The Second Amendment: Does Anybody But Me Understand It?

The Second Amendment: Does Anybody But Me Understand It?

By Russell D. Longcore

(Editor’s Note: I wrote this and first posted it in 2011. Since then, the Supreme Court issued the Heller decision. With the recent assassination of Justice Antonin Scalia, the 2A may be in play again. But even Nino Scalia, who wrote the opinion, didn’t get it right. I did…as shown below.)

The so-called conservatives say that there should be no restrictions to keep and bear arms for Americans. They say that it’s all about self-protection.

The so-called liberals beat the drum for outright bans on firearms, saying that disarming Americans will make our nation safer.

Both of them are wrong.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Let’s spend a few minutes using our powers of reason to just simply read and understand.

Take the first two phrases. Any way you rearrange the words, the message is that a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. The Founders were talking about the thirteen sovereign nations, each considered a State in the same manner as any other sovereign nation around the world. They had no intention that the united States were to be considered a new nation. They were equals to Great Britain, France, Italy, Spain, etc…and every one of the European nations used militias. For more about the use of militias in history, visit Militia at Wikipedia.

So the Founders were stating the obvious…that a free State had to have a well-regulated militia to be considered secure. What is “Security?” The ability to defend itself against invasion or aggression by another political entity.

What does “well-regulated” mean? In the common usage of the 18th Century, it meant the property of something being in proper working order. The opposite of a well-regulated militia would be a chaotic assemblage of men with weapons without training.

So, you could restate the first two phrases as: “A militia in proper working order is necessary to the security of a free sovereign nation.” This is especially important when you consider that under the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, the Federal Government was prohibited from having a standing army for more than two years, as well as providing for and training the Militia.

The underlying reason for the Second Amendment was not individual self-defense. The underlying reason for the Second Amendment was the security of the new thirteen sovereign nations. Yes…that meant security even from each other.

Now for the last two phrases…”the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The phrases are starkly plain. You have to intend to misunderstand the words if you do misunderstand them or redefine their meaning. Let’s examine the penultimate phrase.

From whence does the purported right to keep and bear arms spring? Natural law. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are “among these,” not the only ones. (Read What Are Unalienable Rights?) The right of self-defense…to protect one’s self and/or others in your charge from harm…is so obvious it should almost not have to be pointed out. And “arms” are not only firearms. Nearly anything can be utilized as arms, or weapons.

But please consider: at the time of the Revolutionary War, did not the Continental armies possess the same technology of armaments as the Redcoats? Yes. Hadn’t the Colonial citizens owned and used firearms since the early 1600s? Yes! Did the English soldiers have cartridges for their rifles while the Colonials had only musket and ball? No. Musket, ball and cannon were the leading technologies of the day.

Actually, colonials had rifles more modern than the Redcoats. The rifles carried by the British were inferior to the long rifles of the colonials. A large number of the colonial rifles were the Pennsylvania rifles, made by German immigrant gunsmiths with spirally grooved barrels (rifling) that spun a ball leaving the barrel, increasing both its distance and accuracy. The British “Brown Bess” muskets were only marginally accurate to about 100 yards, while the long rifles of the Patriots could reach out easily past 300 yards. Colonials were also “armed” with hatchets, swords, daggers and bayonets. The Colonials also had modern cannon, as modern as anything the Redcoats used.

Did only the King have the ability to build ships, forge cannon and cannonball? No. John Paul Jones was a privateer, which is basically a government-sponsored pirate, preying on English ships. His first wartime command was aboard the ship Providence, owned by New England businessman John Brown. The Providence fairly bristled with cannons.

Yet the issue of advancing technology was not an issue that the framers of the Constitution even considered worthy of mention. These were learned men, and were well aware of the technological improvements that were made in weaponry just in their lifetimes. They knew world history and knew that guns and gunpowder were relative newcomers to the art of war.

Both of the combatants in the Revolutionary War had the same technology in armaments. The Continental armies consisted of fighting citizens, taking up their rifles and pistols, forging cannon and going to war against superior numbers in the British army and navy, but not against superior weapons.

Therefore, when it came time for the framers of the Constitution to write the Second Amendment, they did not even mention the possibility that the private citizen should be prevented from owning the same weapons as the military. Why? BECAUSE THE MILITIA WAS THE MILITARY!!! Could it be that they considered the threat of government tyranny greater than that of citizens owning military weapons? Why else would they write the Second Amendment in the words they chose?

