State Sovereignty: America’s Final Solution to Tyranny

November 29, 2011

by Ron Holland

(Editor’s Note: It’s nice to see that some of today’s thought leaders are thinking about state sovereignty. And the reason I’m running this article today is so you can see the thought process that Mr. Holland is following. But his article presumes that the best solution is for states to remain in the Union. I have asked this question over and over: Name ONE benefit that any state enjoys as a state of the American Union. To date, no one has offered the first benefit. Secession is the only solution to Federal tyranny, and no further laws or legislation need be enacted. A seceding state need only LEAVE.)

At the end of this article is a copy of the proposed state sovereignty amendment that Ron and Donnie Kennedy are promoting as the final solution to federal abuse. They believe that anything less will only continue the course of federal supremacy and the ultimate destruction of real American liberty. I sadly agree with them.

Just following Congress, the 2012 presidential campaign and the inability of citizens to influence government policy makes it clear to every American how broken the US political system has become. A few powerful interests run the entire show and the American people are being forced down a dark road to economic destruction. History shows us that Washington is immune to conventional national political action under the present system. What can freedom loving Americans do?

• We can’t change Washington because Congress is owned and controlled by special interests.

• Neither can we take over the establishment control of either political party as the media elites can break, sideline or ignore any candidate that threatens the elite interests.

• Third party efforts at the national level are doomed to failure and an ineffective tool for promoting freedom principles when compared to the successful Ron Paul campaign effort inside the GOP.

• Finally, education, although important, is not a fast enough solution to save our nation when more than 50% of the electorate lives off the looting of taxpayers through government benefits or make-work jobs.

So do freedom advocates just give up or wait for the eventual collapse of the economy and the US political system? While this is a prevalent view in freedom circles, hyperinflation and economic collapse even if you are invested to financially benefit from this outcome is certainly not a recipe for restoring limited government and liberty to our country. Fascism and wealth confiscation are the probable result, just look at what followed the failed German Weimar Republic in the 1930’s.

There is only one effective, democratic and peaceful tool left to Americans to defend their liberties and restore the original republic of our founding fathers. It is the right of state sovereignty and nullification, so effectively explained by Tom Woods in his book Nullification: How To Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. Nullification

Many other freedom advocates have proposed nullification and state sovereignty, including the Kennedy Brothers who have developed a State Sovereignty Amendment strategy that should be launched in all 50 states. Although the elites ruling our nation have total control over the federal government and the two-party system nationally, they have neglected to extend this top-down control to the state level. This is because over the last 50 years states have become mere powerless appendages of Washington without influence – and this is an opportunity for the Freedom movement.

Americans can, of course, continue feeling important and wasting time, money and efforts on establishment candidates for Congress and presidential campaigns claiming to represent our free-market views. But if we do, we are just playing in a rigged game to keep productive Americans busy at doing nothing that matters and does not threaten those in charge.

A decentralized national movement focused state-by-state at the legislature level is the only game left for us to play if we wish to be effective. When a state or states vote to nullify a congressional bank bailout, the sovereign debt of Washington or the Fed’s dollar policy, this will attract media attention, especially uncontrolled foreign journalists and the alternative freedom media. Media coverage attracts investor and market attention and as we see today in the European sovereign debt crisis originally born on Wall Street with Goldman Sachs, markets move politicians and governments.

This is our last and final solution available to restore freedom and limited government to these United States. Following the 2012 elections – regardless of whether Romney or Obama win or which corrupt political party controls Congress – this is the only real game left in town that matters.

What do you think?

After reviewing the sample sovereignty amendment below, you can reach Ron and Donnie Kennedy on their website at http://www.kennedytwins.com. Remember, a return to state sovereignty and nullification is our last chance.

Feel free to improve on the proposed amendment and make it more appropriate for the unique needs and situation of your state, but do something now before it is too late! – Ron Holland, email: skironholland [at] yahoo.com

THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY AMENDMENT (Sample)

These United States of America are a Republic of Republics deriving its authority from the consent of the governed residing within their Sovereign State. Each Sovereign State is the agent of the people thereof. The federal government formed by the compact of the United States Constitution is the agent of the Sovereign States. Federal authority shall be supreme in all areas specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. All acts or legislation enacted pursuant to the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. The Sovereign State reserves an equal right to judge for itself as to the constitutionality of any act of the federal government.

Section I. The Sovereign State specifically reserves the right to interpose its sovereign authority between acts of the federal government and the liberties, property, and interests of the citizens of the state, thereby nullifying federal acts judged by the state to be an unwarranted infringement upon the reserved rights of the state and the people thereof.

1. State nullification of a federal act must be approved by a convention of the state.

2. Upon passage of an act of nullification, all federal authority for the enumerated and nullified act(s) shall be suspended.

3. Upon formal acceptance of nullification by three-fourths of the conventions of the states, including the original nullifying state, the enumerated federal act(s) shall be prohibited in the United States of America or its territories.

4. Upon formal rejection of nullification by three-fourths of the conventions of the states, the enumerated federal act(s) shall be presumed to be constitutional, notwithstanding any judgment of any federal or state court.

5. Until or unless there is a formal approval or rejection by the conventions of the states, the nullified federal act(s) shall remain non-operative as to the original and any additional nullifying states. A state that in its convention ratifies a particular act of nullification shall be construed to have nullified the same act as enumerated in the initiating state’s nullification.

6. No federal elected official, agent, or any individual working within or associated with any branch of the federal government may harass or attempt to harass, intimidate, or threaten a Sovereign State or the people thereof for exercising their rights under this amendment. No federal elected official, agent, or any individual working within or associated with any branch of the federal government shall attempt to influence or use their office to attempt to influence the deliberations of the people regarding the nullification of a federal act(s) or the acceptance or rejection of a nullified federal act(s).

