Cowards And Criminals In State Government

January 26, 2016

Cowards and Criminals in State Government

by Russell Longcore

(Editor’s note: This article first ran in 2009.)

The United States was organized with a Federal structure. Under that structure the national government was supposed to have two overriding dicta: to safeguard the States from foreign invasion and domestic violence, and provide a Republican form of government to the States. (Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution)

It should have been pretty easy to protect the States. A wide ocean on the east and west, and peaceable borders on the north and south do the government’s job for them without spending a penny. So, they should have been focusing all their attention on providing the states with a Republican form of government. Instead, what we have now is a fascist police state.

I don’t think that qualifies as a Republic.

A republic is a representative democracy, as opposed to a direct democracy. The key word is “representative.” The states were supposed to be the pre-eminent players. In the beginning, the Senate chose who would be President of the USA, and the Senators were there in Washington to represent the interests of their states.

Over the past 200 years, Washington has turned the government we were promised into the government we were trying to prevent. Could any absolute monarchy or dictatorship be any worse than what we have now? King George didn’t lay on a combined tax burden nearing 50% and trillions in debt.

The states of the Union have become little more than big duchies, with a reigning Duke called a Governor, subservient geographic entities owned by Washington. For reasons too numerous to list here, the states allowed Washington to usurp nearly all of their power. The fecklessness of every state’s political leaders mocks the Constitiution’s Federal system, and has destroyed the most important checks and balances against Federal tyranny.

Make no mistake. No one truly expects the Federal Government to check and balance itself…where would be its motivation to do that? No, the final arbiters are supposed to be the states. The principals always direct the acts of an agent, and that is the proper role. States are principals and DC is the agent. But it has been turned upside down.

The states had many arrows in their quivers to control the Federal Government. One of the most effective should have been nullification. Simply put, if Washington enacts laws that the states interpret as unlawful, the states could ignore the new laws like they never happened. Today’s states are unwilling and afraid to use nullification against Washington.

Another strong arrow used to be withholding funds from Washington. But with the enactment of the income tax, that arrow was broken, and Washington takes much of the tax money directly from the people.

I say all of that about the states of the United States in general, but specifically as it relates to monetary policy in America. The US states have allowed…even empowered…Washington to destroy the monetary system of the USA through the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking.

The Federal Reserve, a consortium of PRIVATE banks, prints counterfeit currency for the Federal Government. Fractional reserve banking laws allow all the rest of the other banks to counterfeit by creating credit (money) out of thin air.

State political leaders are so clueless and visionless that they have laid down and allowed Washington to endanger the very economic security of each American state through the institutional counterfeiting of the Federal Reserve and all other American banks.

These are some of the reasons that I am not encouraged and excited to know that 39 states have passed some type of 10th Amendment resolution, thereby taking a position that they might just do something in the future, by God. The steely resolve is inspiring, isn’t it?

But where is the state legislature and Governor that will notify Washington that there is a new “nullification sheriff” in town? When will some state begin nullifying the laws coming out of Washington, and refusing to allow them to be obeyed in that state? When will a state refuse to enforce Federal legislation? When will a state slap the cuffs on a Federal law enforcement officer who is trying to enforce Federal law in a state that has nullified Federal law?

Where is that state that will be true to its origins, and allow nothing but gold and silver coin (specie) as tender in payment of debts (Article I, Section 10)?

As a beginning step, how about if a state stops tax withholding and makes the payment of state income and property taxes mandatory in gold or silver coin or electronic gold? That would begin inculcating the citizens in a small way to once again consider gold and silver coin as money. I realize this idea doesn’t work in Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming, since none of them have a state income tax. But it would work for their property taxes, and both will work everywhere else in America.

Any state could facilitate the exchange of Federal Reserve Notes for specie by making such transactions exempt from sales tax. The exchange of FRN currency for specie, which are both legal money, are in essence a “currency exchange,” no difference substantively from changing dollars to Euros, Yen or Pesos.

One of the reasons that a gold/silver monetary standard would work so well for Texas is its petroleum exports. A New Texas with a gold standard would demand gold or silver specie as the only settlement of petro and natural gas transactions from any other country.

But you see, taking a position like that would directly challenge the power of Washington and the Federal Reserve. The paper money they issue says “this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” If a state refused to accept Federal Reserve Notes for payment of state income or property taxes, they might have a fight on their hands.