Finally, the last phrase…”shall not be infringed.” The Webster’s Dictionary defines “infringe” in two ways pertinent to this discussion; from the Latin “infrangere”:(1)”to break; to violate or go beyond the limits of: (2) to encroach upon. The “right” is the thing not to be infringed by government. Therefore, the Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms is one that is endowed by our Creator under natural law and shall not be broken, violated or encroached upon. It validates the concept of personal property ownership, in this case one’s own person, and the principle of self-defense.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, or sports or being disarmed by any government. It’s not really even about personal self defense. The Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, and the necessity of a militia in keeping that state free.

So a proper understanding of the Second Amendment begs the BIGGEST question of all: If NONE of the states of the United States of America are sovereign any more, but are rather subservient to the Federal government in Washington DC, and the states have no need for militias, isn’t the Second Amendment entirely irrelevant?

I hope and pray that someday secessionists and state independence movements will fully embrace and openly discuss The Power Of The Sword.

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

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

DumpDC Is Endorsing Hillary Clinton For President

DumpDC Is Endorsing Hillary Clinton For President

By Russell D. Longcore

Editor’s Note: I have updated this article, first written in April 2015.

Yep. You read it right. DumpDC is endorsing Hillary for President.

Our Next President?

Now, let me lay out my argument so you can see the genius of this position.

Remember that the overarching reason for the existence of DumpDC is to promote state secession from the United States of America. So if you are reading this article, expecting me to promote the health and wellness of the USA, stop reading right now. You will not find that here.

The accepted premise for the every-four-year presidential dance is to find the best person to be President. Isn’t it? But out of 320 million people, there are usually only about 20 or less that take it seriously enough to commit to becoming a potential candidate. Most assuredly, these candidates cannot be the best the nation has to offer.

Are these few people TRULY the best, most qualified candidates to become President of the United States? How do Americans determine who is best? How does each political party determine who is best?

There seems to be a separation here between perception and reality. Most VOTERS think that the President is the leader of the entire Washington government, the embodiment of the Executive branch of the Constitutional government, the leader of the political party from which he/she springs, and the leader of the nation. And who would be the best person to occupy this Oval Office chair? Wouldn’t it be the person who sticks most closely to the Constitution, our founding document?

Let’s not bullshit each other here. Let’s acknowledge the reality of how DC works. The elected officeholders in Congress and in the White House all take an oath of office in which they swear to “protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Then they spend most of their time violating that Constitution.

They vote to spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually that are authorized nowhere in the Constitution. They enact unconstitutional laws. They created gigantic bureaucracies that over time have mushroomed into the liberty-stealing, money-wasting, entitlement-growing leviathans we have all come to despise. They foment wars and conflict all over the globe as an extension of Washington’s foreign policy. And finally, they work in concert to spread inflation around the planet by printing vast sums of money, borrowing and spending more and more and more.

So, if we are going to be intellectually honest about the workings of Washington DC, and the kind of person who makes it work the way it actually works…we need to stop seeking candidates who SAY they support the Constitution. We need to look at those candidates’ experience…not what they SAY, but what they have actually done in their political careers. And therefore, we need to find the candidate or candidates whose experience most closely matches HOW WASHINGTON ACTUALLY WORKS.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present for your consideration, the most qualified candidate for the Presidency of the United States in the past 50 years…

Hillary Clinton.

Just look at this resume.

Hillary grew up in the home of a politically active Republican, her father Hugh Rodham. She was also a volunteer in the campaigns of Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon. So she has been on both sides of the political landscape.

Wellesley College feminist – got a BA in Political Science. Her senior thesis was a critique of the writings of Socialist political activist Saul Alinsky, who wrote the book “Rules For Radicals” in 1971. Hillary begins her migration into being a government “policy wonk.”

Yale law degree – by 1972, she had moved philosophically to the Democratic Party, and she and her fiancé Bill Clinton worked on the campaign staff for Presidential candidate George McGovern. She and Bill married in 1975.

Partner in Rose Law Firm – by 1975 Bill was Arkansas Attorney General, and she joined the prestigious Rose Law Firm. She worked mostly on intellectual property law and patent infringement. But mostly she had a job at the firm because her husband was AG.

Governor’s wife – Bill becomes Governor of Arkansas in 1978. She was First Lady of Arkansas for twelve years. Governors are the CEO of a state, much like a President, and during those twelve years, she was an insider to running state government.

First Lady of the United States – Bill became president in 1993, and for eight years, Hillary was First Lady. Once again, a cunning lawyer is at the apex of power…without having to get elected. But by now, she is an old hand at statewide and national campaigning, having campaigned with Bill for decades.

New York Senator – Another campaign, this time for herself, which she wins handily in 2000. She keeps her Senate seat until 2008.

Presidential Candidate – Hillary campaigns for the Democratic Presidential candidacy in 2008. Barack Obama wins, she loses. She tastes defeat.