7. Any United States military officer, non-commissioned officer or federal official or agent who carries out or attempts to carry out any order by a federal official, officer or agent to deny or hinder the people of a Sovereign State from exercising their rights under this amendment shall be subject to the offended state’s laws and may be tried accordingly. Jurisdiction in such cases is specifically denied to all federal courts, military courts, or any other court other than the courts of the offended state.

Section II. The government and people of these United States approve the principle that any people have a right to abolish the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This principle illustrates the American idea that government rests on the consent of the governed and that it is the right of a people to alter or abolish it at will whenever it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established. Therefore, the right of a Sovereign State to secede peacefully from the union voluntarily created by the compact of the Constitution is hereby specifically reserved to each state.

1. An act of secession shall be executed by a convention of the people of the state.

2. The seceded state shall appoint representatives to negotiate settlement of all debts owed the federal government, the purchase of federal properties within the Sovereign State, and the removal of federal military installations and personnel.

3. Upon acceptable arrangement for the payment of sums owed the federal government, the representatives may negotiate treaties of friendship, common defense, and commercial relations. Said treaties are subject to the same constitutional ratification as other treaties.

4. Readmission of a seceded state shall follow the same constitutional requirements as for any new state.

5. No federal elected official, agent, or any individual working within or associated with any branch of the federal government shall attempt to influence the people of the Sovereign State regarding their decision to secede from, remain with, or join this union.

6. Any United States military officer, non-commissioned officer, or federal official or agent who carries out or attempts to carry out any order by a federal official, officer, or agent to deny or hinder the people of a Sovereign State from exercising their rights under this amendment shall be subject to the offended state’s laws and may be tried accordingly. Jurisdiction in such cases is specifically denied to all federal courts, military courts, or any other court other than the courts of the offended state.

7. The inalienable right of the people of each Sovereign State to govern themselves is a right that existed before this formation of the federal government, and therefore nothing in this amendment shall be interpreted in such a manner as to deem the federal government to be the donor of the rights enumerated herein.

© Copyright 2008 – 2011 The Daily Bell. All Rights Reserved.

Advertisements

It’s The Money, Stupid

October 3, 2011

“A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.” — Howard Scott

(Editor’s note: I have written over and over and over about how secession cannot be successful without The Power of the Purse. But what you may not have noticed is that Washington is dying for EXACTLY this reason. The Washington criminal class staged a financial coup d’etat in 1913 when they gave control of the dollar to the Federal Reserve. And ever since, nearly 100 years now, Washington and its banker have been stealing from the people of the earth.

Think about this. One of the most important duties that a government has is to protect individual property rights. And money is property. The government has a moral duty to protect the value of money…whatever money is being used. The Coinage Act of 1792, specified in section 19, established the death penalty for fraud or embezzlement by officers or employees of the mint, or of debasing or making the currency to “be of less weight or value.” No further remedy need be sought than through the criminal courts and prosecuting offenders for fraud or theft.

But when the government itself commits the acts of fraud and/or theft, it’s worse since they will do it and call it lawful. To allow money to be debased is to suborn fraud or theft. To perpetrate the fraud/theft, like Washington has been doing now for nearly 100 years, should be subject to the death penalty for the perpetrators. That’s you, Washington.

The American government is going to die because they screwed up the money. IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. IT’S THE MONEY,STUPID. And it’s DC’s greed that will be its undoing. Fiat currency…the dollar…is an nonredeemable debt instrument. The dollar-based monetary system is 100% based in debt. Precious metals are money. They are 100% based in value. Redeemability provides stability, which produces predictability. THAT’S how you run an economy.

In the article following, Ron Hera of www.heraresearch.com writes about how states are beginning to seek ways they can survive in a post-dollar world. It’s almost like the states have been in a drug-induced coma, and are beginning to come back into consciousness. But we here at DumpDC applaud states like Utah. Liberty’s got to start somewhere.

U.S. States Seek to Break Financial Connection with Federal Government

Dear David,

I hope you don’t mind receiving this note. Let me say that I am not given to hyperbole. This is the most important message I have ever sent. I urge you to read it and to share it with others.

Earlier this week I attended the Utah Monetary Summit in Salt Lake City, Utah. As you may know, the state of Utah passed a Legal Tender Act earlier this year authorizing the use of federally minted gold and silver coins as money in the state of Utah. Now, legislators in other states, many of whom attended the Monetary Summit, are evaluating similar legislation.

Among other things, this means the United States is approaching a Constitutional crisis because states are beginning to financially break away from the federal government. This is no less serious than the American War of Independence or the War Between the States. The Utah Monetary Declaration (below) is a financial declaration of independence whereby states are beginning to opt out of the Federal Reserve System. A major confrontation seems inevitable.

The issues underlying this historic development include:

1. The unsound condition of large U.S. banks, which have inaccurate and crumbling balance sheets along with $250 trillion in high-risk OTC derivatives contracts;

2. The unstable nature of the U.S. and world financial systems, characterized by unworkable levels of sovereign debt and private debt and by over $600 trillion in OTC derivatives liabilities;

3. The excessive levels of federal government debt and unfunded liabilities combined with falling federal tax revenues prior to the start of the double-dip recession that began in the second half of 2011;

4. The radically inflationary monetary policies of the federal government and of the Federal Reserve, which promise high inflation or hyperinflation in the future;

5. The worsening condition of the real U.S. economy outside of large banks, multinational corporations, and Wall Street firms, where federal government bailouts and Federal Reserve monetary easing (money printing) transfer wealth from proverbial Main Street to literal Wall Street;

6. The rapidly escalating polarization of the distribution of wealth, which threatens not only the economic stability of the United States but also its social and political stability; and

7. The current, highly inflationary monetary system is plainly unfair and fundamentally immoral.

As a consequence of these grave, ongoing and growing problems, which are being largely ignored by the mainstream news media, state governments must take immediate action to ensure the functioning of local economies and of state governments, should the federal government / Federal Reserve System break down. Specifically, there is an urgent requirement for an alternative currency to the privately issued Federal Reserve Note, which is erroneously referred to as the “U.S. dollar.”

