States’ rights protesters rally for change at Capitol

January 20, 2010

By Mike Ward

(Editor’s Note: This event happened over the January 15th weekend.)

Al Hays said he was a longtime Republican Party precinct chair in the Houston area, cheerleading for Gov. Rick Perry and the state’s GOP leadership.

No more.

On Saturday, Hays drove to Austin to join more than 600 fellow Texans at a grass-roots State’s Rights Rally on the Capitol grounds that roused more than two hours of cheering as speaker after speaker charged up a take-back-our-country agenda.

“We stand on the cusp of a new era,” said George Scaggs, director of NewRevolutionNow, a group demanding that the Legislature pass a so-called nullification resolution to block the federal government from enacting President Barack Obama’s health care initiative and other unfunded — and what they say are unconstitutional — federal mandates.

“This is a fledgling revolution, that’s what it is.”

Added Austin resident Peggy Venable, Texas director of Americans for Prosperity, “We’re mad as hell at the direction of government and we’re willing to fight to change it.”

Businessman Adrian Murray, president of the Fort Worth 912 Project, another take-back-your-government group, said the federal government is violating the Constitution “and should be viewed as a hostile power … a clear and present danger to the people of the United States.”

“The time has come for people to rise up and defeat their anti-American, Marxist agenda,” he said of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress, as the crowd cheered.

A sign in the front of the crowd read: “Oust this regime.”

Raloph Barrera/America Statesman

With rhetoric that was at times reminiscent of Ross Perot’s third-party presidential campaign nearly two decades ago, and sometimes echoed the invective hurled during the states’ rights movement before the Civil War, speaker after speaker served up their harshest criticism of Obama and Congress.

But Perry and his GOP re-election challenger, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, and state lawmakers did not escape the anger. Other signs read: “Vote ‘Em Out,” “Perry: The Next Unemployed Texan,” Hey, Governor. It’s Time To Go!” and “Throw Out Kay Bail Out.”

When state Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, started to speak, he was initially drowned out by boos and catcalls. “He is in the system. He works for The Man,” read a large sign waved nearby by a man with a dry-erase board.

“If we were called into a special session — if — I think there’s a good chance the nullification resolution would pass,” Wentworth said after leaving the stage.

Several protestors waved large posters showing Obama in white face paint, his lips colored red \u2013 reminiscent of the Joker in ‘The Dark Knight’ with the word “Socialism” beneath. Attorney General Greg Abbott drew cheers when a speaker noted he was poised to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the so-called “Obamacare” bill.

State Reps. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, and Wayne Christian, R-Center, drew cheers with their support of the nullification resolution.

“This usurper in the office of president has been shredding our Constitution,” Berman said. “Washington is dominated by Socialists … Socialists do not believe in God. Their god is the state.”

Texans from as far away as Galveston, Harlingen, Jefferson and Midland, in groups with names such as Waco Tea Party, Houston Patriots, Austin Liberty Coalition and ACT for America, cheered themselves hoarse as they railed against Big Government for state’s rights.

“The Republican Party tried to use us, but we’re onto them now,” said Norman Shugar, 77, who drove in from outside Houston. “I was for Perry. Now, I’m for Medina.”

Some said they planned to vote for Libertarians; others said they would support Perry if he supports nullification — an unlikely possibility.

None of the gubernatorial candidates spoke. Debra Medina, a dark horse GOP challenger, was at the rally and wanted to speak — and tempers flared briefly at the end of the rally when she was not allowed to, as music was turned up to drown out her supporters. State troopers moved in briefly to help cool tensions.

But if the speakers were adamant about what they want, and what they see as wrong with federal and state government, perhaps it was the messages from the colorful display of dozens of historic Independence flags that underscored their passion the best: Come and Get It, Don’t Tread On Me. Liberty Or Death. Plus these more modern adaptations: Texas Independence Now and Secede.; 445-1712

Copyright 2010 America Statesman

Secession and Today’s Police: Friends or Foes of Liberty?

January 5, 2010

I have written much about the need for state militias. I have written hopefully about how military personnel may disobey direct orders to enforce martial law in the event of martial law being declared by Washington after some disaster or economic meltdown. But today, I’m writing about the police.

Have you noticed the many ways your local police forces have changed over the last 25 years?

Let’s start with the physical appearance of most Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs). Most of the uniformed police officers I see today are young men with military haircuts. That means that they either have shaved their heads or have a Marine Corps “high and tight” haircut. This choice of hairstyle seems to be a deliberate emulation of the active duty military personnel. It would seem that today’s LEO would rather be thought of as a soldier than a civilian.

But it’s more than just which side you want to look like. I see LEOs who dress like soldiers every day, driving cruisers and making routine traffic stops. This is a deliberate attempt by LEOs to separate themselves from the civilian world and appear threatening to the populace. The effort at civilian intimidation is not lost on this writer. I see this more in the big cities, and not so much in the rural areas. In the rural areas, the officers are still very much a part of the community they live in. But in the larger cities they are anonymous, and that’s dangerous.

Next point is LEO training. The IQ of the police recruit is not so much in question here, but the children of the government schools of the last 30 years have not been given a classical education which teaches them to think. They have been spoon-fed political correctness and a love for the government. Consequently, many of today’s LEOs know nothing of the US Constitution, do not consider the spirit of a law, but simply the letter of the law. That leaves no room for using common sense in the gray areas of human interaction as related to law enforcement.

Next point is the methods of training and tactics that modern police use. You can simply watch the evening news, and soon you’ll see a Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) team of police make an attack on a building or residence. The footage you see will be identical to the methods and tactics used by military forces in combat.

Next point is the equipment and armaments that modern police are buying and using. We have local police agencies that have armored personnel carriers, helicopters and fully automatic battle rifles. Many police department SWAT teams have designated sniper teams, trained in identical sniper methods as active duty military personnel.

And have you made note of how police show up to a demonstration, or to do crowd control? They look just like military personnel, arrayed in helmets, combat boots, dark uniforms, face shields, and carrying combat assault rifles.

There is also the matter of the ethical behavior of LEOs. There are many LEOs on police forces around the country that have committed crimes. In my own area, the Atlanta PD is considered one of the most corrupt in Georgia. Add to that corruption the Federal EEOC requirements in which certain numbers of minorities must be hired and promoted. So a toxic stew of criminals with entitlement attitudes and a badge can make for very bad police organizations from top to bottom.