Secretary of State – In a brilliant political move, Obama picks her as his Secretary of State. Obama neuters a political enemy and she becomes the face of US foreign policy all over the planet. Unfortunately, her time as Secretary of State was rife with corruption. Because of the espionage investigation and potential prosecution she faces, whatever good she could have done as Secretary of State is tarred over by the horrible acts she actually DID. In a city where corruption is like water to a fish, a breathtakingly corrupt Hillary does not even stand out.

Immune to Scandal – Remember all the “bimbo eruptions” of Bill’s presidential candidacy? Remember Gennifer Flowers? Remember the murder of Vince Foster? Remember Monica Lewinski and Bill’s blow jobs in the Oval Office? Remember Benghazi? Remember the email hard drive that she THOUGHT she had wiped clean to destroy any evidence against her unlawful use of an email account other than the State Department account? There is no scandal so low…no action so tawdry…that it will divert Hillary from what she wants. In a government in which most of what you do is unlawful, a conscience is a simply a bother.

Unencumbered by Conscience – refer back to the last paragraph. Scandals like Benghazi, the murder of Vince Foster, and the Email Espionage felonies, point to a political sociopath of world-class proportion. And remember…ALL politicians are sociopaths. Read this link. Politician Personality Disorder aka Sociopathy If the perfect Presidential candidate is an advanced sociopath, Hillary is your girl!

Let’s Look At Hillary’s Competition.

In her own party, National Socialist Bernie Sanders is running strongly against her. But she will likely prevail. In my opinion, the only thing that can prevent Hillary from obtaining the nomination as the Democrat presidential candidate is a Federal indictment for espionage. We will see what the spring and summer bring.

The Republican field of candidates started out with a whopping 17 candidates. Over the months of tedious so-called “debates,” and now the various caucuses and primaries, one surprise candidate has emerged as the front-runner…billionaire Donald Trump. As of the date of this article only Trump, Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Ted Cruz and Ohio Governor John Kasich remain in the race.

NOT ONE of the remaining Republican candidates is serious about radically transforming Washington into a place that honors the Constitution. If even ONE of the candidates pledged to return DC to only spending money authorized by the Constitution, he might be worth support. But you and I know that every one of the Republican candidates wants to attain the Presidency of the US…just as it is, without much change. And even if one of the candidates DID make Constitutionality his cause, 535 members of Congress would fight it, along with every lobbyist who makes his living from unconstitutional spending.

The Conclusions

1. The Federal Government in Washington is going to collapse when the US Dollar is replaced as the world reserve currency.
2. State secession is the highest and best solution to end statism and re-institute individual liberty and property rights.
3. Bringing DC to collapse as soon as possible will cause secession.
4. In order to accelerate the collapse, the best president will be the person who is the most corrupt, the most pro-government and most anti-liberty.

Hillary Clinton is the obviously superior candidate to accelerate and preside over the end of the United States Of America.

DumpDC enthusiastically supports Hillary Clinton For President.

Secession is the only solution to return individual liberty and property rights to North America. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Will Change History.

Conservatives…Aren’t, Are They?

by Russell D. Longcore

In America in early 2016, much is being made about Conservatism. The dozen-or-so Republican Presidential candidates have fought between themselves about which of them are the most conservative, and particularly how the front-runner Donald Trump is not conservative at all.

The old adage, “Actions speak louder than words,” has never been truer as it relates to the idea and ideal of conservatism.

Scores of books have been written about conservatism and liberalism, and more will be written. In my view, they mostly cloud the issues and make the definitions fuzzy at best.

Here is my definition of true Conservatism. Conservatism is a political philosophy that stands for a Federal government that functions within the strictures and boundaries of the US Constitution.

That’s it. Anything less than this definition is not true Conservatism.

Now, in light of that definition, look at what the people who call themselves Conservatives today believe and do. Remember, forget what they say…only watch what they do.

The Constitution does not allow for a standing army. Conservatives support unlimited amounts of tax money and debt for standing armies, air forces, military bases in over 130 foreign countries and never-ending WAR.

The Constitution does not allow for war to be declared by anyone other than Congress, nor military invasions of sovereign nations. Conservatives have supported undeclared wars and invasions abroad since Lincoln invaded the Confederate States of America.

The Constitution does not provide for all of the various Cabinet departments, like Labor, Energy, Education, Commerce, Health and Human Services, etc. The only Cabinet departments I can see authorized in the Constitution are Treasury, War, and State. Conservatives not only like all of the various departments…they willingly fund them and fight over their control.

The Constitution does not provide for the Federal Reserve or a national bank. Conservatives work hard to place their own favorite guy as the Chairman, and manipulate the currency as they choose.

