Dear Rush Limbaugh:

July 28, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That hope…that solution…is Secession.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop thinking nationally. Think locally. Act locally.

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

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

Russell D. Longcore

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

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

A Short Note About Nullification

July 11, 2010

In Nullification is for Sissies, I stated that nullification is based upon the premise that staying in the Union has some value, and that the Federal government should continue to rule over the states in all the areas of governance except the ones the states nullify.

I’d like to push that statement a little further with a challenge.

Can ANYONE reading this article name EVEN ONE benefit that ANY state enjoys merely because it is one of the United States of America? If you think you can, please write me a note and tell me what benefit you believe exists. I’ll consider your nomination and write about it…and I’ll give you credit. Hell, I’ll even throw in a free Ebook as a prize if you are correct and I cannot refute your nominated benefit.

I am trying to make a very crucial point here…that nullification will not be successful in thwarting the DC criminals in their endeavors to subjugate the American nation under absolute tyranny. Oh sure…some states “nullified” the REAL ID Act and point to it as an example of successful nullification. But Washington does not want to aggressively push REAL ID or it would have already begun the extortion process, just like it did when it forced states to crack down on drunk driving by withholding Federal funds for transportation and roads. When nullification touches serious substantive MONEY AND POWER issues, Washington will ignore nullification…or punish those that try it.

The Declaration of Independence says that in the situations we Americans find ourselves TODAY, we have a duty to either alter or abolish the United States of America…our “Form of Government” under this so-called republic.

So I contend that if a state is going to fight Washington on a serious MONEY AND POWER issue, and there are no tangible benefits to remaining a US State, and nullification proponents already expect a fight when they try nullification…why not jump all the way across the stream and secede?

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.

Nullification Is For Sissies

July 5, 2010

That title is kind of a throw-down challenge, isn’t it? That is exactly what I meant for it to be…a challenge to the present-day promoters of Nullification to entirely rethink and re-evaluate their foundational principles.

Nullification sound so reasonable…so diplomatic…so sophisticated…so strategic…so statesmanlike. Who could assail such a measured response?

Russell Longcore, reporting for duty.

If you’re not familiar with the concept of Nullification, let me give you the shortest overview. The English colonies in America seceded from the British Empire with their publication of the Declaration of Independence and their victory over the British military in 1781. The colonies became independent nations upon secession. Even King George recognized their nationhood in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. In 1787 the US Constitution was written to create a kind of management company for those independent nations. The “states,” through the Constitution, gave the United States strictly enumerated powers to manage certain affairs of the states, and all the powers not given to it were reserved to the States and to the People…The Tenth Amendment.

So, nullification, though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, is the process whereby a state refuses to enforce a law enacted by the Congress of the United States because the law is outside the strictures of the Constitution. Nullification has its foundation in the Tenth Amendment.

In the late 18th Century, there were less than 2.5 million people in the thirteen new nations, all on the Eastern Seaboard. At that time, in which a small number of people were governed and resided closeby, nullification may have had its usefulness. But today, there are 50 states with over 300 million people, scattered from sea to shining sea and beyond…to places like Hawaii and Alaska. Much of the USA is thousands of miles away from Washington.

Then why Nullification now, friends? I want to challenge your very premise here.

Nullification is based upon the premise that staying in the Union has some value, and that the Federal government should continue to rule over the states in all the areas of governance except the ones the states nullify. But if you’ll remember, the states created the United States as an errand boy for the states. Well, the errand boy has grown up to be the uncontrollable bully boy of the states and of the planet. The states have been subsumed by the DC crowd. They have abrogated their sovereignty and have no real authority or power to control Washington, since no states control the power of the sword or the power of the purse.

What benefits do the states presently receive from being in the Union? I contend that they receive NONE. Washington only breathes out tyranny, regulation and oppression, both on American soil and around the world. It is so cumbersome, so corrupt and so bloated that it destroys everything it touches.

In my seldom-humble opinion, nullification is a tentative, halting, almost cowering gesture toward Washington. It almost asks permission. Nullification tacitly acknowledges that Washington is the boss. It fairly begs Washington to accept the state’s wishes, even thought the state has no power to thwart Washington’s refusal to honor the nullification.

This is akin to sending the neighborhood bully a letter, telling him that he may not have your lunch money any more. The letter is fine. Now, what are you going to do when you see the bully on the playground TOMORROW? Specifically, what force will you enlist to fight back and defeat the bully when he grabs your shirt in his fists? Your “nullification” will likely get your nose bloodied. Unless you can blacken both his eyes and send him crying to his Mommy, you’ll likely keep losing your lunch money.

The United States of America…the DC crowd, not the people who comprise the 50 states…should by our Declaration of Independence be thrown off by the People. I do not promote that the USA should be dissolved. They should do whatever they want to do. My position is that states should forsake the theater of nullification and move right ahead to secession…leaving the Union altogether. Let the US government continue its treachery and perfidy over the states that wish to remain together.

Nullification is for sissies…Sissies who are not strong enough to advance the secession of their states, converting their state from a slave state and a serfdom to a sovereign nation.

In one act of secession, any state instantly drops the shackles of Federalism and statism. All Federal debt is repudiated, all Federal regulation melts away, all Federal taxation ceases in an instant.

My challenge goes out to my friends still embracing the concept of Nullification – wrestle your sovereignty away from DC by seceding from the Union. Stop trying to maintain a relationship with a criminal enterprise. Don’t just go to counseling with your obdurate political spouse…get a restraining order, a divorce and a gun. Then commit all your efforts to re-creating a new nation where individual liberty and property rights are respected and protected.

Secession is the only hope for liberty on the North American continent. 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.

The EPA Can Go To Hell, and I Will Go To Texas

June 24, 2010

by Brian Roberts

Last week, the feds sent the Environmental Protection Agency out to harass the sovereign state of Texas. Texas needs to reclaim the spirit of Davy Crockett, when he famously proclaimed “you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas”; and send the federal agency packing. Here’s why and how.

