Stop Voting 2016!!

February 13, 2016

Stop Voting 2016!!
By Russell Longcore

(Editor’s Note:This is an updated article from 2012.)

Sounds almost treasonous, doesn’t it? But lovers of liberty must consider this very radical action. I will even go further and state: If you vote, you do not love liberty. You love slavery and you wear your chains proudly.

Read on and I will prove my point.

This 2016 election cycle is already interminably long and boring. The worst possible candidate from the Republican Party will float to the top, much like what you see when you glance down into a toilet bowl.

This situation in which the nation finds itself is not uncommon. The state primaries, caucuses and major party conventions have a long and checkered history of corruption. Primaries, caucuses and conventions have been occurring for scores of decades. This year the process will hit new heights in low, as massive vote counting fraud will happen in every caucus and primary. The most recent examples happened in Iowa and New Hampshire. In Iowa, Democrat vote counts are kept secret, and in six precincts, the winner was decided by a coin toss! And in New Hampshire, even though Sanders buried Clinton in the vote count, Clinton left the state with more delegates because of the “super-delagate” system that allows some delegates to pledge for whomever they choose.

The fix was in before the process began. The party bosses decided long ago that Bernie Sanders was not going to win the Dem nomination. And we have watched the Establishment put on a withering offense against all of the Republican candidates, most strongly against Donald Trump.

The “political system” virtually guarantees that the most corrupt, the best liars, the most compromising, becomes the presumptive candidate. Both candidates are also the politician of their party most willing to violate the Constitution by continuing unlawful wars, and by initiating and approving the highest amount of unconstitutional Federal spending.

Think about all the Republican and Democrat candidates…the active ones and the ones that quit. Out of over 320 million people in the United States, these people are surely not the most qualified, the smartest, the most educated, the most experienced candidates to run the Federal government of the United States, are they?

There’s an old saying, “Actions speak louder than words.” Said another way, “If you want to know what a person values, don’t listen to what they say, only watch what they do.” Think about it. The political system in America is populated with men and women who give lip service to the Constitution, but then go on to vote for every unconstitutional spending bill presented to them. Hell, Obama thought up a new unconstitutional law called the Affordable Care Act that nationalizes a sixth of the American economy. The tyrants talk about the virtues of our constitutional republic, and then daily act to subvert and violate that very system of government.

A pure constitutionalist has no place, and no political base, in America in 2016. Consider the candidacy of Rep. Ron Paul during the 2012 Republican primary season. Paul couldn’t get arrested, much less have a legitimate shot at winning or even to be noticed by mainstream media. Actually, if he would have gotten arrested, he would have gotten more press than by running for President.

So why do I strongly urge you to stop Voting?

1. The illegitimacy of the vote. Look at the situation of paper ballots versus electronic voting. It has been proven beyond doubt that voting machines all across America have been manipulated to change outcomes of elections. In light of the proven fact that you cannot be sure your vote counts, why continue voting?

2. Illegitimacy part II. Consider the incontrovertible facts of national elections…and many times, state and local elections. In 2012, about 125 million people had their votes counted. (Many hundreds of thousands more people actually voted, but their votes did not count for a variety of reasons…don’t get me started!) But elections for decades now break in this statistical fashion:

40% vote Republican

40% vote Democrat

20% undecided are in the middle.

Realistically, the Republican and Democrat voting blocks cancel each other out automatically. So if you’re a registered Republican or Democrat, your vote is wasted. The time you spend voting is wasted. Tell that to all of the people you know who tell you that voting for a third-party candidate is a wasted vote!

It is the 20% in the middle that decides the election. Specifically, 10% plus one vote decides the winner.

Look at the rough numbers from the 2012 Presidential race:

Total votes 125,000,000

Republican 50,000,000

Democrat 50,000,000

Undecided 25,000,000

“Undecided” statistically splits in half:

Winner 12,500,001 (10% plus one vote)

Loser 12,499,999 (10% minus one vote)

So, in a nation of 300 million people, a little over 12 million people, or 4%, actually decide the Presidential election.

The statistics fall much the same in elections in which a candidate identifies with a political party. If you have a local state legislative race where Republicans and Democrats face each other, that race will be decided in much the same way as a national race.

3. I have been hearing a few patriot-types calling for a voter’s strike this year. They suggest that if enough people refused to vote, the election could be called illegitimate.

But what in hell does that mean? Nothing. There is no provision in any law for a low turnout affecting the outcome of an election. This is desperate people making desperate moves that don’t help anyone.

Consider that, under Robert’s Rules of Order, an organization holding a vote must have a quorum in place for the vote to be legitimate. But, in American political elections, where’s the quorum? No quorum exists.

Presidential candidates regularly consider their election “a mandate from the people.” But think about this: How small would the total number of voters have to be before a candidate would refuse to take office? If 100 million voters stayed away from the polls in November, and only 25 million nationwide voted instead of 125 million…would the winning candidate shun the victory? OF COURSE NOT!! The candidate would still accept the outcome. And why not? There’s NOTHING in the law that I know of that prevents the winner from taking office. An election is a veritable bottomless pit.