The Constitution does not promote nor restrict any faith or the practice of any religion, leaving any religious concerns to the states. Conservatives promote nearly exclusively the religions of Western Civilization, which are Judaism and Christianity. Conservatives have always been in favor of the tax-exempt status of the Church.

The Constitution of 1789 does not allow for a personal income tax or the Internal Revenue Service. (I know about the Amendment.) Conservatives rely on tax revenues and DEBT to fund the unconstitutional things they love.

The Constitution does not allow for the vast array of regulations of every facet of human existence. Conservatives in Congress have helped pass all of the regulatory legislation and regulations. They have kept most regulation in place, and only in rare exceptions have repealed regulations and law.

The Constitution does not say much about immigration law, leaving immigration policy to the states. Conservatives have made a monstrous mess of immigration law in America.

The Constitution promotes small Federal government, tightly controlled by the States. Conservatives promote a HUGE federal government.

So, we can see that those who call themselves Conservatives today…aren’t. They are big-government state worshippers. Those who embrace true conservatism today are usually labeled anarchists or libertarians…or just simply ignored.

A true Conservative could not get elected in the USA under any circumstances.

Stop Voting 2016!!

Stop Voting 2016!!
By Russell Longcore

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

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

Read on and I will prove my point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why do I strongly urge you to stop Voting?

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

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

40% vote Republican

40% vote Democrat

20% undecided are in the middle.

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

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

Look at the rough numbers from the 2012 Presidential race:

Total votes 125,000,000

Republican 50,000,000

Democrat 50,000,000

Undecided 25,000,000

“Undecided” statistically splits in half:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

The Constitution Is Too Small

The Constitution Is Too Small

by Russell D. Longcore

The premise I am presenting is that the United States population has outgrown the US Constitution. By offering this premise, I wish to lead you to the conclusion that secession is the answer to the failure of the DC government to serve the American population. There are myriad reasons why the Constitution fails America. This is but one.

In Article I, Section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution, apportionment of Congressional seats was stated in two sentences: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

“The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative.”

After the War of Northern Aggression, the Fourteenth Amendment superseded the original intent of the Constitution. Apportionment exists today because of these changes.

In 1776, the population of the thirteen states was 2,090,619. The states had the following numbers of citizens:

1. Virginia               447,016
2. Pennsylvania       240,057
3. Massachusetts    235,808
4. Maryland            202,599
5. North Carolina    197,200
6. Connecticut        183,881
7. New York           162,920
8. South Carolina    124,244
9.  New Jersey        117,431
10. Rhode Island      58,196
11. New Hampshire   62,396
12. Delaware            35,496
13. Georgia              23,375

In 1789, there would have been 70 Congressmen and 26 senators. That is a manageable ratio of representation. Perhaps it is not ideal, but remember that the Constitution was a document created by negotiation and compromise.

Fast forward to today. As of 2008, the US population was 320,746,592.

Since 1789, when the new Federal Government began functioning under the new Constitution, the number of citizens represented per congressional district has risen from an average of 33,000 in 1789 to nearly 700,000 as of 2016.

The same premise holds for the Senate. 26 senators for 13 states in 1789, representing about two million citizens. In 2008, 50 senators represent 320 million.

Even if Congress and the Senate were as pure as the driven snow, its present apportionment is entirely unmanageable. No American could expect adequate representation when there are so few Congressmen and Senators for such a large population here in America. If the old ratio was still in place, there would need to be about 10,700 Congressmen to provide adequate representation.

So to few Congressmen is a problem, and ten thousand Congressmen would be a disaster.

State secession can fix this national problem. Instead of one nation of 320 million, secession takes the states back to national sovereignty. Even the most populous state, California, only has about 39 million citizens. The new government of such a state could create adequate representation.

This article addresses one issue showing that individual state sovereignty is superior to the United States of America. Secession is the only solution for a government that can protect individual liberty and property rights.

The 2015 Declaration of Independence

The 2015 Declaration of Independence

By Thomas Jefferson and Russell D. Longcore

(Editor’s Note: I wrote this in 2009.)

I have long contemplated the imminent collapse of the US Federal Government. In light of the insane, unconstitutional spending of the Congress and Presidents (ALL will spend the same ways), the recession/depression that the nation is presently experiencing, and the simultaneous devaluation and inflation of the nation’s currency, collapse is the only consequence that makes sense.

Ask the Soviet Union. Oh…excuse me…they’re gone! The USSR collapsed from identical causes in 1991, and the Soviet states once again became sovereign nations.

So, what will individuals and states do? Will they preemptively forsake the Union, or wait to react once the Federal Government collapses? Common sense should dictate the serious debate of secession prior to collapse. However, I do remember that the legislatures of the States are filled with politicians. Reaction seems more likely than forward planning, especially from those who have long suckled at the Federal teat.