EPA’s Goal is Centralization of Power

By sending the EPA to Texas, the federal government’s goal is not environmental improvements. The goal is centralization of power. The tactic is to use the unelected bureaucrats of the EPA to increase Texas dependence on the federal government through arbitrary and economically crippling regulation.

Refinery permits are just tools that the EPA intends to use to control the Texas oil and gas industry. EPA control can force Texas into dependence in at least two ways. First, though excessive regulation of a major industry, economic growth will be stifled. This will create more state dependence on federal funds. Second, unnecessary EPA regulations will cost Texans jobs. This is will create individual dependence on welfare programs and since these programs include state-mandated funding, Texas will be hit with additional liabilities.

The political problem for the EPA is that Texas’ commonsense policies have resulted in cleaner air while maintaining one of the healthiest economies in our nation during the current recession. This Texas independence and success is why the feds will continue to financially attack Texas. A self-sustaining state is very problematic for a federal government that is trying to centralize all the power in Washington. So expect the relationship between the Texas state government and the U.S. government to increasingly deteriorate. Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business, had this to say about the political dilemma facing the EPA:

“Evidently, Texas’ success in improving both our environment and our economy, while Washington still argues about how to accomplish either, is something that EPA and the administration finds troubling.”

Proponents of centralized government will attempt to argue that Texas’ policies are causing the streets of New Orleans to smell like the morning after a frat party, or that pollution from Texas is causing smog in LA and NYC, or that the earth will be destroyed by the Texas carbon footprint. All of these arguments are ridiculous excuses designed to provide cover for a federal power grab. These straw man arguments do not in any way reflect reality.

Proponents of centralized government will argue that Texas should just roll over and take it because, they falsely proclaim: Texas needs federal subsidies. When in fact, Texas has been a donor state for decades and currently only gets back 94 cents for every dollar that is sent to Washington. Historical data shows that every year since 1981, Texas citizens have donated more to the federal government than what was received. The truth is that if Texas continues to roll over and take it, then at some point in the near future Texas will become dependent on federal money and require more back than what was put in, and that is certainly one of the goals of centralization.

The real battle, often hidden behind the propaganda, is between sovereign states seeking a level of independence guaranteed by the Constitution and a federal government that seeks to undermine the American system of federalism itself. Texas success is a powerful example that local, more decentralized government works best and for centralizers, that kind of example must be destroyed.

Texas’ Duty is Decentralization of Power

Texas should invoke the 10th and legally send the EPA back Washington D.C. where they can look for a lesser target to plunder. The tenth amendment guarantees a limited federal government and grants governing authority to states and to the people. Leaders in the Texas legislature and Governor Perry have responded with strong words against the EPA’s intrusion.

Governor Perry said this about the EPA’s actions:

“The Obama administration has taken yet another step in its campaign to harm our economy and impose federal control over Texas. On behalf of those Texans whose jobs are threatened by this latest overreach, and in defense of, not only our clean air program, but also our rights under the 10th Amendment, I am calling upon President Obama to rein in the EPA and instruct them to study our successful approach for recommended use elsewhere.”

Texas State Representative Wayne Christian had this to say:

“The EPA’s unilateral and unwarranted takeover of air quality permits in Texas further proves that the federal government has a clear disregard for the authority of the Texas Legislature and for the principle of federalism. Washington is seeking to command and control all sectors of economic activity. This action must not stand.”

It is apparent that Texas politicians and leaders understand that this is a federal power grab that should not be allowed to proceed. However, in recent times, leadership in Texas has been more about talking the talk and less about walking the walk. A recent example, still fresh on the minds of many Texans, is the hesitancy of the Governor to call a special session so that Texas might pass nullification legislation to protect its citizens from the unconstitutional mandates of Obamacare.

While this delay in legislation concerning health care may prove to be the proper course strategically, this may not be the case in the battle against the EPA’s permit consolidation. EPA’s regional administrator has indicated that Texas has “weeks, not years” before the EPA begins taking over the entire air-pollution permitting program. The time to act has arrived.

Texas leadership would do well to find inspiration in another Davy Crockett quote:

“I would rather be beaten and be a man than to be elected and be a little puppy dog. I have always supported measures and principles and not men. I have acted fearlessly and independent and I never will regret my course. I would rather be politically buried than to be hypocritically immortalized.”

The solution is straightforward: the state government of Texas should tell the EPA to go to hell. In practical terms this means that nullification legislation should be passed by the Texas legislature and signed by the Governor. This legislation, based on the tenth amendment, should declare federal mandates with regards to the Clean Air Act null and void in the state of Texas and should include penalties for federal agents or local law enforcement agents that attempt to enforce this federal law in the state of Texas.

In an age of rapid centralization of power in Washington DC, nullification legislation denying federal authority is becoming common. Various states have defied federal laws by passing legislation designed to nullify: federal healthcare laws, federal firearm laws, federal marijuana laws, federal identification laws, among others.

Reprinted from the Tenth Amendment Center.

June 22, 2010

Brian Roberts is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Texas Tenth Amendment Center.

Copyright 2010 Tenth Amendment Center.

Maintaining Your Standard of Living: Why Inflation Matters

June 10, 2010

People seem to be so used to inflation that they don’t see that it is a major peril to the economic system of America. And when inflation starts to spike, you will be unable to maintain your present standard of living. Just how low your standard of living will sink depends ENTIRELY on the steps you take NOW to protect your purchasing power.

For most people living in America today, inflation has been a part of their lives throughout their entire lifetime. And they’ve been able to live, raise families, go on vacations and even same some money in spite of inflation.

So what’s the big deal?

To understand inflation you must first understand how money works.