Lastly is the phenomenon of the funerals for LEOs who die on the job. I consider their reactions to be out of proportion and indicative of the “us versus them” attitude of most law enforcement personnel. I recently saw the video footage of the funeral in Lakewood, Washington for four police officers killed by a gunman. Reports stated that over 20,000 LEOs attended the funeral from all over North America that featured over 2,000 police and fire vehicles.

So, when we consider the implications of secession as they relate to LEOs, we must ask:

(a) Who will the police obey, the citizens or LEOs from some other Federal alphabet agency… like FBI, ATF, DEA, DHS, CIA, DIA or US Marshalls?

(b) Obedience is different than loyalty. In the military, unit cohesion is everything. You don’t fight for your country, you fight for the other five guys in your squad. So, will the loyalty of the LEOs move toward other Law Enforcement Officers from Federal agencies, or toward their oath of service?

(c) Would LEOs be true to their Oath of Office, if that oath included swearing to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic?

(d) Would LEOs arrest a Federal LEO who was attempting to enforce US Federal law in a secession state, or against secessionist leaders?

One of the other crucial matters in 2010 America is criminal prosecution. That process usually starts with civilian interaction with a LEO. The criminal justice system is so broken now that it is difficult for a normal citizen to go through a normal day without breaking some laws. And just having a conversation with a police officer can result in your arrest and incarceration…even if you are innocent.

Please go get a cold or hot beverage, promise not to answer the phone for the next hour, and watch the following two video presentations. I promise that they will be some of the most important time you spend in this very early 2010. Then, have the rest of your family members watch the videos, especially if you have teenagers. Finally, send a copy of this article to everyone you know, so they can protect themselves from negative experiences with Law Enforcement Officers.

Professor James Duane, law professor at Regent University School of Law, with a presentation “Don’t Talk To Cops, Part One.”

Officer George Bruch of the Virginia Beach Police Department, “Don’t Talk To Cops, Part Two.”

Thanks to reader Greg Josif, who wrote to inquire into this topic.

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

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2009, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Lew Rockwell Postcast, with Gerald Celente

November 12, 2009

Depression, Secession, and Revolution

Lew Rockwell interviews Gerald Celente, legendary trend watcher, about coming events.

Listen at: The Lew Rockwell Show

State Secession: Who Will Be The Enemies Of Secession?

October 4, 2009

The secessionist movement is growing exponentially in the United States. Secessionist organizations are operating at various levels of activity in Texas, Vermont, New Hampshire, Alaska and Hawaii. Many more have passed 10th Amendment resolutions. But there are several states that are taking secession quite seriously. Texas and New Hampshire come to mind first.

Abraham Lincoln set the precedent for the issue of secession in the War of Northern Aggression. The Confederate States of America was formed by Southern states who simply wished to part company with a government that they perceived was hostile to their interests. They did not want war, they wanted a peaceful separation which was their right.

Lincoln would have none of it. And the ensuing war cost over 600,000 American lives on both sides of the conflict. Lincoln and the Union did not settle a legal point, however. They simply won a war.

There is nothing whatsoever in the US Constitution that either authorizes or prevents any state of the Union from secession. It doesn’t have to. Under the 10th Amendment, powers not specifically delegated to the United States are reserved to the states and to the people. That includes secession.

But in today’s America, there will be stiff resistance to state secession. Right now, secessionist movements are actively spreading the word about the reasons secession is a viable solution for liberty. The “powers that be” are not threatened quite yet. “Tea Parties” and grass-roots political movements today are a dime a dozen. The threat level, in a nod to the Homeland Security bunch, is Yellow.

So, once the movement gains undeniable traction in one particular state, who will begin to resist? Who will actively fight secession? Here is the short list.

1. Washington (gee ya think?). State secession would be considered a worldwide loss of face. Sure, the Soviet Union fell apart by secession. But we’re dadgum America! A state secession inside America will be intolerable to Washington. Then consider the loss of revenue to Washington if a state like Texas seceded.

2. The Media. This will be an irresistible story for the Main Stream Media…kind of like a hurricane or terrorist attack. But the MSM will oppose secession every way they can. The reasons for this are the close ties that the MSM has to the regimes in Washington and in state capitols. The built-in bias of stories will be anti-secession with few exceptions. Remember Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential candidacy. He was ignored a lot, and ridiculed a lot more.

3. Department of Homeland Security. Don’t think that these guys won’t evaluate secessionist leaders and writers as potential terrorists. I didn’t say it would be right…I’m just saying it will happen. Expect the IRS to help them.

4. FBI, CIA, and all the other spy agencies. Expect spooks to infiltrate the secessionist movements, looking for potential crazies that they can prosecute as terrorists. Expect spooks to target the leaders and try to bring them down. Expect the spooks to do “sting operations,” trying to bait people into committing crimes. Remember Waco. Remember Rick McLaren of the Republic of Texas movement, who is mouldering in the prison today at Huntsville, Texas.

5. Banks. ALL banks will oppose a gold standard and the prohibition of fractional reserve banking. They have lots of money and their very existence is threatened by secession. The lobbying will be mind-boggling.

6. State politicians. Many state politicians consider statewide elected office as the farm system for higher office. Plus elected officeholders would likely have to run for election in a new sovereign nation. They might not like that.

7. Big corporations. Business, government and banking are woven together. Businesses domiciled in the seceding state would instantly have import/export issues that they might not have currently. In addition, any corporation domiciled in an American state, like Delaware or Nevada…would instantly be a foreign corporation.

9. People currently receiving government benefits. Think of all the government money that flows to individuals – Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, rent supports, college grants and loans, mortgage guarantees…these folks won’t want to lose their benefits.

10. Trial Lawyers and the legal system. This could go either way. Lawyers might look at secession as an opportunity in a new nation. But my suspicion is that they would not favor secession. They will also lobby heavily to influence a new legal system in the new nation.

I’m sure I’m leaving out somebody, but that will make for another article.

This short list will become much less important if the secession happens after a collapse of the American financial system or the collapse of the Federal Government. If Washington doesn’t have the resources to oppose any state’s secession, it might go much smoother when a state delivers its secession document to Washington.

Time will tell. Forewarned is forearmed.

The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government)

September 26, 2009

By William Buppert

“By rendering the labor of one, the property of the other, they cherish pride, luxury, and vanity on one side; on the other, vice and servility, or hatred and revolt.”

~ James Madison

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

~ Lysander Spooner

Today, 17 September 2009, is Constitution Day. There will be paeans, abundant commentary and church-like observances of the glories of this document in making us the most blessed nation on planet earth.