Replacing a stable form of money with ever expanding debt and inflation undermines capitalism and destroys jobs. The monopolistic monetary system of the United States today is inherently inflationary because it must continually expand in order to prevent a deflationary collapse. The underlying structure and root cause of the monetary system’s inherent and inescapable inflationary bias is the legal construction of money as debt with no direct link to real economic activity. Debt levels in the economy and bank profits are simply out of line with reality.

In addition to the unsustainable and unstable nature of such a system, an inherently inflationary monetary system destroys savings by devaluing the currency. Savings, which are the result of excess production, precisely define the term “capital.” Replacing capital with debt, while highly beneficial for banks that create money out of thin air (through lending), is a deeply flawed concept responsible for the systematic and ongoing breakdown of capitalism in America. This deep, structural problem is the absolute root cause of chronic, irremediable unemployment. As a consequence, there will be no genuine economic recovery in the U.S. and jobs will not return unless and until the monetary system is fundamentally reformed.

An ultimately more important issue is also garnering attention among state legislators, prominent (non Keynesian) economists, religious leaders, political activists and voters. Inflation, particularly if it is systematically understated by the federal government or Federal Reserve, robs savers of the proceeds of past labor and robs workers of the spending power of their wages, living standards and financial futures. Inflation robs the elderly of their retirement and robs investors of their capital by facilitating taxes on alleged gains created solely by currency debasement. Legal tender, created as debt, results in ever larger debt burdens thrust upon innocent future generations that will experience progressively lower living standards and reduced economic opportunity. Generations to come will be born into debt bondage, thus the monetary system is at the center of a profound moral crisis.

The morally and literally bankrupt nature of the current U.S. financial system is transforming America into a dog-eat-dog society where every person seeks to live at the expense of someone else rather than by producing wealth, because production is systematically stolen by the federal government and by banks through the clever device of an inflationary monetary system. The monetary system operates by exchanging fictitious “wealth” (debt based money created out of thin air by private banks) for the real wealth of borrowers, i.e., the proceeds of their labor. In effect, the monetary system is a massive scam purported to be legal but lacking any demonstrable legal authority. Specifically, there is no Constitutional or other legal basis upon which the federal government can force a private monetary monopoly on the states. In fact, the Constitution of the United States explicitly establishes the exact opposite.

The oversized banking system and federal government have grown in an unholy alliance in lock-step and now consume so much of the U.S. economy that, together, they not only pillage the real economy but threaten to kill, once and for all, what is left of the free country founded by the Declaration of Independence. The moral precedent and example set at the highest levels of the federal government and of the banking cartel is that profit, fame, success and wealth are (either directly or indirectly) rewards for immoral acts rather than for honesty in business. Moral corruption at the top–embedded in the very structure of the monetary system–has slowly spread its gangrenous effect, undermining totally the founding principles of the United States of America, enshrined in the Constitution of the United States and in the Bill of Rights. Rather than liberty, America’s legacy is fast becoming one of moral turpitude enshrined in financial injustice and oppression.

The challenge before our nation today–our moment in history–is not merely a financial or economic or political or legal / Constitutional crisis. It is also, and primarily, a moral crisis that could literally destroy the United States of America and all that it has stood for in more than two centuries. A stable society requires sound principles. A moral society requires sound money. Today, the United States of America has neither.

This message is a call to action. In the words of poet Dylan Thomas, let us say for America “Do not go gentle into that good night / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”

I am personally asking you to read the Utah Monetary Declaration (below), which I, among many others, signed on Monday evening, September 26, 2011, in the Post Chapel on the University of Utah campus at Salt Lake City, and to forward it to all, especially to your state officials. Time is of the essence. Although its duration and pace are as yet unclear, the crisis is already upon us. Please act now and do not delay.

Ron Hera

Utah Monetary Declaration

WHEREAS, money, as a medium of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of measure promotes economic activity, growth and productivity by facilitating specialization and trade, the accumulation of wealth and its long-term investment, as well as accountability in setting prices, tracking progress, and settling accounts;

WHEREAS, natural money – precious metal coin – by virtue of its inherent qualities of recognizability, measurability, uniformity, divisibility, durability, portability and scarcity has reliably retained its purchasing power, notwithstanding periodic fluctuations, over the centuries and millennia of human history, serving as an effective medium of exchange and store of value often without any governmental declaration to require, legitimize or perpetuate its adoption and operation as such;

WHEREAS, sound money, by retaining stable purchasing power over time, best serves societal needs by substantially reducing the uncertainty of inflation risk for creditors and deflation risk for debtors as well as encouraging saving and investment among the general populace and benefiting the economic zone in which it circulates by stimulating the economy and by attracting foreign capital and commerce to the region;

WHEREAS, history attests that monopolistic monetary systems frequently engender currency debasement, resulting in serious consequences such as lost purchasing power, inequitable wealth redistributions, misallocation of productive resources, and chronic unemployment, and that, as the cornerstone of a free market and society, the right to choose, whether between suppliers of goods and services, political parties and candidates, or between alternative media of exchange, effectively promotes the general welfare;

WHEREAS, for the equal protection of all people, rich and poor, the open circulation of complementary and competing currencies should be fostered and promoted by every sovereign state, including those of The United States of America pursuant to their monetary powers (expressly reserved in article 1, § 10 and in the 10th amendment of the United States Constitution) to monetize gold and silver coin as an alternative, voluntary medium of exchange, and as an effective check and balance against debasement of the national currency by the national government which is constitutionally precluded from demonetizing state legal tender, through disparate tax treatment, discriminatory regulation, the threat of suppression and seizure, or otherwise;

NOW THEREFORE, we the undersigned hereby declare and affirm that:

1. As an essential element of true liberty and of the pursuit of happiness in a free society, all people enjoy the inherent and unalienable right to lawfully acquire, hold and use as a medium of exchange whatever form or forms of money they may prefer, including especially gold and silver coin.