With an election system in place in America that is hopelessly corrupt, participation as a voter only encourages those in power…and those seeking power…to continue with the corrupt and illegitimate election system. And voting only serves to make voters think that what they do makes any difference in the outcomes.

So, if you continue voting, you’re part of the problem, not part of the solution.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.


The FRONA Corporate Model Of Governance

February 11, 2016

The FRONA Corporate Model Of Governance
by Russell D. Longcore

(Editor’s Note: “FRONA” is an acronym for the Free Republic of North America, that mythical new nation borne of secession and created in the fertile gray matter of your Editor. This is an update of an article that ran at LewRockwell.com in October 2009.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what exactly is this Constitution?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO ONE.

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

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

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

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

The New FRONA Corporate Model of Governance

Form the new nation in the style of a corporation. Let’s call it The Free Republic of North America, or for short, “FRONA.” The Constitution, or Charter, can be its laws and by-laws. Each person will be given the option to subscribe to FRONA and become a citizen. That person would have to be presented with a copy of the Charter. Each person would have the choice to accept the Charter in writing. Once accepted, each citizen would be, in essence, a shareholder in the corporation, since a person could not be a citizen/shareholder without signed consent. Each citizen would pay one once of .999 purity silver and would be issued one share of common stock with one vote. No citizen could buy or own more than one share of common stock. That would also mean that those rejecting the Charter could not be citizens of FRONA. Minors could not be citizens until they were of legal age to enter into a contract, usually eighteen years of age. So, in FRONA, there would be two groups of people: citizens and residents. Residents would obviously not have the same legal rights as citizens.

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

FRONA would also be able to issue debentures and corporate bonds to raise capital.

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

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

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

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

FRONA Monetary Policy

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

Banking, Entity Structure and Privacy

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

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

Taxation

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

The Militia

FRONA must organize, train and equip a citizen militia, comprised of able-bodied men and women between the ages of 18 and 55. This will be an entirely voluntary militia, since requiring conscription is tantamount to involuntary servitude, and does not protect individual liberty. As the well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the natural right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Following the Swiss model of militia organization would be a good idea.

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

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

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

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

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

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


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.


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.


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.

End.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.


Memorial Day 2015: How About A New Meaning?

May 22, 2015

by Russell Longcore

(Editor’s Note: I wrote this for Memorial Day 2009, and this update is more true today than ever before.)

The Memorial Day 2015 weekend is upon us. Many will use this weekend as the first short vacation of summer. Picnics, boating, traveling, family gatherings, and dedication to enjoyable activities are the rule this weekend.

But Memorial Day is meant to honor the men and women who died in military service to the United States of America. Formerly known as “Decoration Day,” it was first established in 1868 to decorate the graves of the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression) dead.

This weekend, there will be memorial services and parades across America in town squares, churches and at cemeteries. Flowers will be strewn and American flags will be in grand display. Politicians will walk the route, and military veterans will don old uniforms and walk with them. Twenty-one gun salutes and taps will echo among the headstones. Impassioned speeches will be delivered to patriotic crowds on the goodness of America and the honor and bravery of the fallen soldiers and sailors.

And Americans will be remembering all the wrong things.

How about a reality check?

Those who fought and died (over 364,000) in Lincoln’s Army died invading another sovereign nation, the Confederate States of America. The CSA, who lost over 139,000 soldiers, was defending itself from the aggression of a foreign nation. It would have been no different morally if the Northern Army would have invaded Canada. So, Northern mourners should remember the shame of the North, not just that their loved ones died in battle. And Southerners should forever laud their sons who valiantly died in an attempt to thwart a foreign invasion and protect their homeland.

The 3,500-plus military personnel who fought and died in the Spanish-American War of 1898 died invading Cuba and the Philippines against Spain. Last time I checked, neither country was a state of the Union and did not require defense from a foreign aggressor. The war was perpetrated by the McKinley Administration and an expansionist Congress, assisted by Theodore Roosevelt and fomented by propaganda in the Hearst newspapers.

The American war dead of World War I (1914-1918), numbering over 116,000, died fighting a war between European nations. America had absolutely no business becoming involved, but as George Washington predicted, our treaty obligations dragged us into war.

World War II (1941-1945) devoured over 407,000 American military personnel. President Franklin D. Roosevelt baited the Japanese into attacking us, and after they did, Congress (in its last constitutional act of war) declared war. FDR was itching to get into the war, and got his way. Once again, treaties and war-hungry politicians cost this nation its sons and daughters.

The “police action” in Korea (1950-1953) started by the United Nations cost America over 54,000 military deaths. A cease fire was negotiated in 1953 which continues to this day. No constitutionally-declared war. No defense of American borders.

The Vietnam War (1958-1975) cost over 58,000 American lives. No declared war, no Vietcong in American streets trying to take over our nation. Finally some Americans protest a war! The US military gets its ass whooped and runs for home.

On 24 April, 1980, President Jimmy Carter sent a strike force into Iran to rescue the 52 American hostages held by Iran since 4 November 1979. The mission was a complete cluster fornication, and 8 men died.