Money is a medium of exchange that makes it easier to buy and sell. Over human history, people have used livestock, beads, precious stones, salt, precious metals…a plethora of different physical items to facilitate commerce. But over time gold and silver have risen to the top of the list of widely accepted “real money.” You can read more about “real money” at my article Money, Inflation and Slicing a Pizza.

Governments over history have issued gold and silver coins as money. Then, they began to issue paper IOUs called “notes.” The paper notes usually made a written promise that if the bearer presented the note at the Treasury or a bank, he would receive physical gold or silver in the amount of the note. For example, if you presented a $100 note, the bank or Treasury would hand you a certain WEIGHT of gold. The “dollar” is a unit of weight, not a unit of money. Under the gold/silver standard, governments could only issue as many notes as the value of the precious metals in the vault. Under the gold/silver money system, no inflation can occur…EVER…since there are only as many notes as represent the value of the underlying precious metals.

Over time, people used the notes in place of the real money for simple convenience. The people even began to call the paper notes “money.” But that did not change the fact that gold and silver is the ONLY REAL MONEY.

In time, the Treasury and banks noticed that only a small percentage of people ever presented their notes for real money. So they began to issue more notes than the gold in the vault. That allowed the government to spend more money without taxing the people. But it also diluted the value of the currency notes.

Diluting the value of the currency notes is Inflation.

Over time, the government learned that if they completely decoupled the currency from gold and silver, they could print as much currency as they wanted to without any restriction whatsoever. The final act of decoupling the US currency from gold happened in 1971 when Richard Nixon ended trading of gold at the fixed price of $35/ounce. At that point for the first time in history, formal links between the major world currencies and real commodities were severed.

Now look at any of your paper money. The Federal Reserve notes only say that “this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” No more convertibility. Your currency is only worth what it will buy on a day-to-day basis.

Inflation make your money worth less, and eventually worthless. Inflation is also created when currency is de-linked from gold or silver.

There are a lot of lies out there about inflation. The government and the media like to say that price increases are all about evil companies trying to plunder the consumer. But inflation looks just like a price increase. Nobody is willing to say that, in order to maintain profitability when money becomes worth less, the merchants have to collect more dollars just to keep from going backward. The plunderers are the governments who issue currency without underlying gold in a 1:1 ratio.

The RATE of inflation is bad enough. But the RAPIDITY of the increases in inflation is part of the danger looming over the horizon.

Let me give you a simple example. I bought a 16 oz. loaf of bread for about $2.00 last weekend. If the price increased to $4.00, that would be an inflation rate of 100%. But how fast it happens matters.

If the prices went up in a week, most people would be exceedingly alarmed. You’ve already seen this kind of price swing when fuel prices spiked a couple years ago. In many places in America, prices for fuel doubled in mere days. That price spike was NOT inflation, but you know how it feels.

However, what if that price of a loaf of bread only increased by 2% a week? That would only increase by four cents the first week. You’d hardly notice at all. You might even complain, but you’d keep buying bread. But if you have a calculator that can compute interest, you’ll find that the government can increase inflation by 100% in only 35 weeks if they only use a 2% rate of inflation.

The US Federal Government freely admits to an inflation rate of about 3-4% per year. They actually count on it. So, the average American watches 3-4% of his purchasing power dissolve, and it all looks just like price increases for goods and services.

Now, what if the inflation rate was 100% per quarter…per month…per week? That kind of inflation has happened MANY TIMES in just the last 80 years. It happened in Germany after WWI. It happened in Argentina in the 80s, when the inflation rate topped 5,000%. It happened in Zimbabwe less than five years ago when their currency collapsed altogether. (Read I Just Became a Trillionaire!)

How does this affect YOU?

Your wages will not rise at the same rate as the inflation rate. So, if your income and expenses are pretty much balanced right now…and your expenses increase by 100% and your wages don’t change…what will you do? You will either increase your income or cut your expenses, or a combination of both. To increase your income, you may have to get a second or third job. To cut expenses may mean you have to choose between paying one creditor or another. You may have to stop all restaurant meals, or turn off your air conditioner, or have a yard sale. But when you sell all your old stuff…and use up your assets…and can’t earn any more…THEN what will you do?

This is the reason that inflation is so evil. When governments print money that has no underlying asset, they are counterfeiting. If you write a bunch of bad checks…another kind of note…you go to jail. But the government gets away with this crime for decades and no one goes to jail. The US Treasury and the Federal Reserve are the biggest counterfeiters in the history of the world.

Now you understand why we here at bang the drum about the monetary policy of a new nation after secession. If the new nation starts to be counterfeiters just like the US Federal Government was, you KNOW that the people running your new nation are criminals…just like the ones in Washington.

The ONLY real chance that a seceding state has to be totally free is to create a monetary system backed by gold and silver. ANYTHING ELSE won’t work. ANYTHING ELSE IS THEFT AND PLUNDER.

Secession…WITHOUT TAXATION…is the Hope for Mankind.

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.

Rand Paul: The Tea Party Can Have Him

May 23, 2010

So Dr. Rand Paul, son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, is the newly nominated Kentucky Republican candidate for US Senate. Dr. Paul wants to be a DC criminal and is fighting hard to get his chance.

Think that’s too harsh? Sorry to ruffle your delicate sensibilities. In my article entitled Criminal Congressional Compromise, I show that accomplices and accessories to crime are entitled to the same sentence as the main perpetrators. And plenty of crimes come out of the US Senate.

The drive-by media has had its collective panties in a big wad since Tuesday’s primaries. Paul has been labeled the “Tea Party Candidate.” From what I’ve seen of the Tea Party movement, and the things that Rand Paul believes, they seem to be made for each other.

But not made for individual liberty and property rights.

Dr. Paul still thinks that the nation can be saved. He believes that the solution is to simply get the Federal Government to operate within the limits of the Constitution, and then everything will work out all right. That’s the message coming from the Tea Party movement. Seldom mentioned are the seditious words “secession” and “nullification.” Oh mercy, no. Electing better politicians is the Tea Party answer, and that’s right up Rand Paul’s alley.

