people get emails all day long from critics. The easy response is to take one look at the first sentence and come to a judgment: “nut-case” or “serious critic.” If the recipient decides on the first, it’s instant DELETE. He may read another few sentences if the letter sounds half-way coherent. But he probably won’t. What’s in it for him?

If the email includes lots of all-caps words, he clicks DELETE.

If it does not include links to supporting materials, it gets deleted.

If it has misspellings, it gets deleted.

In short, a critical email from a stranger is considered guilty until proven innocent. It is likely to get blipped.

Don’t waste your time.

But what if you included a brief note in your email. “I have posted a detailed critique of you recent article on ….. You may be especially interested on the document you either are unaware of or conveniently failed to mention.”

Accompanying that cryptic comment is a link to your article, which is posted on your blog.

He is more likely to read the article on your blog than read a long e-mail.

4. TAR BABY . . . BLIP!

Even worse than a nut-case, from the point of view of the recipient, is a tar baby.

If you recall the Uncle Remus story – or if you recall the original, no longer PC version in Walt Disney’s long-padlocked Song of the South – the tar baby entrapped B’rer Rabbit. B’rer Fox constructed it, knowing B’rer Rabbit would take the bait.

It did not talk. B’rer Rabbit said “Hi.” It remained mute. He said it again. It remained mute. Finally, out of exasperation, B’rer Rabbit hit it. His paw got stuck. He hit it with his other paw. He could not get out. B’rer Fox had him.

An email tar baby is a person with a hobby horse. He wants to ride. He takes every opportunity to ride. He has alienated his friends, who don’t want to hear about it any more,

He could write a book on this, and get it out of his system. But that would take work. He does not want to devote that much effort.

It could be worse. He has written a manuscript, but no publisher will touch it. This really has him in a snit. He goes looking for someone – anyone – to interact with him. He’ll show them.

The recipient has two choices. Remain mute, and become a tar baby for the heckler, or respond, and become enmeshed in a lifetime of emails.

The fanatic will not stop. At last: someone has responded! Someone famous! He will not let go. The famous author has a new pen pal – pen enemy – for life. He’s doomed.

The best approach is to add the sender to the “Block Sender” list, which automatically forwards the letters to the junk mail folder.

Tar babies rarely have their own blog sites. Create one. Then send your letter, with a link to your article. As soon as you are perceived as a tar baby, you will go onto the “Block Senders” list.

For my full views on the tar baby phenomenon, click here.


You are convinced that he has laid a gigantic egg in full public view. This gives you an opportunity to respond in public. This is part of the Web’s system of etiquette. It is considered legitimate to disembowel someone in full public view if he has posted his opinions on the Web.

The Web in fact encourages debate. It thrives on it. That is why people like public forums. They hammer away at each other by the hour. This is why I never read forums on free blog sites. The nut-cases are out in force, 24×7.

If you really do have the goods on the guy, get this in front of others. As long as you are going to go to the time and trouble of composing a response, do it for the whole world. You never know who is going to show up on your critique. Google pulls in people from all over the world. You cannot know who will show up.

Besides, if you are going to rant at the article, you will find it far more fun to twist the guy’s tail online than in private.

If you really do draw blood, he will be tempted to respond. He may be so tempted that he provides a link to your article in his response. This is another way to draw traffic to your site. If he writes for a large-traffic site, so much the better. The link will count for more in Google’s “importance factor” algorithm.

Why limit the effects of exposing the author’s errors? Share the wealth!


If you write a critical email in the hope of changing his mind, then you are naïve. You are not quite a certifiable nut-case, but you are bordering on it.

People who are important enough to get their articles posted and gain lots of readers are fixed in their views. They are probably experienced writers. This means they are older.

People over age 30 are unlikely to change their views. The personal price (meaning cost) of changing is too high. They may have to abandon their positioning, which is basic to their career’s success. They may have to re-think their premises. This is expensive. Remember: “You can’t change just one thing.” Then add this: “especially your mind.”

His price of changing his view is high. Remember this economic law: “When the price rises, less is demanded.”

He has spent years coming to his opinion. He may have researched the topic. The article you don’t like may be the tip of a large iceberg. He may know a lot more about this than you think he does.

Why should your email change his mind? Who are you, anyway? No one important. How does he know this? Because you sent an email. If you were anyone important, your highly critical article would be posted somewhere.


There are lots of people out there who publish really bad articles. If you spend time sending emails, you waste your time. If you post these as articles, your site carries more weight. Why? Because it’s growing.

I see reviews of books on Amazon. Some people review hundreds of books. If these people are not posting their reviews on their own blog site, they are missing a way to build readers.

If your site is targeted on one topic, you can publish book reviews, article reviews, and video reviews. Divide them into categories: Good Stuff/Bad Stuff. Then divide them into subcategories.

The idea here is to position yourself as an expert who keeps on top of the literature in a topic. So, when you send an email with a link to your critical review, the author reading it will not automatically assume that you don’t know what you’re talking about.


Over time, others will visit your site if it provides them with useful material. One useful item is a solid review. It tells people what is worth buying and reading and why, and what is not.

The goal should be to serve the public. A letter to a critic does not serve the public. It wastes your time.

As the popularity of your site grows, your reputation as an expert will grow. A site with hundreds of articles is impressive to anyone who visits it. Even if he doesn’t read all of them – he won’t – the site testifies to your diligence. A visitor thinks, “this person must know his stuff. Look at all these articles. This took a lot of time.”

It did take a lot of time. But sending emails takes time. Better to put the time to better use. Don’t send critical emails. Post critical articles.


If you post on or, the site will stay up forever. You don’t have to pay anything. Whatever criticism you have today will be available for someone to discover in a decade or a century.

The blog sites are a great benefit to anyone who wants to leave a permanent record free of charge. There are no monthly fees. The domain name doesn’t lapse for non-payment,

If you think someone is wrong about this or that, and the author has gone public with his idea, you might as well get maximum leverage for your written response. Why not let it become part of the public record? Why not let it stay public long beyond your death? Don’t do things halfway. Do them right from the beginning. Sign up today.


You will get more hits if you set up your own domain ($10/year), set up your own site on a hosting service (maybe $5/month), and post your articles. But you have to pay.

This is more work. It’s better to start a blog on Blogger or WordPress than not start anything, ever.

To create a nice-looking site, download the free WordPress software. It’s here.

(Editor’s Note: I started as a WordPress blog. But it didn’t begin to take off until I bought a domain name and redirected the domain name to the blog. That way, when someone uses your domain name, it automatically sends them to your blog. Having your own domain name is far superior to showing a URL that’s long and complicated. So choose a short, catchy domain name that is easy to remember and buy it.

I recommend using Big Genie Domains as your domain registrar and hosting site. Search for your available domain name there. I own Big Genie Domains. We can do anything you need related to domains and web hosting, including building your site for you.)

Why send an outraged email when you can build a site that will build a following? It makes no sense.


As long as you’re committed enough to mail a bonehead a corrective email, you might as well inflict some real damage.

We need thousands of websites and blogs. That’s how we can inflict damage. But these can also be part of an informal network to help build a better society.

Get involved. Start your own blog.

Copyright © 2010 Gary North