In 1983 President Ronald Reagan sent 1,200 troops into Lebanon as “peace-keepers.” 220 Marines and 9 other servicemen are now resting in peace. No constitutionally-declared war. No constitutional justification.

In April 1986, President Ronald Reagan ordered air strikes in Libya against President Mohammar Ghadhafi. Ghadhafi lived…2 American airmen died.

The invasion of Grenada (October to December, 1983) cost 19 American lives. 10,000 American troops joined forces with about 300 terrifying shock troops from Caribbean islands like Antigua, St. Kitts, Dominica and Saint Lucia to liberate Grenada. (Yes, that last sentence was sarcasm.) The struggle led to the deposition and execution of Grenada’s Prime Minister Maurice Bishop. Anyone find a declaration of war or reason for America’s involvement….anyone? Bueller?

On May 12, 1987, the frigate USS Stark was attacked by an Iraqi missile while in the Persian Gulf. Thirty five sailors died in the blast. The Persian Gulf is not the territorial waters of the USA, is it?

Gulf War I (8-90 to 2-91) costs another 378 deaths as the USA protects its oil interests in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. None of the other neighbors of Iraq consider this worth a fight without the arm-twisting of President George H.W. Bush, especially since Kuwait formerly belonged to Iraq. Our Congress passes “resolutions” subordinating their constitutional authority to declare war to Bush, and he took it seriously. Still, no defense of America was involved here.

Panama was invaded by US military forces on December 20, 1989 under the order of President George H.W. Bush. Twenty four American military personnel died in the invasion. Bush said that protecting 35,000 Americans in Panama was cause for the invasion, as well as “defending democracy and human rights” in Panama. General Manuel Noriega was captured and tried on drug charges, ending up in a Miami prison.

The Bosnian War (1992-1995) was prosecuted by President Bill Clinton in conjunction with the United Nations. He sent over 20,000 troops to Bosnia, and there were no official American casualties. Still, where is the declaration of war? Why are our troops deployed outside of the United States? Were the Serbs attacking Cleveland?

In September 1994, President Bill Clinton sent US troops into Haiti to restore the regime of ousted President Jean-Bertrand Aristede. It cost 4 American lives.

The USS Cole was docked at the port of Aden, Yemen, on 12 October 2000 when it was attacked by suicide bombers. Seventeen sailors died in the incident. The Gulf of Aden is not part of the territorial waters of the USA, is it?

War in Iraq and Afghanistan (2001-2012) was started on a web of lies by President George W. Bush and his minions. It continued bolstered by more lies. Once again, no constitutional declaration of war, no honorable reason for our military to be in either country has ever been found. Over 5,500 military personnel were killed and over 35,000 were wounded. The totals are actually much higher, since the Defense Department does not count combat deaths that occur after a wounded soldier leaves Iraq or Afghanistan, or the hundreds of suicides of both active duty and veteran personnel. And even though Barack Obama SAID he brought home the troops, there are still THOUSANDS of military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now we have troops salted all over the African continent. And let’s not forget the little summer military exercise called Jade Helm happening in the American West…for what reasons, we are not sure.

I may have missed some obscure deployment of troops in that history lesson. But I think the message rings loud and clear. In case you may have missed the overwhelming ringing sound, here is what it means.

Except for the Congressional declaration of war in 1941, which started our involvement in WWII, no other military action since the CSA defense of 1865 has been a lawful use of military force. And, when you consider that America had no business fighting in WWII, our involvement should be considered immoral.

So, over 1,147,000 American sons and daughters have fought and died in military actions that can be considered both immoral and unlawful.

Please do not misunderstand me here. I do not suggest that the surviving families of dead military personnel should not mourn the loss of their sons and daughters. Surely the loss of a child, husband, father, mother, friend or loved one should be mourned.

I am not diminishing the dead’s courage, bravery, sacrifice or valor. I do not minimize their love of country, love of liberty and sense of duty.

What I am saying is that the REASONS that they died do not stand scrutiny. The REASONS they were deployed outside our shores were illegitimate and founded in lies. The REASONS for ALL military action, save the defensive actions of the Confederate States of America, were in fact illegal, immoral and unlawful.

They were deceived into military service, where politicians used their feelings of patriotism and trust as weapons against them, and their bodies as cannon fodder.

I do not hold the dead entirely at fault. Did they not come from our own homes, churches and schools, where this false sense of patriotism was taught from the cradle onward? We who are alive and remain are the ones most guilty. We did not teach our children how to discern truth from lies. We failed to teach them to question ALL authority. We neglected to infuse in them a love for individual liberty and love for the rule of law.

Therefore, here in the Memorial Day weekend of 2015, may we at long last accept the tragic truth that more than a million of our children gave their lives as sacrificial lambs on the blood-soaked altar of the God of the State? May we finally accept that additional hundreds of thousands were maimed and disabled on the same altar? Truly, they did not die to protect the American homeland. They did not die to protect our freedoms. They did not die defending “the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic”…words found in their Oath of Service.

They died in vain. They died for nothing.

That is what we should mourn this weekend.

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.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,464 other followers