I went to Rand Paul’s candidate website and read his positions on various issues. Here are some quotes from his posted positions, followed by my caustic comments:

Rand on Immigration: “Millions crossing our border without our knowledge constitutes a clear threat to our nation’s security. I will work to secure our borders immediately. My plans include an underground electric fence, with helicopter stations to respond quickly to breaches of the border. Instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I am open to the construction of bases to protect our border.”

Editor: So clearly you favor spending money the Federal Government doesn’t have. This administration is overdrawn just this year by a couple TRILLION dollars. There is no money for an underground fence, Rand…any more than there was money to build a fence along the length of the Mexican border. There is no money to build new military bases along the border with Mexico, either. Closing the foreign bases is good, but spending the savings is bad.

Rand on the Federal Reserve: “For too long the Federal Reserve has operated behind a shroud of mystery. As Senator I would make sure that all Americans understand the dangers of unsound monetary policy and shed light on this secretive organization. Given this incredible power given to a semi-private institution, one wonders why we don’t hear more about the Fed and its actions from the Congress. As Senator I would make sure that the Federal Reserve is held accountable and restore transparency to our monetary system.”

Editor: How exactly are you going to “make sure ALL Americans understand” ANYTHING? We don’t need transparency, Rand. America needs to abolish the Fed. Period. And from the news reports about HR 1207, the Transparency Act your father sponsored is dead…smothered to death by the guys you’re going to be working with. The Federal Reserve is the world’s largest counterfeiter, and the funny money needs to stop…even though it’s too late. If the Fed stopped printing money today, the money in circulation is guaranteed to cause hyperinflation soon.

Rand on National Defense: “I believe that the primary Constitutional function of the federal government is national defense, bar none. I believe we try the terrorists captured on the battlefield in military tribunals at GITMO. I do not believe in trying them in civilian court. I believe that when we must fight, we declare war as the Constitution mandates and we fight to win. That we fight only under US Commander and not the UN.

I believe that defending this country is the primary and most important Constitutional function of our federal government.”

Editor: My God, where do I start? (a) “National defense” is not invading other nations or having military bases in over 130 other countries. (b) People defending their own countries are not terrorists. America invaded THEM. (c) When has the US actually needed to defend its own borders since 1812? Rand, you’ve drunk deeply of the neocon Kool-Aid. (d) Tea Party member love guys who love the military, and you’re their guy. (e) GITMO is one of the blackest marks on the American character since Japanese-American internment during WWII. By supporting GITMO, you also support torture, since torture is a daily functional tool at GITMO. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Rand on Energy Policy: “As Senator, the only question I will consider is whether government involvement is the most efficient approach to energy innovation. I will vote to cut taxes and lift regulations on companies developing new sources of energy.”

Editor: The only question you should consider is how quickly you can sponsor legislation to dissolve the Department of Energy, Rand. Washington has no Constitutional authority to regulate the exploration and production of any type of energy whatsoever. It is usurpation of state sovereignty. Did you miss that when last you read the Constitution?

Rand on Sovereignty: “We are a nation of laws. Our allegiance to foreign institutions sacrifices our autonomy as a nation by transferring our legal authority to unelected and unaccountable leaders. Our fiscal, trade, and monetary policy should be in the hands and best interest of ‘We the People.’ The US Government must answer only to the Constitution and the citizens protected by it.

Editor: We started as a “nation” of states. Now we are a nation governed by elected and unaccountable “leaders”…a position to which you wish to attain. The US government should be tightly controlled by the states and operate within the strictures of the Constitution. Even better would be the states simply opting out of “the Union” and becoming sovereign nations themselves. But Dr. Paul wants to be a part of the criminal element of Washington, not a state patriot. Remember, the moment Rand is elected and sworn in, he gets his paycheck from Washington, not Kentucky.

Rand on Inflation: “Dr. Paul will demand far greater transparency and accountability from the Federal Reserve, whose monetary policy has devalued our Dollar by approximately 95% since its inception in 1913. By restoring fiscal responsibility and honest monetary policy, we can regain our financial independence from China and other foreign lenders. Rand will fight to strengthen the value of our Dollar so our purchasing power is not destroyed by the sneakiest tax of all: inflation.”

Editor: Like the Federal Reserve item above, Rand…you need to dissolve the Federal Reserve’s authority to print money and manage monetary policy. Who cares about accountability? Get rid of the counterfeiters! And another thing…China holds $877 billion in US debt, and Japan holds $769 billion. “Transparency” at the Fed is not going to pay off the total American debt load of over $14 TRILLION that many experts say can never be repaid, even if the IRS collected 100% of the income from all Americans for years into the future.

Rand on Campaign Finance: “I propose mandating a clause in all federal contracts over $1 million that requires the recipient to pledge not to lobby government or contribute to campaigns during the terms of the contract. Companies that have willingly entered the public sphere by taking taxpayer funds should not be allowed to use part of that money to secure more funds.

But this proposal is only part of the answer. While it is important to cut down on the demand for lobbyists, the supply side is even more important. Washington, D.C. has a supply of money and power that it can dole out to the highest bidder. As long as this golden goose exists, people will find ways to take advantage of it. The problem is not the abuse of power, but rather the power to abuse.

The only answer to that problem is for Congress to reduce severely the size and scope of the federal government, so that the market is allowed to operate according to the free forces of a laissez-faire economy. Regulations, price controls, and political cronyism only distort the economy, foster corruption, and decrease our wealth as a nation.”