I took the original Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, and added wording to customize it for the present day. Please read it carefully and contemplate its meaning and its ramifications. My new version still needs more work, but it is a place to start.

**********************

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for a people to dissolve the political and governmental institutions under which they have governed themselves, and institute new government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the institution of the new form of government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their liberty, safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these free citizens and sovereign states; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present United States Federal Government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these free citizens and sovereign states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

In 1861, the United States declared war upon the Confederate States of America, a confederation of sovereign states that lawfully seceded from the Union and formed a government to provide new guards for their future security. The CSA was defeated in that war by the armies of the United States and the Union was unlawfully maintained:

The US Federal Government has enacted unconstitutional laws and authorized unconstitutional spending and the creation and funding of unconstitutional Federal agencies. It has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. It has imposed taxes on us without our consent:

The US Federal Government has borrowed so many trillions of dollars that the amount can never be repaid.

The US Federal Government created the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Homeland Security Administration, which are unconstitutional usurpations of the powers of the people and the states guaranteed in the 10^th Amendment:

The US Federal Government created the Transportation Security Administration, which is a clear violation of the 10^th Amendment to the US Constitution. The actions of the TSA violate the 4^th Amendment, which protects citizens from illegal search and seizure without warrant based upon probable cause:

The US Federal Government created the Internal Revenue Service to enforce the gigantic Federal Income Tax Code, violating Article I of the Constitution:

The US Federal Government has violated Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution in which Congress may raise and support an army, but no appropriation to that use shall be more than two years. The US Federal Government has established hundreds of military bases on American soil, quartering large bodies of armed troops among us, violating the 3^rd Amendment. Additionally, it has established over one hundred military bases in other sovereign nations around the world:

The US Federal Government is at this time retaining large armies of domestic and foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the lawful government of a civilized nation:

The US Federal Government has deprived certain individuals of the benefits of trial by jury by transporting certain individuals beyond seas to be jailed and tortured for pretended offenses, violating the principle of Habeas Corpus and the 5^th Amendment of the Constitution:

The US Federal Government has enacted laws infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, an overt violation of the 2^nd Amendment to the Constitution:

The US Federal Government, through enacting the Patriot Act of 2001, has violated the 4^th Amendment’s strictures on privacy and protection against illegal search and seizure. It has violated the 5^th Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law:

The US Federal Government, through enacting the Patriot Act of 2001, has violated the 6^th Amendment guarantees that in criminal prosecutions, the accused shall the right to a speedy and public trial, be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and be confronted by the witnesses against him:

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007, places all governmental power in the hands of the President and effectively abolishes the checks and balances in the Constitution:

The US Federal Government established the Federal Reserve, a consortium of private banks, to manage and manipulate the currency of the United States. This violates Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which provides Congress authority to coin money and regulate its value. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional:

The Federal Reserve has created massive inflation since its inception in 1913 by issuing paper money that has no underlying value in gold and silver. Because of the attempts of the Federal Reserve to manipulate the American economy, it created an abnormal cycle of boom and recession:

In 2008, the US Federal Government approved trillion-dollar financial bailouts to financial institutions and private companies, a clear violation of Article I, Section 8 and the 10^th Amendment of the Constitution:

The US Federal Government has prosecuted unlawful and unconstitutional wars, including wars in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan, violating Article I, Section 8, which grants the power to declare war only to Congress:

The US Federal Government created the Social Security Administration in 1935, a clear violation of the Article I, Section 8, and the 10^th Amendment:

The US Federal Government, though its Judicial Branch, has altered legislation and created law, in violation of Article III of the Constitution:

The US Federal Government has obligated the United States to membership in the United Nations, and combined with other nations to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and superior by treaty to our laws; giving its assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

The US Federal Government has usurped the powers reserved to the States in the 10th Amendment as it relates to immigration and naturalization. It has obstructed the laws for naturalization of foreigners, refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and altered the conditions of lawful immigration of foreign persons:

The US Federal Government has altered fundamentally the forms of our government guaranteed to the free citizens and states by the Constitution of the united States of America. The Constitution guarantees a republic form of government, but the US Federal Government is a fascist mercantilist police state.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. An institution of government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define tyranny, is unfit to be the designated and chosen government of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches of the United States Federal Government. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their actions to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common citizenship to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt the quiet enjoyment of our citizenship and liberty. They have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the free citizens of the several, sovereign and united States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do solemnly publish and declare, that these States are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the presently established United States Federal Government, and that all political connection between them and the United States Federal Government, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. The free citizens of the several, sovereign states reject and absolve themselves from any and all bonds between themselves and any other sovereign state under the Constitution of the United States. Those free citizens and their representatives in the sovereign States do now and should immediately cease collecting and forwarding all Federal taxes, tariffs or fees of any and every kind to the United States Federal Government.