A principled stand like this over money might also help repudiate the scurrilous IRS case of Robert Kahre in Nevada. Mr. Kahre is now serving a Federal prison term for paying his employees’ wages by using legal tender gold coins. Kahre was acquitted on all 161 counts of tax law violations back in 2007. But the IRS tried him again (double jeopardy, anyone?) and a jury convicted him in 2009. Keep in mind that gold and silver coins are legal tender in the United States, just like Federal Reserve notes. But no one embarrasses the IRS, and Kahre has now paid the price. His life as a free man is over.

State political leaders have no stomach and no backbone for a fight with Washington. Those American citizens in favor of state secession might look to these issues as a barometer of how their state political leaders would react to a political or economic meltdown. If a state won’t protect itself now, why should anyone believe that it will take principled stands later?

And of late, many are beating the drum for a so-called “Article Five” Constitutional Convention, wherein the US Constitution could be amended. I am diametrically opposed to a Constitutional Convention. I trust no one at either the State or Federal level to amend the Constitution.

There is craven cowardice in the halls of state government in every state in the United States of America. Legislators and state executives go along to get along. Many look at state office as a springboard to Federal office. Few serve their constituents…most serve Washington, the Federal Reserve and banking interests.

State secession would end the tyranny of DC and return the states to the status of sovereign nations.

“So that’s how liberty dies…to thunderous applause.” Princess Padme, watching the Senate in Revenge of the Sith

Copyright © 2016, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


Bankrupt US States: Why Not Secede?

July 29, 2011

by Russell D. Longcore

Many of the states in the USA are effectively bankrupt. The US Constitution does not make any provision for states to declare bankruptcy and reorganize. Nor should it. That little eventuality could be considered a Tenth Amendment issue, since all powers not delegated to USA are reserved to the states and to the people.

The states in the worst financial condition are states that have most closely mimicked Washington: Illinois, New York, Connecticut, California and New Jersey…the bluest of the blue states. They have the strongest unions and greater desires for public programs…just like DC. There are 23 states that are effectively “underwater”…that’s nearly half the country.

Click HERE to see a slideshow of the eleven states most likely to go bankrupt soon.

The sick states are required by their own constitutions to balance their annual budgets. Many have not. California has not seen a balanced budget for years. And when I say “balanced budget,” I’m not talking about a state that zeroes out its balance sheet with massive borrowing. I’m talking about operating within the strictures of the state’s tax income and nothing else.

I have read recent articles that float the idea that Washington will soon offer a Federal bailout for certain states that DC considers “too big to fail.” But is that the proper remedy? Doesn’t a bailout simply kick the can down the road? A stimulus or bail out merely ignores the underlying cause of the disease…too much spending. Every person who balances a checkbook can clearly diagnose the illness.

Unfunded Federal mandates directly affect the budgets of states. The Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act required programs to be done by the states with no Federal funding. Another example is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act that require nearly all American emergency rooms to accept any patient regardless of the patient’s ability to pay, but do not provide adequate reimbursement. And there are many more.

But remember…Washington takes the tax money from the states for all manner of do-gooder unconstitutional social engineering programs, and then sends a portion of it back to the states with all kinds of strings attached.

Also remember the challenge I have thrown out many, many times…for any person to give me just ONE benefit that any American state enjoys as a direct result of its inclusion in the United States of America. (I’m still waiting.) I contend that there is no benefit whatsoever for any state to continue in the so-called “Union.”

So if the cost for remaining a state is so high that it bankrupts you…and there is no perceivable benefit for remaining a state…WHY THE HELL STAY??

The best, most logical solution for the financial health of any American state is for it to secede from the Union. At the very moment of secession, all ties to Washington cease. All of the money that Washington takes from the state’s taxpayers stays in that state. All of the US national debt is repudiated by the citizens of that seceding state. All of the unfunded mandates disappear. All of the thousands of pages of regulation handed down over the past few decades vanishes. All of the Federal Court and Supreme Court rulings become null and void. It’s like being released from prison, stepping outside the gates and taking a deep breath of the air that other free men breathe.

Think about what would happen in California if the Federal income tax revenue did not leave the state? I’m not suggesting that it should go to Sacramento. But that gigantic amount of money staying in California would instantly increase the financial health of all individuals and businesses in The Golden State. Visualize a paycheck without Federal deductions…aaaaahhhhh!