This essay suggests a contrarian thesis. The Constitution is an enabling document for big government. Much like the Wizard of Oz, the man behind the curtain is a fraud. In this case, for all the sanctimonious hand-wringing and the obsequious idolatry of the parchment, it sealed the fate of our liberties and freedoms and has operated for more than 200 years as a cover for massive expansion of the tools and infrastructure of statist expansion and oppression. Among the many intellectual travels I have undertaken, this is one of the most heart-breaking I have ventured on. I want to acknowledge the compass-bearers who sent me on this journey: Kenneth W. Royce (aka Boston T. Party) and his seminal book, The Hologram Of Liberty and Kevin Gutzman’s Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. For most of the political spectrum in America, the document represents their interpretation of how to make this mortal coil paradise. Even in libertarian circles, it is taken as an article of faith the Constitution is a brilliant mechanism to enlarge liberty and keep government at bay. That is a lie.

The document was drafted in the summer of 1787 behind closed doors in tremendous secrecy because if word leaked out of the actual contents and intent, the revolution that had just concluded would have been set ablaze again. They were in a race against time and did everything in their power to ensure that the adoption took place as quickly as possible to avoid reflection and contemplation in the public square that would kill the proposal once the consequences of its agenda became apparent. They were insisting that the states ratify first and then propose amendments later. It was a political coup d’état. It was nothing less than an oligarchical coup to ensure that the moneyed interests, banksters and aristocrats could cement their positions and mimic the United Kingdom from which they had been recently divorced.

The original charter of the drafters was to pen improvements to the existing Articles OF Confederation. Instead, they chose to hijack the process and create a document which enslaved the nation. Federalist in the old parlance meant states rights and subsidiarity but the three authors of the fabled Federalist Papers supported everything but that. Their intent and commitment was to create a National government with the ability to make war on its constituent parts if these states failed to submit themselves to the central government.

As Austrian economists have discovered, bigger is not necessarily better. The brilliant and oft-dismissed Articles of Confederation (AoC) and Perpetual Union are a testament to voluntarism and cooperation through persuasion that the Constitution disposed of with its adoption. Penned in 1776 and ratified in 1781, the spirit and context of the Articles live on in the Swiss canton system and are everywhere evident in the marketplace where confederationist sentiments are practiced daily. The confederation’s design divines its mechanism from what an unfettered market does every day: voluntary cooperation, spontaneous information signals and the parts always being smarter than the sum. A “confederation” according to the Webster’s 1828 dictionary is:

1. The act of confederating; a league; a compact for mutual support; alliance; particularly of princes, nations or states.

I would advise the readership to use the 1828 Webster’s dictionary to accompany any primary source research you may undertake to understand American (& British) letters in the eighteenth century. It is the source for the contemporary lexicon. It is even available online now.


Articles of Confederation



could request states to pay taxes

has right to levy taxes on individuals


No system
of federal courts

system created to deal with issues between citizens, states

of trade

No provision
to regulate interstate trade

has right to regulate trade between states


No executive
with power. President of U.S. merely presided over Congress

branch headed by President who chooses Cabinet and has checks
on power of judiciary and legislature


needed to amend Articles

2/3 of
both houses of Congress plus 3/4 of state legislatures or
national convention

of states

Each state
received 1 vote regardless of size

house (Senate) with 2 votes; lower house (House of Representatives)
based on population

an army

could not draft troops, dependent on states to contribute

can raise an army to deal with military situations


No control
of trade between states

commerce controlled by Congress

between states

system of arbitration

court system to handle disputes


resides in states

the supreme law of the land


9/13 needed
to approve legislation

of both houses plus signature of President

Note that the precept of individual taxation was an end-run against state sovereignty from the very beginning. If the Congress does not wish to violate state sovereignty, then they will simply prey on the individuals in the states. It should be obvious that the A of C was not a recipe for government employees from top to bottom to use the office to enrich themselves so a scheme was afoot to precipitate and manufacture dissent over the present configuration of the central government apparatus which for all intents and purposes barely existed. The A of C was intolerable to a narrow panoply of interests and the Federalist Papers appeared between October 1787 and August 1788 to plead the case for a newer form of “Republic” authored by three individuals: James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton. The British had sued for peace in 1783 and the A of C were still in effect until 1790. Time was ticking to erect the new government apparatus that would strengthen the central government to eventually mimic the very tyranny which caused British North America to put the English Crown in the hazard. The Anti-Federalists rose up in response and provided what I consider one of the most splendid and eloquent defenses of small government penned in our history.

When the Constitutional Convention convened on 1787, 55 delegates came but 14 later quit as the Convention eventually abused its mandate and scrapped the “A of C” instead of revising it. The notes and proceedings of the cloistered meeting were to be secret as long as 53 years later when Madison’s edited notes were published in 1840.
The Anti-Federalist Brutus avers in Essay I in October 1787:

“But what is meant is, that the legislature of the United States are vested with the great and uncontroulable powers, of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting courts, and other general powers. And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way.”

The conflict was brewing between the Jeffersonians among the individualists and the Hamiltonian collectivists. The rhetorical lines were drawn and the fate of the nation eventually slid into the camp of the Nationalists.

George Washington wrote to John Jay on 1 August 1786:
“Many are of opinion that Congress have too frequently made use of the suppliant humble tone of requisition, in applications to the States, when they had a right to assume their imperial dignity and command obedience. Be that as it may, requisitions are a perfect nihility, where thirteen sovereign, independent, disunited States are in the habit of discussing & refusing compliance with them at their option. Requisitions are actually little better than a jest and a bye word through out the Land. If you tell the Legislatures they have violated the treaty of peace and invaded the prerogatives of the confederacy they will laugh in your face. What then is to be done? Things cannot go on in the same train forever. It is much to be feared, as you observe, that the better kind of people being disgusted with the circumstances will have their minds prepared for any revolution whatever. We are apt to run from one extreme into another. To anticipate & prevent disasterous contingencies would be the part of wisdom & patriotism.”

It appears even the much admired Washington was having none of the talk of independence and wanted a firm hand on the yoke of the states to make them obey their masters on high. Washington’s behavior in the Whiskey Rebellion cast away any doubts of the imperious behavior of the central government a mere four year after the adoption of the Constitution.