Editor: Forget campaign finance, Rand. That’s the least of your worries. Besides, you’re not going to change anything as a freshman Senator. DC does not have a “supply of money” of its own. DC plunders the American taxpayers and then prints fiat money or borrows money to make up the difference. Concentrate on forcing the Federal Government to only spend money on Constitutional things. Better yet, lead Kentucky to draft a Declaration of Independence and Ordinance of Secession and leave the Federal Government altogether. That would solve all the problems you naively enumerate at the Federal level.

Dr. Rand Paul may become the next Senator from Kentucky, but he will not lead Kentuckians into more individual liberty. He will be just like all the other Senators…receiving lobbyist funds, raising campaign cash for himself and others, and presiding over the last days of The United States of America.

Isn’t it amazing, friends? There is still a long line of people at the employment office of the USS United States…eager to be an employee on the last voyage of the ship as it sinks.

Secession…not new Senators…is the hope for humanity. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

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

Tom DiLorenzo on Secession

May 22, 2010

by Scott Smith

(Editor’s Note: I met Tom at a Campaign For Liberty convention in Atlanta in January 2010. We are both contributing writers for, so we instantly hit it off. He and I sat together in many sessions. Tom is a delightful gentleman with a warm smile, a quick wit and a brilliant mind.)

The Daily Bell is pleased to present an exclusive interview with Thomas DiLorenzo.

Daily Bell: You’re prolific and widely read. So please excuse the repetition of our questions. Tell us a little bit about your background and how you became interested in economics.

Thomas DiLorenzo: I was an economics major at Westminster College in New Wilmington, Pennsylvania, where in my first semester the professor used as a “supplementary text” a little book of essays on current economic events by Milton Friedman. They were a collection of Friedman’s Newsweek magazine columns, which he wrote in the 1970s. I loved how he used economics to explain just about everything about the economic world and economic policy. I also admired his very persuasive writing and speaking styles, and spent years in school trying to emulate it (and that of others who had similar talents). I also discovered The Freeman magazine, published by the Foundation for Economic Education, while a freshman in college, and reading through the back issues introduced me to the whole classical liberal tradition of scholarship, especially the free-market economists like Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Israel Kirzner, Friedman, and others. I earned a Ph.D. in economics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, where one of my professors was James M. Buchanan, who won the Nobel Prize in economics for being one of the founders of the “Public Choice” School, which uses economic theory and methodology to analyze politics and political institutions. One of the textbooks I used in my first semester at VPI was Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. That course was my real introduction to Austrian economics, which I then pursued mostly on my own.

Daily Bell: You’re a valued member of the Mises Institute. When did you join?

Thomas DiLorenzo: When I was an assistant professor of economics at George Mason University in the early 1980s I received a flyer in the mail from Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell announcing the creation of the Mises Institute. I sent them a check for $35, which I suppose made me a “member.” I soon began sending them articles for their monthly publication, The Free Market, and presented papers at some of the early Mises Institute conferences. I’ve been teaching at the week-long Mises University that is held every summer for almost twenty years now. In short, I’ve been associated with the Mises Institute from its very beginning.

Daily Bell: How did you arrive at your insights about Lincoln? Explain, in a short summary if you can, what they are.

Thomas DiLorenzo: As for my research and publications on Lincoln, Civil War history was a hobby of mine for years, and I began thinking about how I could combine my profession, economics, with my hobby and get a few things published. I was struck by the fact that for his entire adult political life Lincoln was almost exclusively devoted to Hamiltonian mercantilism – high protectionist tariffs, other forms of corporate welfare, a central bank modeled after the Bank of England to pay for it all, and political patronage and matching politics. It made no sense at all that his ascendancy to the presidency had nothing to do with these issues, as America’s court historians say, or that these issues had nothing to do with the reason for the war. In fact, in his first inaugural address he literally threatened “invasion” and “bloodshed” (his exact words) if the Southern states that had seceded refused to continue to pay the federal tariff on imports, the average rate of which had just been doubled two days earlier. The entire agenda of Hamiltonian mercantilism was put into place during the Lincoln administration – along with the first income tax, the first military conscription law, and the creation of the internal revenue bureaucracy, among other monstrosities.

Daily Bell: You write about Lincoln from an economic perspective. Shouldn’t more history be written this way? It seems a natural marriage.

Thomas DiLorenzo: Most historians generally know nothing at all about economics, but that doesn’t stop them from writing book after book on economic topics, including the economics of the Civil War. There are a lot of books out there in university libraries that contain the facts about Lincoln, but these facts rarely make it into the textbooks that American children use. Education is dominated by the state, after all, and the state only criticizes past politicians who were not sufficiently statist (like Warren Harding, for instance). Being an economist and a libertarian gives one a very different lens with which to look at this information. Historians simply don’t understand the importance of how the American political economy was transformed by the Lincoln regime, and most of them are rather buffoonish, excuse-making court historians when it comes to Lincoln who is, after all, the face and image of the American empire.

Daily Bell: Was it difficult to write a revisionist history about Lincoln?

Thomas DiLorenzo: As a libertarian, I saw it as my duty to spread the truth about what a horrific tyrant Lincoln was, with his illegal suspension of Habeas Corpus and the imprisonment of tens of thousands of political dissenters in the North; his shutting down of over 300 opposition newspapers; his deportation of the leader of the congressional opposition, Democratic Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio; and his purposeful waging of total war on civilians. He destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers and destroyed the system of federalism that was the hallmark of the original constitution by using military force to “prove” that nullification and secession were illegal. Might makes right. Unlike England, Spain, France, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, and other countries that ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century, Lincoln used the slaves as political pawns in a war that both he and the U.S. Congress declared to the world in 1861 was being waged for one reason only: to “save the union.” But as I said, he really destroyed the voluntary union of the founders.

Daily Bell: Was the Civil War popular in the North? What did people think of Lincoln in his day?