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

End.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

Gun Control And The Well-Regulated Militia (updated)

By Russell D. Longcore
Owner and Editor, DumpDC

(Editor’s Note: This is an updated article I wrote in 2009. Never more timely than today.)

Gun control is today’s subject. With the recent spate of mass murders here in the USA, you can be assured that the statists will use these crises to their advantage. Those who would outlaw gun ownership are undaunted and patient. They know that another school, church or theater shooting or other mass murder will eventually occur in the United States, and that event will propel this issue back onto the front pages and lead stories in the news media. So, let us examine the issue of gun control in light of history and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Any State with a well regulated Militia would be capable of defending itself from Federal tyranny. Over the past two hundred years, the individual States have forgotten that their security as a free State relies upon a well regulated Militia. The first two phrases in the Amendment shed light on today’s power structure in the United States. The Federal government now has standing armies, navies and an air force that far outnumbers any state militia. So, state sovereignty has been destroyed. Now states are more like counties…no sovereignty, only slave territories of a cancer-ridden Federal system.

Let’s consider the definition of the word “arms”.

The Second Amendment does not define the word “arms” but leaves it open to definition and expansion in the future. “Arms” were not only firearms, but any weapon that could be used to defend one’s life or property. Why then do the anti-gun advocates only single out firearms as the focus of their desire to disarm Americans? Why not archery equipment, swords, or knives, or sharpened sticks?

Next, let’s look at the word “infringe”. The Webster’s Dictionary defines “infringe” in two ways pertinent to this discussion; from the Latin “infrangere”:(1)”to break; to violate or go beyond the limits of: (2) to encroach upon.” In order to further explain the Second Amendment, the definition of the word “right” must also be considered, and is: “something due to one by law, custom or nature.” The “right” is the thing not to be infringed by government. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson writes of mankind being “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” The definitions above speak directly to rights endowed to humans by natural law, and to the nature of man as a created being subject to God’s authority. These rights were among those enumerated as “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” (For a GREAT article about Unalienable Rights, CLICK HERE.) Therefore, the Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms is one that is endowed by our Creator under natural law and shall not be broken, violated or encroached upon. It validates the concept of personal property ownership, in this case one’s own person, and the principle of self-defense.

Many gun control advocates support, and have been successful in the criminalization of the ownership of certain automatic and semi-automatic weapons, the so-called “assault weapons”. They now seek to restrict the ownership of nearly all firearms by private citizens. Yet the issue of advancing technology was not an issue that the framers of the Constitution even considered worthy of mention. These were learned men, and were well aware of the technological improvements that were made in weaponry just in their lifetimes. They knew world history and knew that guns and gunpowder were relative newcomers to the art of war.

But please consider: at the time of the Revolutionary War, did not the Continental armies possess the same technology of armaments as the Redcoats? Yes.

Hadn’t the Colonial citizens owned and used firearms since the early 1600s? Yes!

Did the English soldiers have cartridges for their rifles while the Colonials had only musket and ball? No. Musket, ball and cannon were the leading technologies of the day. There were no cartridges. They came about 100 years later.

Did only the King have the ability to build ships, forge cannon and cannonball? No. John Paul Jones was a privateer, which is basically a government-sponsored pirate, preying on English ships. His first wartime command was aboard the ship Providence, owned by New England businessman John Brown. The Providence bristled with cannons.

Both of the combatants in the Revolutionary War had the same technology in armaments. The Continental armies consisted of fighting citizens, taking up their rifles and pistols, forging cannon and going to war against superior numbers in the British army and navy, but not against superior weapons.

Therefore, when it came time for the framers of the Constitution to consider the Amendments, they did not even mention the possibility that the private citizen should be prevented from owning the same weapons as the military. Could it be that they considered the threat of government tyranny greater than that of citizens owning military weapons?

One of the beauties of the Constitution is its simplicity. The Second Amendment is written with no ambiguity in clear, simple words. Words have meaning. For decades now, those who would subjugate our citizens with Federal and State tyranny have fought to redefine the words of the Second Amendment. They have been successful in passing unconstitutional laws that do in fact infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. The framers understood that with freedom comes responsibility, and that the ideas and acts of men have consequences. Yet they entrusted to future generations this simple Amendment. They possessed the foreknowledge that this newly formed government would have the same potential as governments throughout history to decline toward tyranny and totalitarianism. And it has indeed.

This Amendment, along with the other original Amendments, were their lasting contribution to the establishment of what would become…for a time…the mightiest nation in the history of mankind. They planted good seed in fertile ground, and a great nation grew from that seed.