Every State has its own constitution. Some states might have to rewrite or revise their constitution to reflect the needs of a nation. Most American states were not sovereign nations when formed, but territories that were granted statehood by acts of Congress. These states may need a new constitution.

As we all know, each seceding state would have to create a monetary system and re-create its militia. But that’s how sovereign nations have always operated.

Dear Readers, state secession solves every problem associated with or created by Washington. In addition, it creates a smaller, more manageable unit of government more closely aligned to the people it serves. And don’t forget that a republic form of government is supposed to protect property rights and individual rights. Everything else should be done by the people themselves. Yes, even police, fire, roads and courts. The free market can do it better than government.

Knowing all of these positives about secession, and knowing all the negatives about remaining a US state, why is secession not openly discussed as a viable solution for any American state? If it’s good enough for South Sudan, it’s certainly good enough for an American state.

Secession is the only 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.


Texas Nationalist Movement Finds No Leadership In Austin

March 19, 2011

or, Austin Fiddles While Texas Burns*

By Russell D. Longcore

I have written much about my friends at The Texas Nationalist Movement. The TNM is the gold standard in secessionist movements. They are the best organized and most effective secessionist organization of the 50 states. But this report will show you how even the best take their lumps in an America where few give a damn about individual liberty and property rights. Here is an update on their efforts during the current Texas legislative session.

The Texas legislature gavels to order on the first Tuesday of January of odd-numbered years and ends 140 days later. This year, they began on January 11th, and will end the session on Monday, May 30th. The last day that a new bill could be filed for consideration was March 11, 2011.

For the last two years, the TNM leadership has been diligently lobbying legislators in Austin to have one or more legislators sponsor a bill which would facilitate a statewide non-binding referendum regarding Texas independence and secession. The TNM wanted the referendum to be an up-or-down, yes-or-no question put before the voters of Texas, asking if the voters want Texas to leave the Union and become its own nation.

TNM leadership has met individual legislators face-to-face and made their arguments. Apparently, this simple request was a bridge too far for even one member of the 150-member House, or one member of the 31-member Senate of the 82nd Texas Legislature. Despite the tireless efforts of TNM President Daniel Miller and Membership Director Cary Wise, not one member of the legislature agreed to simply sponsor the bill. Remember, we are not talking about passing a bill or a joint resolution. We are only talking about introducing the bill into the House or Senate for consideration. The mere introduction of the bill into the 2011 Legislature would have been a huge victory for the TNM.

Meanwhile, the members of the Legislature DID have the courage to introduce AND consider:

– A bill allowing minor children, whose parents are going through divorce proceedings, to have visitation rights for the pets of the family.

– A bill to authorize slot machine gambling in Texas.

– A bill to eliminate smoking in public places.

– A bill to create an anti-bullying hotline.

– A bill to make using a cell phone while driving a punishable offense.

– A bill to authorize the issuance of a “Choose Life” license plate in Texas.

I could go on listing “stupid legislator tricks.” The legislators actually sponsored over 4,000 bills in this session. And certainly some of the bills are important. But what is more important than the very survival of the state of Texas?

I understand that a statewide referendum would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to administer. But Daniel Miller had the proposed bill written to coincide with and piggyback on the Constitutional amendment vote that occurs in Texas in November 2011. So the referendum would have cost Texas nothing. At this point, the only information available to legislators about the sentiments of Texans is a few polls that show Texans are in favor of independence across party lines.

For now, the Texas legislature is arranging deck chairs on the Texas Titanic. They have no interest in steering clear of the Federal icebergs dead ahead that will surely sink the ship of state. The legislature is serenely happy playing politics-as-usual and listening to the pretty music along the way.

On Saturday, March 5th, the TNM held a rally for independence on the steps of the Capitol in Austin. The “Line In The Sand” rally coincided with the 175th anniversary of the siege of the Alamo, at which William Travis drew a line in the sand and asked his men to commit…even to their death. The TNM widely promoted this rally to its membership. However, on the day of the rally, only a handful of the faithful were in attendance. From a membership list that numbers in the hundreds of thousands, less than 200 showed up.

What did that tell the Legislators? Even though the rally got favorable national attention through the Associated Press and the Huffington Post, the legislators (if any actually gave a shit) did not see a Tea Party-style rally of thousands. It did not see an emerging trend. It did not see a new parade that legislators could jump in front of. It saw a number of people that could easily be fit inside a Texas bar or restaurant. And that does not constitute a constituency they should fear.