2. All free and sovereign states bear the moral, political and legal obligation not only to refrain from debasing their own currencies (except under the most exigent circumstances) and from erecting barriers to the unfettered circulation of monies issued under the authority of their sovereign trading partners, but also to affirmatively defend and protect against fraud, counterfeiting, uttering, passing off, embezzlement, theft or neglect by requiring full transparency and accountability of all state chartered financial institutions.

3. No tax liability nor any regulatory scheme promoting one form of money over another should apply to: (a) the holding of any form of money, in a financial institution or otherwise; (b) the exchange of one form of money for any other; or (c) the actual or imputed increase in the purchasing power of one form of money as compared to another.

4. Except in the case of governmentally assessed taxes, fees, duties, imposts, excises, dues, fines or penalties, the authority of government should never be used to compel payment of any obligation, contract or private debt in any specific form of money inconsistent with the parties’ written, verbal or implied agreement, or to frustrate the intent of contracting parties or impair contractual obligations by invalidating the application of a discount or surcharge agreed to be dependent upon the particular medium of exchange or method of payment employed.

5. The extent and composition of a person’s monetary holdings, including those on deposit with any financial institution, should not be subject to disclosure, search or seizure except upon adherence to due process safeguards such as requiring an adequate showing of probable cause to support the issuance by a court of competent jurisdiction of a lawful warrant or writ executed by legally authorized law enforcement officers.

We hereby urge business leaders, educators, members of the media, legislators, government officials as well as judicial and law enforcement officers to use their best combined efforts to reinstate and promote the legal and commercial framework necessary to establishing and maintaining well-functioning, sound monetary systems based on choice in currency.

The signatories hereto concur in the general principles expressed in the foregoing declaration notwithstanding specific reservations some may have as to how such principles should be interpreted and applied in practice.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

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


Why Texas Must Secede

June 2, 2011

by Lonestar Watchdog

(Editor’s Note: The Watchdog makes a brilliant observation about how Texas could take a TSA no-fly zone and spin it into wealth. And I can think of a hell of a lot more reasons for Texas to secede. Eventually, Texas secession will happen as a result of (a) some untenable Federal confrontation, or (b) the meltdown of the economy and the need for Texas’ very survival. But don’t look for secession to come from Austin.)

Before anyone says “we have to keep the union together. We go against secession of Texas.” These folks do not understand the people of the Lone Star State. It is about self-preservation and survival of the economic and culture legacy that sets Texas apart from the rest of the country. Many in Texas now see another reason why Texas should to declare independence. Texas has an unique culture, economy and people. Many Texans take much pride in their history from the settlement under Spanish rule to the Battle of San Jacinto that freed Texas from a tyrannical Mexican Military Dictator, General Antonio Lopez Santa Anna. This despot thought he was above the law and the Mexican constitution. His attitude oppressing the people of Texas caused Mexico lose the war trying to control the people.

Texas by its location can be more than just another republic. I can see many airlines doing transcontinental flights moving to Texas bypassing the rest of the United States if they do not have to deal with the TSA. The cost of fuel in an oil rich country would go down significantly which would benefit the airlines passing down the savings to the customers. The Tourist industry would boom because many people taking transcontinental flights might stay in Houston to go to the beach in Galveston, go to San Antonio to see the Alamo and might go to Dallas…a nice stop to enjoy a couple of days of Texas hospitality . This is just one of the benefits that will happen when Texas achieves independence. What is holding Texas back? Washington DC and the control freaks in Congress all the way to the White House.

The United States violated the Annexation treaty of 1846, which was never ratified by the US Senate. When Obama tries to confiscate the guns out of the hands of Texans or declare a siege over the skies if Texas reigned in the TSA, we could see an outcry for secession and demand for a political divorce from Washington DC. I believe Texas will do so much better on their own. As the 10th largest economy in the world and the second most populous state in America, Texas must secede for its own survival to preserve its economic and cultural heritage. Texas is tired of the Obama White House attacking the Texas economy which is very independent and insulated from the rest of the country. The Texas economy is still chugging along regardless were other states have theirs at a complete standstill.

Texas is the only state that flies its flag at equal height to the American Flag because Texas is still a Republic, not just a state. If the President keeps pushing Texas…If the State legislators ignores the will of the people…the people of Texas will make their own way to achieve independence. Texas should secede because the people are too independent-minded and serious about preserving its historical and cultural heritage. The United States is better off without Texas and Texas is better off without the Union. If Obama keeps messing with Texas like he is playing dictator, Texas could spell the end to the imperial empire in Washington. If the White House decides to try to conquer it will be the downfall of his reign. Washington is broken beyond repair.

Texas must secede for its own survival. There are no more options left.

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

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

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


If Not Now, Then When?

May 27, 2011

Austin Bowed Up…The Bully Raised His Hand…Austin Cowered

By Russell D. Longcore

Texas State Representative David Simpson (R, Longview) introduced HB 1937 and HB 1938 in the current 2011 legislative session. This bill had 56 co-sponsors.The bills together make TSA airport searches in which the genitalia is touched, a criminal offense in the State of Texas. . The bill also prohibited the installation or use of full-body scanning machines in any Texas airport. Further, the bills required that the TSA must show probable cause for any search under the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.The House vote was 138-0. Good showing sofar. Then it was taken over to the Senate, where Senator Dan Patrick read it on the floor.

But wait!

The US Department of Justice sent a letter to House Speaker Joe Strauss and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, informing them that if the bill passed and was signed into law, Justice would seek an immediate judicial injunction and emergency stay against the State of Texas. Further, the DOJ threatened to cancel or prevent flights departing from Texas airports if the TSA’s actions were impeded by Texas law.

Based ONLY upon this threat, Patrick quietly withdrew the bill and will not even be brought before the Senate for a vote.

Washington just showed Austin where the bear shit in the buckwheat.