Thomas DiLorenzo: Lincoln was immensely unpopular during his time. How could he not have been, with having imprisoned tens of thousands of people in the North without any due process, shutting down hundreds of newspapers, handing thousands of Northern men death sentences in the form of military conscription, and generally ruling as a tyrant. Even with the South out of the union he only won the 1864 election with 55% of the vote, and that was after federal troops were used to rig the elections by intimidating Democratic voters at the polling places.

The Civil War was immensely unpopular in the North. That’s why Lincoln had to imprison so many dissenters and shut down most of the opposition press. It’s also why he resorted to the slavery of military conscription. There were draft riots in New York City and elsewhere. In the July, 1863 New York City draft riots Lincoln sent 15,000 troops who fired into the crowds, killing hundreds in the streets. Entire regiments of Union Army soldiers deserted on the eve of battle again and again, and tens of thousands – probably more – deserted.

Slavery could have been ended peacefully as all other nations did – and as the Northern states did – in the nineteenth century. There were still slaves in New York City as late as 1853. The real purpose of the war was to end once and for all the ability of American citizens to control the federal government by possessing the powers given to them by the Tenth Amendment, including the power of nullifying unconstitutional federal laws, and secession or the threat of secession. Thomas Jefferson believed that the Tenth Amendment was the cornerstone of the Constitution. Lincoln, who was the political son of Jefferson’s nemesis, Alexander Hamilton, removed that cornerstone by orchestrating the murder of some 350,000 fellow American citizens, including more than 50,000 civilians according to historian James McPherson.

Jefferson’s dream of an “empire of liberty” was ended once and for all, and America was on the road to becoming just another corrupt, mercantilist empire like the British and Spanish empires.

Daily Bell: We notice that municipal corruption began right after the Civil War. Were eruptions such as Tammany Hall mere coincidences or a symptom of something deeper?

Thomas DiLorenzo: It was no mere coincidence that the post-war Grant administration became notorious for political corruption associated with the government subsidization of the transcontinental railroads. American politicians had debated the constitutionality of granting taxpayer-financed subsidies to corporations ever since 1789. The biggest opposition to the subsidies came from the South: presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Tyler all opposed them, or insisted that the Constitution be amended first to permit them. Northern politicians were always the biggest supporters of corporate welfare.

Daily Bell: Did the Civil War mark the end of the US as a republic and the beginning of the US as an empire?

Thomas DiLorenzo: In The Real Lincoln I quote the historian Leonard P. Curry as saying that after the war there were no longer any “constitutional scruples” about squandering taxpayers’ money on corporate boondoggles. The railroads were only the beginning of what is on display today with multi-trillion dollar bailouts of Wall Street, General Motors and Chrysler, and even now the Greek banks (which Wall Street must be heavily invested in).

Daily Bell: Did British and European bankers secretly back the North during the Civil War even though the perception was that Britain was sympathetic to the South?

Thomas DiLorenzo: There was no secret conspiracy of British bankers to support the Lincoln regime. The Lincoln administration financed the war with tax revenue, the printing of “Greenbacks” (which created massive inflation), and borrowing, including borrowing from European bankers. It was all out in the open. This is how governments always finance wars.

Daily Bell: Why didn’t the South just stand down? There’s a theory that if the South had simply declared its independence and walked away that there would not have been much the North could do. Why did the South willingly embark on a shooing war?

Thomas DiLorenzo: The South did not “embark on a shooting war’” Lincoln did. The states were sovereign, and therefore had a right to secede, as they do today. Article 7 of the Constitution proves this by stating that the Constitution is to be ratified by political conventions of the states. No human being was harmed, let alone killed during the bombing of Fort Sumter. South Carolinians considered the fort to be their property, paid for with their tax dollars, and erected for their protection. Lincoln responded to Fort Sumter with a full-scale invasion of all the Southern states that ended up killing some 350,000 Southerners. For this he is hailed as “a great statesman” by our court historians.

Daily Bell: Still, there are those who believe it was a mistake for the South to have initiated hostilities at all.

Thomas DiLorenzo: Lincoln had sent warships to Charleston Harbor, and successfully duped the South Carolinians into foolishly firing on the fort. Afterwards, Lincoln wrote a letter of thanks and congratulation to his naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in getting the war started in this way. It was the biggest political miscalculation in American history: Lincoln (and many other Northerners) believed the war would be relatively bloodless and last only a few weeks or months.

Daily Bell: It was a terrible tragedy and still evokes strong emotions today. Have you brought anyone in mainstream academia over to your side?

Thomas DiLorenzo: There are many American academics who have thanked me for writing my books on Lincoln, and they are using them in their classrooms. But the “Lincoln Cult,” as I call it, is a lost cause. These are people whose human capital is entirely wrapped up in the spinning of fairy tales and myths about Lincoln; revealing the truth about the real Lincoln destroys their life’s work, so I am not the least bit concerned about persuading any of them. My books are written for the general public, students, and open-minded academics who don’t have a financial stake in maintaining the false Lincoln myths.

Daily Bell: Has American academia become at least a little more evenhanded as a result of your exposes?

Thomas DiLorenzo: The Lincoln myth has deified not only Lincoln but the American presidency in general. The poet and novelist Robert Penn Warren once wrote that the war gave the North a “treasury of virtue” because of all the myths that were fabricated after the war. In war, the victors always write the history. This false virtue has been used ever since to portray American foreign policy as benevolent, selfless, and saintly. Thus, there are many people with careers, income and wealth dependent upon the propping up of the American foreign policy establishment with the myth of “American exceptionalism.” Anything “we” do is right and just, simply because it is “we” who are doing it.

Daily Bell: Why was Lincoln assassinated? Did he break with the monetary backers of the Civil War in your opinion?

Thomas DiLorenzo: As for why Lincoln was assassinated, I suspect it was simply an act of revenge for having micromanaged the murder of hundreds of thousands of fellow American citizens from the Southern states; burning many of their cities and towns to the ground; and plundering tens of millions of dollars of private property. Southerners also knew that Lincoln had attempted to have their president, Jefferson Davis, assassinated by Union Army soldiers. (Look up “The Dahlgren Raid” on the Web).