Patrick Henry gave the firmest defense of the skeptical posture when he questioned the precarious position the Constitution put to the state’s sovereignty on 5 June 1788 at the Virginia Ratifying Convention the savvy Founding Lawyers ensured that the process of ratification was sped along by bypassing the bicameral house requirements and simply asking the states to conduct ratifying conventions):

“How were the Congressional rights defined when the people of America united by a confederacy to defend their liberties and rights against the tyrannical attempts of Great-Britain? The States were not then contented with implied reservation. No, Mr. Chairman. It was expressly declared in our Confederation that every right was retained by the States respectively, which was not given up to the Government of the United States. But there is no such thing here. You therefore by a natural and unavoidable implication, give up your rights to the General Government. Your own example furnishes an argument against it. If you give up these powers, without a Bill of Rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw – A Government that has abandoned all its powers – The powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a Bill of Rights – without check, limitation, or controul. And still you have checks and guards – still you keep barriers – pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated State Government! You have a Bill of Rights to defend you against the State Government, which is bereaved of all power; and yet you have none against Congress, though in full and exclusive possession of all power! You arm yourselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity? What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong energetic Government? To that Government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real actual defect. . . ”

The Bill of Rights as we know them today were first introduced by James Madison in 1789 in response to the fears the emerging Constitution caused among the free men in these united States. They eventually came into effect on December 15, 1791. The Federalists were desperately opposed to the adoption of the Bill of Rights being insisted upon by Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and other skeptics of central governance. As Brutus again so cleverly pointed out in the Anti-Federalist papers #84:

” This will appear the more necessary, when it is considered, that not only the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof, but all treaties made, under the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the land, and supersede the Constitutions of all the States. The power to make treaties, is vested in the president, by and with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the senate. I do not find any limitation or restriction to the exercise of this power. The most important article in any Constitution may therefore be repealed, even without a legislative act. Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought.

So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the States, are wilfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage.”

The Bill of Rights nominations from the respective sovereign states originally numbered near 200 and the Founding Lawyers saw fit to include twelve (The two concerning apportionment and Congressional pay failed to pass) after much bickering especially by the most monstrous worthy of the time, Alexander Hamilton. A brilliant mind coupled with all the political knife-fighting skills needed to dominate the proceedings, Hamilton made sure that the tools of oppression and a financial yoke would be decorating our necks in perpetuity. Small solace can be taken in the aftermath of the duel between Hamilton and Burr on 11 July 1804 in that it took him close to a day to die.
Alexander Hamilton tipped his intellectual hand in a speech to the Constitutional Convention concerning the United States Senate, 06/18/1787 (quoted in the notes of Judge Yates):

“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the well-born; the other the mass of the people … turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the Government … Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy.”

I am no fan of democracy as I see it as nothing more than a transformational accommodation to tyranny over time but one can infer from this quote that Hamilton fancied a class of people more equal than others who would have a disproportionate access to the levers of power over the great unwashed. Again, I am suggesting that the Constitution was a document designed from the beginning as a means to rob constituent and subsidiary parts of sovereignty and subject these subordinate elements to a national framework which made their position subservient to the Federal government. The desire of the Federalists was to install a national framework and cement the structure through the machinations of national banking, franking of a currency and debt creation. Keep in mind that all of the nattering on about the Federal Reserve today is a complaint against a Constitutional Frankenstein monster in its fourth iteration since the other attempts at national banks failed. You can guess who picked up the tab.

The Bill of Rights was finally passed on 15 December 1791 but it was much diluted and purposefully weaker and more ambiguous about the central government’s implied and explicit powers.

The Constitution took effect on 4 March 1789 with 11 states under it and two states not submitting ratification. North Carolina did ratify it when a promise of a future Bill of Rights was assured. Rhode Island refused and was the only state to put the Constitution to a popular vote where it failed on 24 March 1788 by an 11–1 margin. They eventually ratified it.

Hamilton now had the ways and means to make real his storied dream: “A national debt if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.” The moneyed interests saw the advantage of monetizing the debt. By assuming the state’s debts at the national government level, a means of controlling commerce and taxation became an implied task of the central government. This may have been the first incident of the debtors from the Revolutionary War convincing their Hamiltonian allies that if they had the national government bear the debt and relieve them of responsibility, this could be used as the means to establish the coveted national bank to start the issuance of government currency not to mention the driver for increased taxation.

All the puzzle pieces had finally locked into place. Royce eloquently explains what has transpired in Hologram of Liberty: “To put a ‘gun’ in the hands of the new national government was the primary object, the great sine qua non, of the Constitution. A comprehensive de jure authority of Congress backed with de facto guns.” The Confederation is defeated and the long train of usurpation, centralization and tyranny leaves the station for what has become American history.

Hamilton’s machinations and influence probably single-handedly turned the product of this secret confab into one of the most successful instruments of political oppression before even the creation of the USSR. What makes it even more sublime as a tool of big government is the sophisticated propaganda and hagiographic enterprise which has both spontaneously and through careful planning suborned the public’s skepticism of the nature of the machine erected to control their behavior, which has resulted in an almost religious observance of all things Constitutional. Carefully cultivated over two hundred years, this religious idolatry had certainly fogged the thinking of this writer for most of his adult life. This sleeper has awakened.

Ask yourself this question: have the robed government employees who read the Constitutional tea leaves for the most part defended individual liberty or have they rubber-stamped the exponential growth of power and control of the colossus that sits astride the Potomac?

“Our constitutions purport to be established by ‘the people,’ and, in theory, ‘all the people’ consent to such government as the constitutions authorize. But this consent of ‘the people’ exists only in theory. It has no existence in fact. Government is in reality established by the few; and these few assume the consent of all the rest, without any such consent being actually given.”

~ Lysander Spooner

William Buppert and his homeschooled family live in the high desert in the American Southwest. His blog is at

Copyright © 2009 by

The Texas Declaration of Independence

September 25, 2009

by Russell Longcore

I posted a revised Declaration of Independence back in May 2009. Today I have revised it yet again to serve as the Declaration of Independence for the new Republic of Texas.

I hope it provokes thought and discussion…and eventually action.

I recently began contemplating the imminent collapse of the US Federal Government. In light of the insane, unconstitutional spending of the Congress and Presidents (Bush and Obama 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.


The Republic of Texas Declaration of Independence
By Thomas Jefferson, revised by Russell D. Longcore

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 US 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.

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 sovereign Republic of Texas, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do solemnly publish and declare, that the Republic of Texas is, and of right ought to be a free and independent State; that it is absolved from all allegiance to the presently established United States Federal Government, and that all political connection between the Republic of Texas and the United States Federal Government, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that this free and independent State has 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 sovereign Republic of Texas 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 Republic of Texas do now and should immediately cease collecting and forwarding all United States Federal taxes, tariffs or fees of any and every kind to the United States Federal Government in any form whatsoever.