This TSA furor is a minor issue in comparison to many other issues of liberty. I am not minimizing the facts that the TSA is violating many of the Bill of Rights amendments on a daily basis. I simply want to direct your attention to the base cowardice of the Texas Legislature.

The will of the people of Texas was thwarted. At the first sign of trouble, the solons of Austin capitulated to DC. They could not even muster enough courage to LOOK like they were going to defy Washington.

If the Texas legislature cannot muster the courage to protect the people flying out of Texas airports…which is a small percentage of the population…how will they EVER find spine enough to tackle BIG issues? Issues like border control…immigration…taxation…EPA intrusion and control…oil drilling issues…and the biggest issue of all, which is whether Texas should remain a state of the Union, or secede?

Dear Readers, this event in Austin tells you everything you need to know about Texas politicians. At the first whiff of an ill wind, they kneel. As the subtitle says, the bully merely raised his hand in a threatening manner and Austin cowered in fear. This is also the best example you could get on how Austin will behave when more serious issues between Texas and DC arise.

The spirit of San Jacinto, Goliad, Gonzales and the Alamo is only found in Austin in murals and statuary. The politician’s disease of “go along to get along” has immunized them from catching a full-blown case of courage. There is no tyranny, no insult, no power grab, no Federal intrusion into Texas so foul that the politicians of Austin will not cravenly accept it.

If Austin cannot bring itself to challenge one of the three-letter Federal departments, there is no way in hell below or heaven above that Austin politicians will EVER consider secession and Texas nationhood. But we here at DumpDC don’t expect that the Texas politicians would act any other way NOW. The only thing that will change the Austin politicians is the collapse of the American economy and the hyperinflation and chaos that will follow.

So, if not now, then when? ONLY after the global economic meltdown.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong about all this. It’s happened before.

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

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

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


The Bureaucracies That Marijuana Feeds

March 31, 2011

By Chuck And Tim Baldwin
Chuck Baldwin Live

(Editor’s Note: Chuck and Tim Baldwin making a case for the legalization of marijuana? I guess anything’s now possible. If these fine men can embrace the concept of individual liberty as it relates to the substances that grown-ups ingest, then can you readers embrace the concepts of individual liberty and property rights in the act of secession?)

On March 14, 2011, federal police agencies raided scores of
marijuana-related businesses in a number of states–including my home State of Montana. Hundreds of people were detained, put in handcuffs, and their property seized. To my knowledge, however, only a handful has actually been arrested (at least in Montana).

Montana is one of several states in the union that has legalized
marijuana for medical purposes. This was accomplished with
overwhelming support from the Montana citizenry via a ballot
initiative back in 2004. However, the feds view marijuana as an
illegal drug, and seem hell-bent in forcing states such as Montana to
submit to its dictation–regardless of what the will of the people
within the states might be.

Ever since Appomattox Court House, states have been bullied into
believing that their authority is subordinate, and, yes, inferior, to
federal law. Big Government lawyers cite the US Constitution, Article.
VI. Paragraph. 2. to justify their despotism. It reads, “This
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of
the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.”

This paragraph of the Constitution has been construed to mean that
the federal government may dictate any law to the states and the
states have no right to resist. THIS IS NOT TRUE! Notice carefully
what the Constitution says: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the
United States WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” (Emphasis added)

This means that any federal law that is NOT “made in Pursuance
thereof” or otherwise does not comport with the Constitution is NOT
the “supreme Law of the Land.” Furthermore, it is the states that are
the final authority over what is and is not lawful within their
respective borders! This is the clear understanding of America’s
founders, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who wrote the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, drafted in 1798 and 1799, in
response to the egregiously unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts.

In the next place, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution plainly
states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.”

And nowhere does the US Constitution assign local and State law
enforcement responsibility to the federal government. Nowhere!
Meaning: law enforcement is clearly and plainly the responsibility of
State and local government–not the federal government!

Pray tell, what are states doing, when they submit to the usurpation
of State power and authority by accompanying and facilitating federal
encroachment, be it the enforcement of marijuana laws–or any other
laws, for that matter? Accordingly, Montana’s Attorney General Steve
Bullock should be removed from office for allowing the citizens of
Montana to be subjected to this federal overreach!

But there is much more at stake here than the alleged misuse of
medical marijuana! The feds’ “war on drugs” has inflicted as much
damage to constitutional governance and individual liberty than just
about anything I can think of. At this point, my constitutional
attorney son, Tim Baldwin, picks up the column.

For almost 100 years in the United States, countless resources have
been spent feeding–oops–I mean, “fighting” the “war on
drugs”, specifically marijuana. Before that time, marijuana was
largely acceptable and viewed as inherently valuable throughout the
world. Today, medical science seems to support its use for certain
purposes–not to mention whatever social uses for which some may
advocate its use. However, since 1937, Congress has deemed that
marijuana has absolutely no medical benefit and purpose and made
anyone who possesses it subject to extreme criminal penalty. The
history behind Congress’ enactment is quite suspect, and the “war
on marijuana” deserves objective attention.

Despite Congress’ labeling marijuana as a dangerous drug without
any medical use and with a high potential for abuse, fifteen states in
the union (the last I looked) have declared otherwise. So, what
insistent force keeps Congress from removing marijuana from CSA’s
Schedule 1? Answered by historical comparison, Dwight D.
Eisenhower’s reference in 1960 to the military-industrial complex
should have included the marijuana-bureaucracy complex created by this “war on marijuana”. As a limited point of illustration, consider
the mass raids which took place on March 14, 2011, throughout Montana by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies–spearheaded of course by federal agencies, with the state and local agencies acting as tagalongs.