So, March 11th, the final day for introduction of bills, passed the TNM by for this legislative session. Time for the TNM to regroup, refocus and re-dedicate to the cause of Texas independence.

Daniel Miller, President of the TNM, has chosen to turn lemons into lemonade. Miller made a prime-time live speech on Wednesday night on the TNM website. In his speech, he stated that the legislature’s rejection of Texas independence will only serve as the rallying cry going forward. Just as at San Jacinto in 1836, where the words “Remember the Alamo” galvanized Sam Houston’s army to defeat General Santa Anna’s army and pave the way for The Republic of Texas…so too will this temporary defeat steel the determination of the Texas Nationalist Movement to continue the struggle to make Texas free once again, to “again lift its head and stand among the nations.” (Sam Houston)

Miller also announced that House Rep. Brandon Creighton of Conroe introduced House Concurrent Resolution 50 (HCR50) this session. The bill has four joint authors, and 76 co-authors to date. This is a Tenth Amendment resolution with almost 50% of the legislators signing onto this resolution.

The resolution could have some teeth. In the third paragraph from the end, it serves as a “Notice and Demand” for the Federal Government to “Cease and Desist issuing mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

It’s one thing to send a letter to the bully whose been stealing your lunch money telling him to stop. It’s another actually face him when he tries again. The test of the resolve of the legislators will come the first time that Washington lawmakers call Texas’ bluff. Is it a bluff or is Texas serious? Who will blink first? Who will back down? Will Texas stand and fight?

Miller stated that the TNM supports HCR50 as a halting yet encouraging step toward Texas Independence. And at this point, without an economic disaster forcing the Texas lawmakers into a corner, I am also encouraged.

I predict that before the next legislative session comes around on the second Tuesday of 2013, Texas Governor Rick Perry will have already called an emergency session of the legislature. This emergency session will be in response to the collapse of the US Dollar as world reserve currency, and Washington’s powerlessness to maintain a government.

On that day, the Texas Nationalist Movement will have won a San Jacinto-style victory. Then…the real work begins.

Secession is the Hope For Mankind. Will Texas be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

* OK…the whole story of Roman Emperor Nero playing his musical instrument while the city of Rome was on fire is a convenient myth. But it serves me well to use it, so I did. Sue me.

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


Getting Back to the ‘Real’ Constitution–Fagettaboutit!

October 29, 2010

By Kirkpatrick Sale

There’s much talk these days, particularly by the Tea Party types, about getting back to the “real” Constitution, forcing the Obama government to honor the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers, and “understanding the Constitution through the eyes of its creators,” as one contributor to the Tenth Amendment Center recently put it. That center, in fact, is dedicated to, and attracting a growing following for, a rigid interpretation of that amendment reserving to the states the powers not expressly given to the Federal government.

And along with it in the last few years has grown up a Constitution Party that has the idea that the nation’s problems can be solved by “a renewed allegiance” to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and hence a return to “limited government.” The problem with current officials of both parties, as the CP see it, is that they “ignore their oaths to uphold the Constitution,” that is to say, the Constitution as originally written and used in the 18th century .

This would be a far different country, of course, if it paid an allegiance to the document of 1787 that the renegade Congress had come up with, in secret, that summer in Philadelphia, even along with its first ten amendments. But what all the critics who believe that going back to the original Constitution would forestall the kinds of forces that have led to the present bloated, overstretched, intrusive, and unwieldy government do not realize is that this is what it almost inevitably had to lead to.

Let’s wake up these “real Constitution” die-hards and the ardent “Tenthers” and tell them that it’s a waste of time to try to resurrect that document in order to save the nation. Because the growth of government and the centralization of power is inherent in its original provisions…as the anti-Federalists were trying to say all along from the very beginning of the ratification process. Only when we get people today off this understandable but ill-fated track can we begin to open their eyes to the reality of our present peril: we have a big overgrown government because that’s what the Founding Fathers founded, and we won’t escape from it until we take the idea of secession as seriously as it must be taken.

Let’s look at some of the dangerous elements of the “real” Constitution.