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.


© Copyright 2009, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


September 23, 2009

by Cary L. Wise

As a new member I stated, and dedicated myself, to do all I could for the movement to obtain Independence for the new Republic of Texas. After reading the challenge issued by the President to recruit new members, I also knew that recruiting new members one on one, is most likely the hardest thing any person will experience. I have spent 28 years recruiting companies and individuals into not only my business, but into spending hundreds of thousands of dollars with my company.

It may seem because of our passion that joining the TNM would just be a complete no-brainer. My friends, and fellow compatriots, IT IS NOT! Recruiting anyone to a cause, especially outside the accepted main stream thought process, may be the most difficult thing you will ever try. A no-brainer decision to you may be an earth-shattering decision for others.

I am going to share some thoughts on recruiting new TNM members. Without that effort and success, we cannot achieve the goals which we believe in, and which are surely, the route to our future. The future of our families, our success, our freedom, and even the leadership of the free world, might indeed hinge upon our ability to convince and bring people into our movement. Yes, it’s that serious! Take from this article what works for you and use it. Recruiting is the LIFE BLOOD of the Texas Nationalist Movement. Without it, we die, and you live under whatever D.C gives you. I hope to help all of you with my experience, but also hope to have all understand, that it is the individual, sharing his or her passion, that will ultimately make the difference!

At the end of this article I will give you an outline that hopefully will be helpful to you in the recruiting process. Carry it with you and use it. Insert what you want and disregard what does not work for you. However, the first thing to remember in recruiting, is that it ultimately, is about YOU ! YOU are the ambassador for TNM! YOU are TNM. Folks you are talking to don’t know anyone in the organization. They don’t know the formats. They don’t know the officers. They don’t know NOTHIN’! They know YOU!

If you are going to recruit someone to really think about leaving the U.S….about starting a new Republic…about changing a way of political thinking that has been in existence for 230-plus years, understand that you will rock their world! This is something they may never have heard of, or much less thought about! BE GENTLE! Also if you are going to recruit someone into a new nation, LOOK THE PART! If people are going to take you seriously, be serious about who you are! Dress the part, and act the part, of a real ambassador of a potentially new Republic.

I know we all meet friends in bars and at home, but serious recruiting is a full time job, wherever you may go! In recruiting, there is the 3 foot rule. If they are with in 3 feet of you, listen, hear what they are talking about, and begin the recruiting process when the opening arrives. To do that you must always be in the TNM AMBASSADOR MODE! If you hear people complaining about the government, that’s your opening to start a recruiting conversation. I do believe that there is plenty of that going on nowadays. Dress it up, get into the ambassador mode, and be ready wherever, and when ever, the opportunity arises!

The second rule of recruiting is to become a fantastic listener! All of us members are very passionate about our future, and the future of a Republic of Texas. Non-members are NOT THERE YET ! Our enthusiasm and passion has us ready to skewer the US and promote the new Republic in the first 2 minutes of conversation. My friends, EVERYONE OF US HAS A STORY! Let them tell theirs first! Leading questions like, “ Well, what do you think of the current economic situation” “What do you think of the bail outs”, “ What do you think of Obama”, Well what are your thoughts on how to fix things”? You see my friends, everyone will be willing to tell you exactly what their ‘HOT BUTTONS” are. They will eventually tell you exactly what you need to concentrate on to begin to recruit them!

Once you have found and discussed their hot button, and cannot answer the question you ask, which is, “So what is your solution, and what have you done about it”? You can then say, “Well I have a solution, and here is what I am doing”! Now it’s time to introduce the TNM. Folks, when it’s your turn, after careful listening, the TNM is about freedom, and liberty, and rule by the people, for the people, with equality for all. It’s OK to talk of Texas history and patriotism, but in the context of those values being the values that are right, and good, and sound. People are afraid of change, much less radical change to their thinking. Don’t scare people off up front! Once they have had an opportunity to research, study, examine, meet members, and attend a meeting, then they will become as passionate as we are. Passion breeds passion! Education and examination breeds—NEW MEMBERS!

The third rule of recruiting is be knowledgeable! If you are going to talk about the Texas and US Constitutions, KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! Nothing will trip up a recruiting effort like wrong information! Know the organization. Know the law. Know the Movement’s goals. When you don’t know, and there are many things that we don’t know yet about what and how the new Republic would look, say you don’t know! That’s what we are about! We are the founding fathers and mothers of a new Republic. Our job is to structure and form this new entity. That’s a good thing, and the potential new recruit needs to be a PART OF THAT! You can always guarantee one thing…it won’t include, or be any worse than what the new potential recruits “ HOT BUTTON” issue was.

Note: Don’t ever forget the hot button issue! So my friends, study, research, read, and arm yourselves to be true ambassadors for the future. It’s worth the effort.

To finish my friends, let me share three things. First is that if we are to be successful, everyone must recruit new members. It must be done now, and it must be done fast! We do not have a lot of time. With the federal government going the way it is, the financial collapse could come at any time. We must get ready now!! Recruit now, recruit everyday, and don’t stop until we are a Republic!

Secondly, we all have jobs, families, time requirements, etc. If you are truly serious about Texas Independence, FIND THE TIME TO RECRUIT EVERY DAY! No excuses! IT’S THAT IMPORTANT!

And third, understand human nature and recruiting. You will NOT recruit everyone you speak to. You will be rejected. You will in some cases be abused verbally. You will get depressed over rejection. You will get tired. You will want to quit.

Remember at all times, that 50% of the population reserves the right to remain ignorant, and there is nothing you can do about it! Also remember that “ Some will, Some won’t, So what! Then some “won’ts” and the uninformed will follow as they have always done.


1. Dress and conduct yourself as an ambassador for the TNM (Take this as serious as it really is)
2. Ask questions that let them tell their story
3. Listen.
4. Find their “ hot button” and focus on that
5. Be knowledgeable
6. Recruit everyday, and don’t let people get you down.


To All, good recruiting, keep the faith and the passion, and

God Bless Texas!

Cary Wise

Secession movement spreads well beyond Texas

September 21, 2009


AUSTIN — As head of the Texas Nationalist Movement, Daniel Miller of Nederland believes it’s time for the Lone Star State to sever its bond with the United States and return to the days when Texas was an independent republic.

“Independence. In our lifetime,” Miller’s organization proclaims on its Web site.

When Gov. Rick Perry suggested that some Texans might want to secede from the Union because they are fed up with the federal government, the remarks drew nationwide news coverage and became fodder for late-night comedians.