On March 15, 2011, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ)
released a written press statement regarding the numerous and
simultaneous raids which took place in the great state of Montana–one
of the several states which has declared by law that marijuana in fact
has medical value and is lawful to use as such. In this statement, the
DOJ listed the number of law enforcement agencies involved in the
raids. The following is an excerpt from that public statement,
indicating at least how many agencies where involved:

“The Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations, the Internal
Revenue Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Environmental
Protection Agency-Criminal Investigation Division, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection-Border Patrol, and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration. These federal agencies were assisted by the
Montana Division of Criminal Investigations, and local High Intensity
Drug Trafficking Area task forces, the Northwest Drug Task Force, the
Kalispell Police Department, the Flathead County Sheriff’s Office,
the Missoula Police Department, the Missoula County Sheriff’s
Office, the Missoula High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Task
Force, the Great Falls Police Department, the Cascade County
Sheriff’s Office, the Central Montana Drug Task Force, the Billings
Police Department, the Yellowstone County Sheriff’s Office, the
Eastern Montana High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Task
Force, the Dillon Police Department, the Beaverhead County Sheriff’s
Office, the Park County Sheriff’s Office, the Bozeman Police
Department, the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office, the Missouri River
Drug Task Force, the Helena Police Department, the Lewis & Clark
Sheriff’s Office, and the Eastern Montana Drug Task Force-Miles
City” (U.S. Department of Justice, Michael W. Cotter, United States
Attorney, District of Montana, News Advisory, March 15, 2011).

Did you get all that?! It would take some people shorter time to read
a chapter in the Bible than it would to read this list of agencies
supposedly pursuing “criminal enterprises that have violated the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) related to marijuana.” Ibid.

So, how many government agents were involved within those departments who were paid in that pursuance? How many government staff members or private contractors were involved to assist those investigations? How many high-dollar pieces of equipment and surveillance were paid for and used in those investigations? How many clerks will be needed to keep the public record files? How many pieces of paper will be printed? How many prosecutors will be paid to prosecute and judges paid to adjudicate these man-made crimes? How many public defenders will be needed to defend them? How many jail personnel are employed to make sure these “criminals” reside in jail? How many food dispensaries are paid to deliver food to these same inmates? How many fees and fines are collected from the defendants and paid to the various governments as mandated by statute? How many drug rehabilitation programs are funded by tax dollars to “treat” these “drug addicts”? How many lobbyists are paid to use such statistics to show why more taxes are needed to sustain these criminal-pursuing operations? How many tax dollars were and will be used to pay for every person and everything involved, directly or indirectly, in this “war”? The numbers would undoubtedly rise into the billions. Can anyone say job security or economic stimulation?

Drawing from my own personal experience, I see the absurdity of the
“war on marijuana”. During my time as a prosecutor at the Florida
State Attorney’s Office from 2004 to 2006 where I handled literally
thousands of criminal cases and tried nearly 60 jury trials, I was
never impressed that marijuana was the cause of any criminal activity.
Oh sure, possession of marijuana charges comprised a large number of
my criminal cases; but the criminal act was merely the man-made law of possession of marijuana. In fact, most criminal activities were in
large part caused by alcohol, where one who consumed too much alcohol became violent; beat his wife; neglected his children; drove drunk and hurt someone; caused a disturbance of the peace; or other similar evils. I saw those alcohol-related cases every day. Yet, I cannot say the same regarding marijuana. I would estimate that of the thousands of cases I handled, at least half (if not more) were a direct cause of alcohol consumption or addiction. Yet, alcohol is legal and marijuana is illegal.

In truth, about the only reason anyone can advocate for not treating
alcohol in the same legal manner as marijuana is that “alcohol is
too much ingrained into societal norms.” Try to convince an
inquiring child on that logic: it will not stand. This logic of course
is even more disturbing considering the harsh penalties carried with
marijuana laws where lives are destroyed by government action. Perhaps too many politicians love their alcohol too much to make it a target of reprisal.

Still, there must be a target to perpetuate the bureaucracy and
marijuana appears to be that target. Even more disturbing in the
scenario is that the States cater to the federal government’s
manipulation on the matter, making any and all activities relating to
marijuana illegal. To suppress that “evil of marijuana”, varieties
of government create pyramids of law enforcement agencies for the
large purpose of arresting persons acting in relation to marijuana,
and the ball of revenue generation rolls through the course of
government and social programs. But how else will government power,
size and control increase unless it has a “war” to wage?

Copyright 2011 Chuck Baldwin.


Secession, State Banks And The Power Of The Purse

March 28, 2011

Decentralizing The Centralized Power Of The Federal Reserve

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
News With Views.com

“It is time to declare economic sovereignty from the multinational banks that are responsible for much of our current economic crisis. Every year we ship over a billion dollars in Oregon taxpayer dollars to out-of-state and multinational banks in the form of deposits, only to see that money invested elsewhere. It’s time to put our money to work for Oregonians.” — Bill Bradbury, former Oregon Senate President and Secretary of State, quoted in The Nation.

One of the hottest topics in the world of banking is State Banks. Oregon, Washington and Maryland have recently joined Illinois, Virginia, Massachusetts, California, Florida and Hawaii in evaluating the wisdom of implementing a “State Bank.” Governors of these States need to be careful because there is a great deal of disinformation on the subject suddenly appearing in a variety of places… it almost looks like a George Soros stealth attack.

States that have passed legislation involving sovereignty and the right for their State to coin its own currency, or are making trade in gold and silver lawful (as Utah just did), will have problems implementing such legislative promises until a system like the one that has been in existence for 92 years in North Dakota is created. North Dakota owns its own State Bank. Maybe that’s why, according to a recent Gallup poll, unemployment there is 3.8 percent and the job market is the best in the country (and the state’s population growth is up 5 percent). The jobless rate around the rest of the country has sky-rocketed and high-taxes in union-dominated States like New York, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio cause lost population.

“State Banks” is a tricky topic for even experienced bankers because the response often is: “We’ve had state-chartered banks in our state for a hundred years.” And, they have.