Daily Bell: Is the US really several nations? Do states have the right to secede today?

Thomas DiLorenzo: I think secession is not only possible but necessary if any part of America is every to be considered “the land of the free” in any meaningful sense. As Thomas Jefferson said late in life, if the country becomes several different republics, “they will all be our children.” He meant that they would all still be Americans, and he wished them all well. His view of secession was the exact opposite of Lincoln’s tyrannical “pay up or die” declaration from his first inaugural address.

Daily Bell: Has the Internet helped publicize your work? Would your work have received as much attention without the Internet?

Thomas DiLorenzo: One only has to look at the Web site of the Mises Institute to see that there is a great deal of research and publication going on by scholars who are educated in Austrian economics and who consider themselves to be defenders of a free society. My friend Thomas E. Woods has published two New York Times bestsellers (The Politically-Incorrect Guide to American History, and Meltdown), and a survey of will introduce readers to such authors as Robert Higgs, Robert Murphy, and free-market/libertarian “revisionist” historians. What is being “revised” are the lies and misconceptions that plague the obsessively politically-correct history profession. Much of the writing of authors like these is on the Web, which has revolutionized the world of scholarship whereby the politically-correct “gatekeepers” of the Official Truth are routinely ignored and openly ridiculed.

Daily Bell: What other books and resources would you recommend to our readers?

Thomas DiLorenzo: My latest book project is tentatively entitled “False Virtue: The Myths that Transformed America From A Republic to an Empire.” It will be about what the federal government did with all that “virtue” after the Civil War, such as its war of extermination against the Plains Indians, subsidies to the transcontinental railroads, so-called “reconstruction,” the Spanish-American War, etc.

Daily Bell: Thank you for speaking with us. It has been most informative.

Thomas James DiLorenzo is an American economics professor at Loyola University Maryland. He is also a senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and an affiliated scholar of the League of the South Institute, the research arm of the League of the South, and the Abbeville Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Virginia Tech. DiLorenzo has authored at least ten books, including The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution – and What It Means for Americans Today, How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, From the Pilgrims to the Present, and Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe. DiLorenzo lectures widely, and is a frequent speaker at Mises Institute events.

© Copyright 2008 – 2010 Appenzeller Business Press AG (ARBP). All Rights Reserved.

Repeal and Replace: The Blindness of the GOP

March 29, 2010

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) stated that the Republican’s motto for the upcoming election cycle will be “Repeal and Replace.”

McConnell was responding to the total Republican defeat on the health care bill that was signed into law this last week. No Republicans voted for the bill, either in the House or the Senate. McConnell emphasized that the GOP will propose repeal of the new law, but then replacing the new law with legislation of its own design.

“We can do better,” he said. “We can expand access to people with pre-existing conditions. We can keep people from being kicked off their plans. We can lower costs and premiums. We can do all of these things without undermining the things we do best and without raising taxes that kill jobs in a bad economy.”

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Who wouldn’t like the Republicans if they pulled this off?

Answer: Anyone who understands that the Congress HAS NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to enact ANY legislation regarding health care.

Notice that McConnell didn’t say “Repeal…and nothing else.” Oh, Hell no. The Republicans simply want to replace the Democrat’s law with a new law of their own. And don’t be naïve to think that the GOP’s bill won’t be laden with pork, just like the present bill.

But where was the GOP all during the Bush Administration? The GOP had the Congress AND the White House. If health care was important, they had eight years to do something. Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m glad they did nothing, but their inaction wasn’t because they are philosophically opposed to health care legislation.

This is a disagreement between criminal gangs who all work for the same crime boss. There is only one political party in DC, and that is the Big Government Party. None of these elected Mafiosi (my apologies to the real Mafiosi for this insult) stand for individual liberty and property rights. They wish to be masters, and for Americans to be slaves.

(Sorry, Ron Paul. I’ll respect you when you end your Quixotic quest and go home to Texas. But for now, aren’t you just a criminal with a conscience? If I was an attorney or doctor for the Mafia, I’d still be working for criminals, wouldn’t I? Where’s the difference?)

Nullification of Federal Law will not be effective in any situation. The states do not have the power necessary to withstand Washington on even the smallest detail. States rely upon Federal dollars, and most states will cave in if DC cuts off their flow of Federal money.

The only possible, logical solution to protect individual liberty and property rights, while simultaneously throwing off the heavy chains, crushing taxation and debt of the US government, is for states to secede from the Union.

But, as you may already know from much of my previous writing, the states are no more prepared to secede than they are to nullify. All Washington has to say is a loud “BOOO!!” and most of the states will cower in fear.

We can only hope and pray that one state…just one…find their backbone and tells Washington to go straight to hell.

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

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.

A Constitutional Convention? Surely, You Jest!

March 27, 2010

by James P. Harvey

(Editor’s Note: Rob Natelson posted an article entitled Had Enough? at the Tenth Amendment Center website. My friend James P. Harvey wrote this excellent response to the Natelson proposal for a Constitutional Convention.

James has engaged Natelson and the “Tenthers” exactly where they are…still believing in a dead constitution and wanting to amend it. But the Constitutional Convention is insufficient for the task of restoring liberty in North America. I would go one step farther. I’d recommend writing a bunch of new STATE constitutions while we DumpDC. )

In consideration of the present and ever worsening condition of the people of America – many of whom are intellectually unprepared to accept what is said in this letter let alone the ramifications of another constitutional convention — let it be known that all who support this insane proposal must surely have nefarious intentions. Is that plain enough to establish my utmost opposition to this surreptitious political coup d’état?

Since Marilyn M. Barnewall said it best, let me quote this exceptional lady in an attempt to set the stage, and elucidate my position.