But to Texas separatists like Miller and Republican gubernatorial candidate Larry Kilgore of Mansfield, secession is no laughing matter. Nor is it exclusive to the nation’s second-largest state.

Fanned by angry contempt for Washington, secession movements have sprouted up in perhaps more than a dozen states in recent years. In Vermont, retired economics professor Thomas Naylor leads the Second Vermont Republic, a self-styled citizens network dedicated to extracting the sparsely populated New England state from “the American Empire.”

And on the other side of the continent, Northwestern separatists envision a “Republic of Cascadia” carved out of Oregon, Washington and the Canadian province of British Columbia.

While most Americans dismiss the breakaway sentiments, sociologists and political experts say they are part of a larger anti-Washington wave that is rapidly spreading across the country.

Challenging Washington

More commonplace are states’ rights movements to directly challenge federal laws, a citizen revolt that one scholar says is unparalleled in modern times. Among the actions in which states are thumbing their nose at Washington:

■ Montana and Tennessee have enacted legislation declaring that firearms made and kept within those states are beyond the authority of the federal government. Similar versions of the law, known as the Firearms Freedom Act, have been introduced in at least four other states.

■ Arizona lawmakers will let voters decide a proposed state constitutional amendment that would opt the state out of federal healthcare mandates under consideration in Congress. The amendment will be placed on the November 2010 ballot. State Rep. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix, said five other states considered similar versions of the amendment this year and at least nine others are expected to do so next year.

■ Nearly two dozen states have approved resolutions refusing to participate in the Real ID Act of 2005, which requires that driver’s licenses and state ID cards conform to federal standards. A similar resolution was introduced in the 2009 Texas Legislature but died in committee.

■ A campaign called “Bring the Guard Home” is pushing legislation in 23 states that would empower governors to recall state National Guard units from Iraq on the premise that the federal law authorizing such deployments has expired. “It’s gaining momentum, to say the least,” said Jim Draeger, program manager for Peace Action Wisconsin. He said the initiative has a respectable chance of passing the Legislature in his state.

Rising public anger over the way Washington does business has produced a growing outcry for state sovereignty and strict adherence to the 10th Amendment, which says powers not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution belong to the states.

Texas was an epicenter for this year’s “tea party” protests, in which thousands of Americans displayed their contempt for rising taxes and federal intrusion.

‘Unprecedented’ defiance

Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center in Los Angeles, a think tank that monitors states’ rights activity, said defiance of federal policy is “unprecedented” and cuts across the philosophical spectrum, ranging from staunch conservatives to anti-war activists to civil libertarians. Legislatures in 37 states, he said, have introduced state sovereignty resolutions and at least seven have passed.

Perry, who faces a hard-fought Republican primary challenge from U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, has made state sovereignty one of his signature themes. During the 2009 Legislature, he endorsed an unsuccessful resolution supporting the 10th Amendment, asserting that “our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state.”

After a tea party rally in April, Perry told reporters that secession might be on the minds of some Texans disgusted with the federal government. He later stressed that he wasn’t advocating secession, telling the Star-Telegram, “America is a great country, and Texas wants to stay in that union and help our way out of” the nation’s economic downturn.

But others are advocating secession.

In a poll of 1,209 respondents conducted by Zogby International last year, 22 percent said they believed that “any state or region” has the right to secede and become an independent republic, and 18 percent said they would support a secessionist movement in their state. Conversely, more than 70 percent expressed opposition to secession.

Kirk Sale of Mount Pleasant, S.C., formed the Middlebury Institute in 2004 for the study of “separatism, secession and self-determination.” The institute conducted the Third North American Secessionist Convention in New Hampshire in 2008, drawing delegates from about two dozen secessionist organizations in the United States and Canada.

Secessionist organizations are operating at various levels of activity in Texas, Vermont, New Hampshire, Alaska and Hawaii. Breakaway sentiments and anger at Washington also run high within the Southern National Congress, a 14-state organization to “express Southern grievances and promote Southern interests.”

Chairman Tom Moore, who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of southwest Virginia, says the group is “not explicitly a secessionist organization” although “most of our people probably do favor that option.”

For many, the mention of secession brings to mind the most turbulent years in American history, when 13 Southern states broke away from the Union in 1860 and ’61, plunging the country into a Civil War that claimed at least 618,000 lives but put an end to slavery. In contrast, modern-day secessionists stress that they advocate a peaceful departure and emphatically dismiss criticism that their organizations embrace racism and white supremacy.

“We maintain an open-door policy,” said Miller, who began forming the Texas Nationalist Movement early in the decade from the remnants of an earlier Texas independence movement. “If you’re about freedom — individual freedom — and liberty and Texas independence, we call you brother or sister.”

‘Predates Obama’

Miller says the group includes Hispanics, African-Americans, women, lifelong Democrats and union members. “We don’t argue race; we don’t argue Democrat or Republican,” he said. The movement also “predates Obama,” he said, pointing out that his organization started well before the president took office in January.

Miller, 35, said his involvement comes from a deep-rooted civic responsibility that began when he would accompany his father, a union ironworker, on the picket line. When Miller was 18, he made an unsuccessful run for mayor of White Oak, a small community outside Longview in East Texas. His call for Texas independence, he said, stems from a belief that Washington’s failures are dragging down the Lone Star State. Texas, which outpaces most other states in mineral wealth, agriculture, technology and other sectors, would be far better off as a separate country, he said.

“We currently have one of the strongest economies in the world,” said Miller, a Web-based radio entrepreneur who lives in deep Southeast Texas. “We’ve got everything we need to be, not just a viable nation, but a thriving, prosperous nation, except for one thing — independence from the United States.”

Kilgore, a telecommunications consultant in Mansfield, has made secession a high-profile theme of his Republican campaign for governor. Though overshadowed by the two dominant Republicans in the race — Perry and Hutchison — Kilgore believes his candidacy is stoking interest in secession, and vice versa. He said he gets at least a half-dozen calls and 15 e-mails each day on the issue, in addition to “all kinds of Facebook hits.”

Giving up on feds

“A lot of people have given up on the federal government,” Kilgore said. If he becomes governor, he said, he would call a constitutional convention to create a nation of Texas, with voters asked to approve a constitutional amendment to cement the process. Texas emissaries would negotiate with Washington for separation, he said, predicting that the United States and Texas could “still be friends after we split.”

From his home in Charlotte, Vt., Naylor said he also believes that his small New England state would fare much better outside what he derisively calls the “empire.”