A State Bank and a state-chartered bank are quite different. The only State in this country that has a State-owned bank is North Dakota – and it has 92 years of successful experience. In the middle of one of the worst economic downturns in American history, the Bank of North Dakota in 2009 helped the State of North Dakota generate the largest budget surplus in that State’s history.

Because North Dakota owns its own banking system, it has been able to target-market its loan programs to fit the needs of local borrowers rather than being forced to abide by the “one size fits all” views of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and other federal regulators. It has also been able to maintain control over its real estate markets and escape much of the foreclosure treachery that seems so prevalent in the rest of America. Indeed, Bank of North Dakota (BND) doesn’t need the services of the FDIC because the State insures the funds of North Dakota depositors. Thus, when too big to jail banksters make stupid loans, the people of North Dakota don’t feel the pinch that results. They have their own State Deposit Insurance Corporation (SDIC). They have no need for the FDIC. Any independent bank that has been audited by the FDIC in the past two years understands the mischief these folks can create in an otherwise good, sound bank.

One of the primary advantages of a State Bank is that profits go to State Treasurers, not the federal government. The concept keeps taxpayers’ money working within the State in which it is generated. Property taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes and all fees for services go to the State Bank. Right now, tax revenues from other States go into an account’ held by the Bank of America which makes money off of our taxes. And I wouldn’t suggest that the Bank of America is the safest place for your money or mine.

Bank of North Dakota keeps the money inside that State and the profits – the Bank paid 30 percent of its income to the ND State Treasurer – help reduce tax burdens. The profits from the bank are returned to its shareholders: the people of the State of North Dakota.

How does a State Bank function?

Perhaps the simplest way to describe State Banks is to say they are a mini-Federal Reserve and a mini-FDIC. A State Bank can perform all of the same functions the Fed does: check clearing, monetary policy (for the State rather than the Nation), etc. At the moment, the Bank of North Dakota uses the Fed’s check clearing and other services. The point is, it doesn’t have to; it has alternatives.

Just as the Captains and the Kings of the federal financial world approve or deny bank charters across the nation, a State Bank approves or denies State Bank Charters. A State-owned bank doesn’t mean the State is running the banking system in lieu of independent banks. Quite the contrary is true. The State approves Bank Charters for the independent businessmen and women who run local banks in their communities. The State, not the federal government, audits the banks. The individual banks remain independent… they must comply with State laws just as banks in the other 49 states must comply with federal laws, but they are individually-owned, independent banks.

What happens to the big banks that are currently chartered to do business in States other than North Dakota?

The big banks keep doing business. They are merely chartered by the federal authorities, not the State authorities. A bank may not be chartered by both. A bank that carries the name “First National Bank” is, generally, going to be chartered by the feds. A bank that carries the name “First Colorado Bank” will likely be chartered by the State of Colorado.

And therein is a point of confusion. The State of Colorado currently charters independent state banks… as do most of the other 49 states. But, since the State of Colorado does not have a banking system owned by the State, the state-chartered banks must go to the federal government for check clearing, monetary policy, deposit insurance, etc. In other words, they are tied to the federal government because the feds are the only ones that make needed services available.

That, in turn, explains why the Federal Reserve System – which is a private corporation (a cartel, like OPEC), not a federal agency – holds so much power over how business and finance are conducted in this country. It also explains why, when State Sovereignty and State Currency legislation passes, these things cannot really be achieved – if the States passing such laws do not have a State Bank before they start printing or minting their new currency, or before they declare Sovereignty.

To have a successful new currency, regardless of whether it is gold and silver or paper printed by the State and backed by resources within the State, a distribution system must be in place. What do you carry with you when you go shopping? A one-ounce gold coin worth $1,400+ these days (and the cost of gold will increase as inflation does)? How does the local grocery store make change? How does a national bank suddenly begin dealing with payments that come to it in both federal government currency (the dollar) and State currency? The questions involving everyday financial behavior are an article in their own right.

The same is true of Sovereignty. Some States have passed legislation declaring their right to declare Sovereignty from the federal government. How can they become Sovereign when they don’t have a monetary distribution system in place that is independent of the federal government? Answer: They cannot.

This is an article about State Banks and not Sovereignty, but a few things need to be made clear. To declare Sovereignty, a State must declare they are Sovereign, AND be recognized by other nations and/or states as having sufficient power and wealth to be Sovereign. Without its own system of banking, how can your State be recognized by others as Sovereign? It cannot. It is impossible.

Legislators, it seems, think their State can declare Sovereignty and continue with day-to-day business as usual. The government (which they have rejected and seceded from) will continue to let that State use its currency? I don’t think so. The government will continue to provide banking services… to clear checks and insure bank deposits? I don’t think so.

What a State-owned bank does is provide alternatives. It provides profits to the taxpayers of the State. It controls inflation because it doesn’t have to tolerate New York’s or New Jersey’s or California’s – or Wisconsin’s – irresponsible over-spending (all of which become a part of national monetary policy via the national banking system).

Probably the best way to end America’s economic crisis is to have each State implement its own State Bank. It’s the only way to provide a distribution system that benefits citizens of individual States and not money center banks in New York City (or Charlotte, NC). It’s the best way to remove the authority of the Federal Reserve System – a private corporation that makes a profit from every dollar it “lends” the U.S. Treasury (and the ‘loans’ are usually the result of faulty economic decisions of the Federal Reserve System). It’s a non-violent, civil way of getting rid of the Fed… and those elected to office at the national level don’t seem to have the stomach for it.

The Federal Reserve is nothing but a wholesaler of American money – and I don’t mean wealth, I mean money. The people hurt most by Federal Reserve decisions are the middle class and the poor. We sure haven’t seen the Wall Street banksters suffering much, have we?

How is a State Bank funded? There is a way… the money is available via existing funds identified by experts in Certified Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) published by every state… but that’s another article for another day. It would require no loans and definitely no dollars from taxation.

I do offer a word of caution.