It starts off with a phrase that, right there at the start, sounded alarm bells in those who, having experienced the powers of the individual states as sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation, saw that it was not to the states but to “we the people” that power would be given. “What right had they to say, We ,the people,” cried Patrick Henry to the Virginia ratification convention, “instead of, We, the states?” He saw that the phrase gave power to an amorphous “people” whom the new government could define and use as it chose, bypassing and undercutting the states. If “the people” spoke through the Congress, it could willy-nilly ignore the individual states.

Which, indeed, is what happened, and Congress was cheerfully ratified in doing so by another centralizing branch of government, the Supreme Court. But the idea was never more egregiously used than when Lincoln denied that the states had any particular power, indeed denied that they were sovereign entities at all, and argued that all power rests with the people, who had created a United States and wanted it united. “Government of the people,” in other words, means that Washington can do whatever it damn pleases in their name.

And the anti-Federalists had warned of exactly that seventy years before. The framers of the Constitution, said Luther Martin, a delegate to the convention from Maryland, were crypto-monarchists whose “wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government…of a monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations.” That was said in November 1787 – don’t say you weren’t warned.

But let’s go on with the faults of the centralizers’ Constitution. There is in Article I a bold statement that “Congress shall have the power to” and there follow some specifics about taxes and debts—and then “provide for the general welfare of the United States.” Agree to that and you’ve agreed it can do anything it likes without check or rein, for what measure could not be thought to be enhancing the “general welfare”? James Madison, who had a hand in Federal enlargement elsewhere in the document, saw the danger here: “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of…in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police.” That is not what they had fought a war against the British monarchy for.

Not more than a few phrases away is the famous “commerce clause,” by which a Supreme Court, ever-willing to enhance the powers of the Washington establishment, managed almost from the beginning to enhance Congressional control over what the states would be allowed to do. Congress shall have the power, it reads, “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states.” That would seem to mean that Congress could establish terms by which states could trade with each other, so that none would establish tariffs against any other—“a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves,” as Madison saw it, “rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”

But positive is what the clause became. The Supreme Court decided that practically anything that went on commercially within one state would have some kind of effect on all the others, in some way or other, and so government can regulate it; as early as 1828 it held that the government could regulate trade on the Hudson river for its entire length because some of it ran along New Jersey, and the monopoly New York state had given to Robert Fulton to run his steamboat it decided to be null and void because it affected New Jerseyans. Its reading of the clause became ever more expansive as time went on and by the New Deal it gave the government carte blanche to interfere in state business down to the level of a janitor’s salary and a farmer’s wheat crop.

And as if that wasn’t a sufficient interference in state business, the Founding Fathers wound up their Constitution with a clause that ringingly asserted that what they had just enumerated as the powers of the government—and any laws that they should subsequently pass “in pursuance thereof”—“shall be the supreme law of the land” and judges in the states better take that to heart. This “supremacy clause” was hotly debated at the time because it, like the other sections above, could be interpreted in such a broad way that the states would be powerless to act on matters of serious concern, and thus it was that when there finally came a slew of amendments that the people of the states demanded as checks on Federal power, one of the most important was the Tenth, asserting that Washington had only the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution and the states had jurisdiction in all else.

Which brings up the final deficiency in that Constitution, that Tenth Amendment itself. It seems clear that a great many serious people felt that when it said “the powers not delegated to the U.S….are reserved to the states…or to the people,” that this guaranteed a considerable sovereignty for the states. But the centralists agreed to it (and put it at the end of the Bill of Rights) because they knew that it was so unspecific, so merely rhetorical, that it was capable of any interpretation—and that a Supreme Court capable of giving itself judicial review over Congress ( not enumerated in the Constitution) would be capable of finding that the powers delegated to the U.S. were pretty vast and those given to the states were few and limited in scope. As it so happened.

The Tenthers are fighting valiantly to reverse the 220 years in which that last item in the Bill of Rights has been emasculated and rendered effectively irrelevant, and they may even be gaining some attention, particularly in the states’ growing resistance to Obamacare. But it seems most unlikely that, with the other centralizing tools at their command, the Federal courts will give it much consideration.

And then when they finally see their beloved amendment in shreds, maybe then the Tenthers and other Constitutional-Firsters will begin to see that the U.S. Constitution, by the centralists, of the nationalists, and for the Hamiltonians, is not a document that will lead them to liberty and sovereignty. The only method for that, let us hope they finally realize, is secession.

Copyright 2010 Kirkpatrick Sale, Middlebury Institute.