Vermont, which, like Texas, was a republic before achieving statehood, has a population of 625,000, is the nation’s leading supplier of maple syrup and has a vibrant tourism industry. “We would not only survive,” he said, “we would thrive.”

Naylor, who describes himself as “a professional troublemaker,” grew up in Mississippi and taught economics at Duke University in North Carolina for 30 years.

During his years in the South, he said, he was “pretty much a vehement anti-secessionist” and refused to stand whenever Dixie was played. But, after moving to Vermont, he said, he began to rally against the “tyranny” of corporate America and the federal government, although he acknowledges the perceived “absurdity” of tiny Vermont rising up against the most powerful nation in the world.

“The empire has lost its moral authority. It’s unsustainable, ungovernable and unfixable,” he said. “We want out.”

Texas as a nation

After declaring independence from Mexico on March 2, 1836, Texas was an independent republic for nearly a decade before being annexed into the United States in 1845. Now some Texas secessionists believe it’s time for the state to once again become its own country. Here’s a sampling of how a modern-day Republic of Texas would compare with the rest of the world.


With 24.3 million residents, Texas would be the 47th-most-populous nation, between Saudi Arabia (25.7 million) and North Korea (24 million). It would be more populous than Greece, Belgium, Portugal and Israel.


With 261,914 square miles, it would be the 40th-largest country, behind Zambia in East Africa (290,585) and ahead of Myanmar (261,228). It would be larger than Afghanistan, France, Iraq, Germany and Vietnam.


With a gross state product of $1.24 trillion, it would rank 11th or 12th, depending on the survey, behind Canada ($1.56 trillion) and slightly ahead of India ($1.23 trillion). Its economy would be larger than that of Australia, the Netherlands, South Korea, Turkey and Poland. But it would be vastly overshadowed by its huge neighbor, the United States, which has the largest economy in the world, $14.3 trillion.


Environmental groups say Texas’ record of spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere makes it one of the world biggest polluters. Texas leads the nation with 10 percent of the total U.S. emissions and would rank seventh in the world if it were its own country, the Environmental Defense Fund said in a 2008 report.


Texas, which leads the nation in executions, would likely rank among the top 10 countries in carrying out capital punishment, joining a list that includes Iran and North Korea. The United States is also on the list, primarily because of executions in Texas. In 2008, Texas carried out 18 of the nation’s 37 executions. According to Amnesty International, the United States ranked fourth in worldwide executions in 2008 but was nowhere close to the top three: China (1,718), Iran (346) and Saudi Arabia (102). North Korea’s Stalinist regime carried out at least 15 known executions, but researchers say the number could be far greater.

How it would fare on its own

Texas, now considered one of the most prosperous states in the country, has a broad-based economy that could make it largely self-sufficient, secession advocates say. Its major products include energy, agriculture, high-tech manufacturing and tourism. Assuming friendly relations, the United States presumably would look to Texas for much of its energy needs, since the Lone Star State leads the nation in production of crude oil, natural gas and wind energy. As part of the Union, it has been the top-exporting state and would continue to ship out chemicals, computers, electronics, machinery, petroleum, coal and transportation equipment. At least one big industry — defense — could suffer if the Pentagon adhered to a rigid “buy American” policy and shunned Texas-made defense products.

Newsroom researcher Cathy Belcher contributed to this report.

Copyright 2009 Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Sources: CIA World Factbook, Texas Almanac, U.S. census, Amnesty International, United Nations



September 20, 2009

By Cary L. Wise

On the 19th of September, 2009, I made one of the most difficult decisions I have ever made as an adult. After long hours of research, and careful thought about me and my family, I joined the TEXAS NATIONALIST MOVEMENT, for the establishment of an independent REPUBLIC OF TEXAS. A new nation among the world’s nations, free of the government of the United States, and all that has come to mean. A new nation free to once again establish and follow a constitution written by the people, and for the people, that will assure the freedoms and rights as established in the original constitution of the U.S. A new nation that will be free of over two hundred years of judicial activism that has bastardized that constitution to where now no one in government pays attention to it, or in some cases even bothers, or attempts to follow it.

I have chosen to join and lead because I will not live just taking whatever Washington DC chooses is the best way for me. I will not just stand by and be denied the rights of a citizen to share and prosper as an individual because of an over burden of taxes, a denial by my country to the riches of its natural resources, because of fringe environmentalists, and the greed by some to prosper by the denial of those God given rights.

I choose not to take it anymore when it comes to politicians who can see the masses, and the masses disagree, but the masses are ignored. I’m done being silent of career politicians, whose number one priority is their own pocket book. I’m done with welfare and equal opportunity mandates that have ruined what the US was all about when it was born. I’m done with not being able to speak the truth, and if you do, you are labeled a racist, or a bigot. What happened to being able to disagree and speak what one knows to be the truth? Political correctness, that’s what happened. It has destroyed the ability of people to debate, converse, decide, and make common sense decisions based on the welfare of all involved.

Yes, I believe the US has grossly gone astray from what the founding fathers had in mind. I also believe it has gotten this way over the last 70 to 80 years, while the public was not watching, and when they began watching, the political correction of our time was too much pressure for people to bare, so we have just been quiet, and took it! I believe that the politicians in Washington are so corrupt, that they are rendered useless. My proof is when “czars” are appointed by Obama, that are functioning completely outside the constraints of Congress, and not one Congress person yells foul, unconstitutional, stop! Not one! Where is the outcry that Congress is being usurped every day, on TV, and no one says a word? Why is it we now see trillions of dollars being given away to curb a crisis that for all purposes, was started by the government?! These are not the people I choose to represent me!

So why was the decision so tough for me? I am 59 years old. All my life I have been all about the red, white and blue. I served in the Air Force for 4 years during Viet Nam. I was a flight crew member in Viet Nam. Although I hail from Texas, I spent 15 years in Michigan, serving as a state trooper in the Michigan State Police, one of the finest police organizations in the US. I have always been about law and order, and discipline, and self improvement, and taking care of yourself. I have been in business for 28 years teaching people how to be successful and how to win by always DOING WHAT IS RIGHT! I was, and have always been a patriot to my country and what it has stood for.

I have come to the sad conclusion that those ideals no longer exist as I knew them in the US. I can no longer support a government that blatantly steps on the rights, the dreams, the ambition, and the blood so many of us have spilled to maintain what we once knew was the best country in the whole world. I have traveled the world; I knew that to be true! I don’t see that anymore as corruption has spoiled that vision.