The State Bank concept has already been identified by groups of socialists around the country as a means of giving the State the same power to commit fraudulent over-spending the federal government has enjoyed for so many years. These groups want to utilize State Banks to make “free loans” to cities and counties to build any project the cities, towns and counties want. They want to create a fiat currency like the one that has ruined our national economy. Quite simply, a “fiat currency” is one that has nothing backing it to give it value other than the federal or the State’s legal right to force taxpayers to pay for whatever amount they want to spend.

State Bank Charters must be carefully written to prevent such actions. If a State creates a paper currency, citizens must demand that the currency be backed by a commodity in which the State is rich – in Colorado, for example, uranium, oil shale, natural gas, etc.

And that, too, is another rather long article yet to be written on this subject. It’s complicated, but simple once understood. In my opinion, it is the strongest leverage Americans have to save their capitalist system and reject the slavery of socialism.

© 2011 Marilyn M. Barnewall – All Rights Reserved

——————————————————————————–

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.

Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who’s Who in America (2005-10), Who’s Who of American Women (2006-10), Who’s Who in Finance and Business (2006-10), and Who’s Who in the World (2008).


What Does History ‘Prove’?

March 20, 2011

by Butler Shaffer

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
~ Albert Einstein

We drive into the future using only our rearview mirror.
~ Marshall McLuhan

As popular respect for political systems continues to erode, you may have noticed the statists frantically trying to deflate emerging inquiries and debates on the topic of secession. Their principal argument has been the non sequitur “the American Civil War answered that question.” Such a response presumes that history expresses immutable principles that transcend time, a proposition that would at once be seen for its inherent absurdity were it applied to scientific understanding. Who was Copernicus to suggest that we live in a heliocentric universe after Ptolemy informed us of the geocentric nature of our world? Furthermore, the American Revolutionary War was premised on the right of people to secede from existing political systems; and yet the statists are not to be heard using that period as precedent for condemning Lincoln’s suppression of that principle.

If history is to be the standard for propriety in our world, would we not have to defend the principle of slavery, given that the 1857 U.S. Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. Sandford upheld the legality of the practice? And wouldn’t the fate of Joan of Arc have “answered the question” that political dissenters could be burned at the stake? Or are we, like lawyers, entitled to pick and choose the precedents that serve our particular cause, while carefully “distinguishing” other instances that don’t serve our purposes?

The intellectually dishonest nature of this highly selective use of history is revealed in the corollary practice – often engaged in by the same people – of projecting into history modern biases and attitudes, and judging our ancestors accordingly. A number of years ago – while visiting the restored Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts – I watched two college-aged women ask a guide in Puritan dress questions such as: “with all the smoke produced by their fireplaces, weren’t these people concerned about the environment?” The Puritan actress replied that they were principally concerned with staying alive in a harsh New England winter. “Ohhh,” the young moderns responded. “Did Puritan women have the same rights as men?,” was next asked. “Yes they did; they had to work from sunup to dark – just like the men – just to stay alive,” they were told. “Ohhh,” came another innocent gurgle.

It is difficult to use history to “prove” the consequences – be they good or bad – from following a given course of action. Any complex system – of which few are more complicated than mankind’s record – contains far too many variables to allow for either prediction or past explanations. Heisenberg reminded us that the observer is inseparable from what is being observed, meaning that our capacities for interpretation are difficult to separate from our prior experiences. It was this limitation that framed the questions of these college students at Plymouth, and makes the study of “chaos” both so enlightening and liberating.

We can learn much from history, particularly when we see the same patterns recurring over and over from one culture or time period to another. When free-market societies consistently outperform politically-planned systems, we are well-advised to take note of that fact. At the same time, the high correlation between large states and the war system should make us distrustful of size. But we must remain aware that the questions we ask of our ancestors reflect the backward projection of our present concerns and interests. As despicable as the practice of slavery is, we cannot grasp how ancients could regard the practice as a more humane way of treating a defeated enemy than the earlier tradition of slaughtering them. Likewise, our modern sensibilities make it difficult for us to understand how our grandparents and great-grandparents welcomed the automobile for the improvement it provided over horse-drawn carriages in the smells of urban streets.

Einstein, Heisenberg, and chaos theory, remind us that what we can know about the world often has a transitory quality to it; with doubt and uncertainty waiting offstage with previously undiscovered facts or, more profoundly, with a major improvement in the sophistication of the questions we ask of it. How we learn reminds me of driving in a blizzard, peering through a frosted windshield, watching for any signs that assure me I am still on the road. I know that I dare not stop – lest someone crash into me from behind – but must keep going forward into uncertainty.

As difficult as it is to get history to disgorge its empirical truths with mathematical certitude, such inquiries become even more pronounced when we ask about the validity of normative values and other philosophic principles. It borders on the delusional to believe that the study of history can either prove or disprove our value judgments. Using the best of historiographic methods, we can get some sense of the consequences of having followed a given course of action, but whether such effects were moral or otherwise virtuous – indeed, whether it is appropriate to even ask such questions – can only be determined by the subjective judgments of individuals.

Whether the state has any legitimacy that can rightfully bind men and women to its coercive authority, is a question that can never be foreclosed to humans by prior examples of its affirmation. No more so can the writings of Plato, or Hobbes, or Locke, or Marx, or Jefferson, or the Constitution, set the boundaries of the inquiries or expectations that free minds may consider and act upon. That Lincoln was able to mobilize the violent and destructive energies of the state to suppress the efforts of those who sought to secede, carries no more of an unalterable principle to which succeeding generations are bound, than did earlier tyrants who pillaged, decreed, and slaughtered in pursuit of their ambitions over the lives of others.

Such inquiries are not meant for our entertainment, but go to the core of what it means to be human, and what conditions are essential to our survival. When, as modern statists insist, it becomes inappropriate for the individual to question the arrangements under which society is to be conducted, mankind will have positioned itself to join the untold numbers of other species to have failed the life force’s wondrous experiment on this planet.

Butler Shaffer teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com.