Sadly, this nation is no longer great. It has gone from the beacon of freedom to the world to the greatest cancer on the world that has ever existed.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

DumpDC Endorses Hillary Clinton For President

DumpDC Endorses Hillary Clinton For President

By Russell D. Longcore

Yep. You read it right. DumpDC is endorsing Hillary for President.

Our Next President?

Now, let me lay out my argument so you can see the genius of this position.

Remember that the overarching reason for the existence of DumpDC is to promote state secession from the United States of America. So if you are reading this article, expecting me to promote the health and wellness of the USA, stop reading right now. You will not find that here.

The accepted premise for the every-four-year presidential dance is to find the best person to be President. Isn’t it? But out of 320 million people, there are usually only about 20 or less that take it seriously enough to commit to becoming a potential candidate. Most assuredly, these candidates cannot be the best the nation has to offer.

Are these few people TRULY the best, most qualified candidates to become President of the United States? How do Americans determine who is best? How does each political party determine who is best?

There seems to be a separation here between perception and reality. Most VOTERS think that the President is the leader of the entire Washington government, the embodiment of the Executive branch of the Constitutional government, the leader of the political party from which he/she springs, and the leader of the nation. And who would be the best person to occupy this Oval Office chair? Wouldn’t it be the person who sticks most closely to the Constitution, our founding document?

Let’s not bullshit each other here. Let’s acknowledge the reality of how DC works. The elected officeholders in Congress and in the White House all take an oath of office in which they swear to “protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Then they spend most of their time violating that Constitution.

They vote to spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually that are authorized nowhere in the Constitution. They enact unconstitutional laws. They created gigantic bureaucracies that over time have mushroomed into the liberty-stealing, money-wasting, entitlement-growing leviathans we have all come to despise. They foment wars and conflict all over the globe as an extension of Washington’s foreign policy. And finally, they work in concert to spread inflation around the planet by borrowing and spending more and more and more.

So, if we are going to be intellectually honest about the workings of Washington DC, and the kind of person who makes it work the way it actually works…we need to stop seeking candidates who SAY they support the Constitution. We need to look at those candidates’ experience…not what they SAY, but what they have actually done in their political careers. And therefore, we need to find the candidate or candidates whose experience most closely matches HOW WASHINGTON ACTUALLY WORKS.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present for your consideration, the most qualified candidate for the Presidency of the United States in the past 50 years…

Hillary Clinton.

Just look at this resume.

Hillary grew up in the home of a politically active Republican, her father Hugh Rodham. She was also a volunteer in the campaigns of Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon. So she has been on both sides of the political landscape.

Wellesley College feminist – got a BA in Political Science. Her senior thesis was a critique of the writings of Socialist political activist Saul Alinsky, who wrote the book “Rules For Radicals” in 1971. Hillary begins her migration into being a government “policy wonk.”

Yale law degree – by 1972, she had moved philosophically to the Democratic Party, and she and her fiancé Bill Clinton worked on the campaign staff for Presidential candidate George McGovern. She and Bill married in 1975.

Partner in Rose Law Firm – by 1975 Bill was Arkansas Attorney General, and she joined the prestigious Rose Law Firm. She worked mostly on intellectual property law and patent infringement. So she has a smattering of experience of actually owning a business.

Governor’s wife – Bill becomes Governor of Arkansas in 1978. She was First Lady of Arkansas for twelve years. Governors are the CEO of a state, much like a President, and during those twelve years, she was an insider to running state government.

First Lady of the United States – Bill became president in 1993, and for eight years, Hillary is First Lady. Once again, a cunning lawyer is at the apex of power…without having to get elected. But by now, she is an old hand at statewide and national campaigning, having campaigned with Bill for decades.

New York Senator – Another campaign, this time for herself, which she wins handily in 2000. She keeps her Senate seat until 2008.

Presidential Candidate – Hillary campaigns for the Democratic Presidential candidacy in 2008. Barack Obama wins, she loses. She tastes defeat.

Secretary of State – In a brilliant political move, Obama picks her as his Secretary of State. Obama neuters a political enemy and she becomes the face of US foreign policy all over the planet. No other candidate has this kind of diplomatic experience.

Immune to Scandal – Remember all the “bimbo eruptions” of Bill’s presidential candidacy? Remember Gennifer Flowers? Remember the murder of Vince Foster? Remember Benghazi? Remember Monica Lewinski and Bill’s blow jobs in the Oval Office? Remember the email hard drive that she had wiped clean to destroy any evidence against her unlawful use of an email account other than the State Department account? There is no scandal so low or tawdry that it will divert Hillary from what she wants. In a government in which most of what you do is unlawful, a conscience is a bother.