“Since human beings walked out of the cave, they have fought to either control their own destiny or sought the power to control the destiny of others. The “control my own destiny” group lacks the desire for power, and the “must have power” group lacks the discipline to use it wisely. Individualists who love personal freedom and accept responsibility for it know better. They become educated activists and leaders who use power wisely: for the people rather than against them.”

Only when a group of people rises up with an intellect equal to that of the founding fathers who wrote a document that kept Americans free for 250 years should a Constitutional Convention be considered. Only people with knowledge of the methods used to subjugate America, who have lived and acquired the wisdom of fifty years of experiential, productive maturity, and who have an in-depth understanding of Constitutional Law should be recruited to this group. No Kids Allowed – regardless of age – should be asked to undertake such a monumental task. Political experience is important to the process, but so too is economic understanding of the free enterprise system and how to run a business within it. The articulation skills needed to write a treatise on the necessity of clearly stated amendments understandable by the people and the Courts are required, and must be published before a Constitutional Convention is called.

Only when the above is accomplished and I am convinced there are in existence enough like-minded people in power to meet the three-quarters majority, will I lay down my opposition to a another Constitutional Convention.

In short, at this time in American history there are many outright scoundrels in Federal, State, County and City governments who have been indoctrinated in a school system (kindergarten through doctorate degrees) that teaches little about Common, Constitutional and Commercial Law – the three C’s of Citizenship. No intelligent person would ask a socialist, illiterate generation to rewrite a document created by a group of the most intelligent men who ever lived. I speak here of America’s Constitution as created by our founding fathers.

A Constitutional Congress at this time would put the most illiterate group of socialist moles ever privileged with citizenship in this Great Nation in charge of determining the fate of We, the People.

The current call for a Constitutional Convention is clearly a surreptitious attempt by those who would use linguistic gymnastics, confusion, fear, and frustration of the people to create a constitutional document which, in the end analysis, would enslave them.

When local efforts produce trustworthy State governments which communicate effectively with one another – and with the public – we will be capable of establishing a plan of action and producing trustworthy delegates. That plan of action should renew the people’s power over the federal government by States which treasure their own sovereignty. Then – and only then – should a Constitutional Convention be considered. Let us keep the horse in front of the wagon and prepare for freedom to prevail, rather than more tyranny.

James P. Harvey can be reached at:

When Will The Texas Offense Take the Field?

March 23, 2010

”The best defense is a good offense.” Vince Lombardi

I’m using a football analogy today, since football is a religion in Texas. So, this is a “come to Jesus” altar call in football parlance.

Two teams are playing in a winner-take-all game. It’s Texas versus Washington for all the marbles. The game is now in sudden-death overtime, and the clock is winding down, with no time outs available for either team.

Washington’s offense has been pushing Texas up and down the field throughout the whole game. But the Texans have mounted a mighty defensive stand here in the final stanza.

It’s time for the Texas offense to take the field.

There are a lot of actions that Head Coach/Governor Rick Perry and the Texas Legislature can do RIGHT NOW to “take the field” and start pushing back against the Washington team and win this game…once and for all.

Think about this scenario for just a moment. In this media-driven, 24/7 worldwide ocean of information and content, consider what would happen if Coach Perry called a news conference and read the following statement:

“Over the past few decades, The United States Federal Government in Washington DC has enacted law after law that taxes the citizens more, while regulating away more and more individual liberty. The passage of the Health Care legislation in Congress was the final act of tyranny to be forced upon the citizens of the state of Texas. I’m announcing that as of this date, we in the State of Texas will begin serious and solemn consideration of the sovereign act of secession from the United States of America. Within a few days, we Texans will come together in a Constitutional Convention to write a new constitution for a New Texas.

Enough is enough. To quote Sam Houston, Texas will again lift its head and stand among the nations.”

That’s all Perry needs to say. It would only take him 40 seconds if he was a slow reader.

Such a proclamation would galvanize the world media. Little else would be covered for days, perhaps weeks on all the major new outlets worldwide.

Then the Coach and the team would have to put up or shut up.

Here are ten “plays” for the Texas offense that could be run even before a Constitutional Convention was organized and gaveled to order.

1. Call an emergency session of the State Legislature to meet within 30 days with the following agenda:
2. Enact legislation that required each Texan who pays state taxes of any kind to pay the tax in gold or silver coin, or Egold.
3. Enact legislation to provide for the private minting of gold and silver coins as Texas legal tender.
4. Enact legislation that formally nullifies all Federal laws in Texas.
5. Enact legislation that strengthens the law enforcement powers of county Sheriffs in Texas, making the county Sheriff the top law enforcement officer in each county. As part of the Sheriff legislation, enact a statute that requires any Federal employee or sworn officer to obtain written authority from a county Sheriff to enforce any US Federal law upon a Texas citizen, with criminal penalties for any non-Texas officer violating the law.
6. Enact legislation that rejects the jurisdiction of any US Federal Court in matters of Texas sovereignty and nationhood.
7. Enact legislation that reorganizes the Texas Citizen Militia, comprised of all able-bodied men and women between the ages of 18 and 50. This bill would provide for immediate training and provisioning of the militia.
8. Authorize the Constitutional Convention and set the date within 90 days.
9. Draft a Texas Declaration of Independence and post it on the state’s website so that people around the world could read it before it’s delivered to Washington.
10. Draft a Texas Ordinance of Secession and post it on the state’s website so that people around the world could read it before it’s delivered to Washington.

How’s that for a sudden-death offensive series?

And what could the Washington team do in response? Breathe out threats? All that Texas is doing is “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” (from Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence 1776).

Football fans and lovers of Texas, one of these two teams is going to win. There will be no tie. Either Texas leaves The United States, or The United States turns Texas into a perpetual serfdom. There is no third option.

Who will win this game? Secession is the Hope for Mankind.

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.