So I make my decision with a heart full of passion and belief, that the Republic of Texas can once again make that vision return. I know that Texas, and people from Texas are indeed unique. If you have ever traveled the world, or gone anywhere where you were the only Texan present, you know this to be true. We have grown up with a huge sense of state and historical pride. We have a history of straight talking and if you don’t like it here, you are damn sure welcome to leave as fast as you got here! We understand and love our tradition, our brave history, our heroes, our willingness to take a stand, and even die for it if we know it to be right! I have traveled the United States extensively. Many other people do not understand this, and they never will. They were raised differently in their home states…we are unique. That is the bond that has held Texas and Texans together forever. I understand it, and so do many here within our wonderful state.

To the Texas Nationalist Movement: I have also read all the documents, the articles, the opinions, the good and the bad, the legality of such a movement, and I am convinced that done the proper way, which is legally and through established legislative procedures, this can be accomplished. I am adamant that I do not want to fight the civil war again. I don’t want conflict with the U.S. federal government. I don’t want Texans turning on other Texans. I want the same set of circumstances that our founding fathers found themselves in. Do not stand for a tyrannical government abusing your rights! Declare your desire for independence and follow the proper procedures to do so. It is NOT against any law for the people of Texas to hold a referendum and choose independence! It violates no one’s constitution, the U.S. or Texas. If we can return our beloved Texas to one of the leading independent countries in the world, instead of being run into the ground now and for generations to come, we owe it to ourselves and our children and grand children to be the next “FOUNDING FATHERS AND MOTHERS” of a new shining light on the hill. It can be done, and it should be done!

This concept of education, and learning, and speaking of the real issues, is what will make the movement happen. I fully understand that many people are “red, white, and blue.” They do not get involved because that’s hard! They do not protest because that’s uncomfortable! They don’t want to rock anyone’s boat because their own life is still kind of OK yet.

Here is what people MUST UNDERSTAND! For 70 to 80 years, the progressives have been chipping away at the US. Now, they are in power. Look what has happened in the last 9 months alone. Connect the dots, folks. Bailouts, czars, national health care, GM, bank bailouts, headlines of a page full of new taxes, the race card being played from the WHITE HOUSE! Texans, if nothing else, things are getting even worse than they were, and they’re going faster. Whatever Obama gets from his long list of things that are happening now, will NEVER BE REVERSED! Fellow Texans, it can only, and will only get worse. Unless you are ready to give more and more of your pay away, ready to NOT be allowed some of the financial, religious, political and social freedoms we used to enjoy, you must start thinking in a reality mode.

Sticking one’s head in the sand won’t get it anymore. We must be REALISTS!! If we are not, we will wake up real soon, and wonder what the hell happened! That’s when the frustration and anger will boil over, and there might be violence. There is no need for that! Start now, plan now, prepare now, for a peaceful and legal transition into a new Republic that has term limits on politicians, laws that are clear, concise, and upheld, a foreign policy with animosity to no one, a trade policy that is good for Texas, and immigration and education policies that can again turn Texas to a world leader.

These are the reasons why I joined, and why I believe in the dream of achieving great things. It takes great people, and a great venue to achieve great things. WE HAVE BOTH!

Cary L.Wise
Hondo, Texas


September 1, 2009

We Want The Same Thing
By Darrel Mulloy in The Cypress Times

There’s a controversy brewing in Texas. It is a controversy over secession or what some are calling nullification. Some see only secession as the end to government intrusion in our lives while others more hopefully believe that the union should remain intact and that the tenth amendment can be used to force the federal government to revert back to its rightful role. Both are probably right, but for different reasons.

If one were to read the Constitution for the first time; coming here from another planet; he would probably ask why we stopped using that document. Those of us who have lived on this planet and in this nation for all or most of our lives have not seen the gradual erosion of the Constitution. In my seventy plus years on this earth, I have watched as individual freedom was chipped away little by little, and it started before I was born. There is no one alive today who can say they have lived under a truly constitutional government, even though we have not noticed how it was being changed.

Today we are witness to the fastest torturing of our Constitution that has ever taken place. While some of the previous changes have been gradual, what we are witnessing now is anything but subtle.

Glenn Beck expressed his concern in a conversation on air with Rush Limbaugh, and here is a quote from that conversation:

“I fear this government, this administration has so much framework already prepared, that they will seize power overnight before anybody even gives it a second thought.”

I mentioned above that I thought both those wanting secession and those only wanting nullification were right. How can they both be right? Those seeking to enforce the tenth amendment are right in believing that if they had the right to tell Washington to stop all legislation that is unconstitutional, or to not recognize such legislation within the state, that all would be good. But would it? If Washington is not recognizing the rest of the Constitution, why are we to believe that they would recognize the tenth amendment and not find some way to circumvent it? Nullification, or invoking the tenth amendment is a commendable goal, but not a very realistic one.

While the nullification path might work for a limited time, until Washington DC finds a way around it, secession is a permanent solution to the problems faced by all of the states. Nullification would not end the power problem that we now have with the centralized government. Secession would. If each individual state recognized that they have an unwritten right in the Constitution to declare independence, the powers in Washington DC would stop and each state would once again be the decider of its own destiny. Existing trade between individual states would not change, and neither would or should the freedom to travel from one state to another. The only thing that would change is that the power would now be back in the hands of the individual states and the people of those states.

It is going to take the total destruction of the government now in Washington DC before America can form once again. We used to be the most creative, most productive people in the world, and we can be once again, without government intrusion. Nullification might allow that to happen; secession certainly would.

I’ve said it before and I say it once again. I don’t believe Time is on our side. Each day it becomes more apparent that what we are doing here in Texas needs to be accelerated before it is halted by a totalitarian administration that is bent on total and absolute power.

What happens in Austin this weekend is of utmost importance, and it cannot be stressed enough how important it is.

Anyone who can be there should be there to give support to freedom and independence. A strong show of support for our movement will go a long way with the politicians who will be making the decision as to whether we will be allowed the right to vote for secession and to whether there is a measure passed forcing the state to adhere to the tenth amendment and tell Washington that we will no longer tolerate their unconstitutional intrusions in our lives.

While secession is the ultimate goal, we must first back the move to get a measure such as HCR50 passed to allow the state to tell Washington to stop. If that fails, I think most of Texas will agree that seeking our own independence is the only alternative.

I wish I could be with you this Saturday, and I hope there are at least 100,000 or more of you there to voice my concerns to those who will be there and plan to run to represent us next year.

God bless Texas, and may He be there with you in Austin.