Unencumbered by Conscience – refer back to the last paragraph. Scandals like Benghazi and the murder of Vince Foster point to a political sociopath of world-class proportion. And remember… ALL politicians are sociopaths. Read this link. link Politician Personality Disorder aka Sociopathy If the perfect Presidential candidate is an advanced sociopath, Hillary is your girl.

Let’s Look At Hillary’s Competition.

I will not go though the individual candidates, but let’s consider them as a group. There will be a couple Governors, which will be OK, since each of them was a state CEO. There might be a Vice President. There are a few Senators, have not been in the Senate very long. There may arise a Congressman or two. And there might even be a doctor who thinks he wants to be President, and has absolutely no experience whatsoever.

NOT ONE of the Republican candidates is serious about radically transforming Washington into a place that honors the Constitution. If even ONE of the candidates pledged to return DC to only spending money authorized by the Constitution, he might be worth support. But you and I know that every one of the Republican candidates wants to attain the Presidency of the US…just as it is, without much change. And even if one of the candidates DID make Constitutionality his cause, 535 members of Congress would fight it, along with every lobbyist who makes his living from unconstitutional spending.

Any Democratic Party candidates will flog the same issues that Hillary does, so then the Dem race becomes a popularity contest.

The Conclusions

1. The Federal Government in Washington is going to collapse when the US Dollar is replaced as the world reserve currency.
2. State secession is the highest and best solution to end statism and re-institute individual liberty and property rights.
3. Bringing DC to collapse as soon as possible will cause secession.
4. In order to accelerate the collapse, the best president will be the person who is the most pro-government and most anti-liberty.

Hillary Clinton is the obviously superior candidate to accelerate and preside over the end of the United States Of America.

DumpDC enthusiastically supports Hillary Clinton For President.

Gun Control And The Well-Regulated Militia Update

By Russell D. Longcore

(Editor’s note: I wrote this back in May 2009. I’m updating it today. Apparently, sportscaster Bob Costas and other mindless state-worshippers still cannot wrap their brains around the concepts of Natural Law. Of course, they would have had to actually learn the concept in order to forget or ignore it.)

Gun control is today’s subject. The issue has regrettably popped up onto the national radar screen after Jovan Belcher, a nobody NFL player, shot and killed his girlfriend and then did the criminal courts system a favor by killing himself. (In the USA, there are about 221 homicides EACH WEEK in which a gun is used.* But the rest of those people weren’t major or minor celebrities, so they must not count.) Those who would outlaw gun ownership are undaunted and patient. They know that another celebrity shooting, school shooting or mass murder will eventually occur in the United States, and that the event will propel this issue back onto the front pages and lead stories in the news media. So, let us examine the issue of gun control in light of history and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

For today, we will suspend the debate about whether the Constitution has any validity. Let’s just all stipulate that for this argument, it does.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Any State with a well-regulated Militia would be capable of defending itself from Federal tyranny or foreign invasion. Over the past two hundred years, the individual States have forgotten that their security as a free State relies upon a well regulated Militia. The first two phrases in the Amendment shed light on today’s power structure in the United States. The Federal government now has standing armies, navies and an air force that far outnumbers any state militia. So, state sovereignty has been destroyed. Now states are more like counties…no sovereignty, only slave territories of a cancer-ridden, predatory Federal system. So the very opposite of the Second Amendment has become true, stated thus: “A Well-Regulated Militia, being unnecessary to the security of a Serf State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall indeed be infringed.”

Let’s consider the definition of the word “arms”.

The Second Amendment does not define the word “arms” but leaves it open to definition and expansion in the future. “Arms” were not only firearms, but any weapon that could be used to defend one’s life or property. Why then do the anti-gun advocates only single out firearms as the focus of their desire to disarm Americans? Why not archery equipment, swords, knives, or sharpened sticks?

Next, let’s look at the word “infringe”. The Webster’s Dictionary defines “infringe” in two ways pertinent to this discussion; from the Latin “infrangere”:(1) “to break; to violate or go beyond the limits of: (2) to encroach upon.” In order to further explain the Second Amendment, the definition of the word “right” must also be considered, and is: “something due to one by law, custom or nature.” The “right” is the thing not to be infringed by government. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson writes of mankind being “endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights.” The definitions above speak directly to rights endowed to humans by natural law, and to the nature of man as a created being subject to God’s authority. These rights were among those enumerated as “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Therefore, the Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms is one that is endowed by our Creator under natural law and shall not be broken, violated or encroached upon by the Federal government. It validates the concept of personal property ownership, in this case one’s own person, and the principle of self-defense.

Read What Are Unalienable Rights? to grasp the concept of Natural Law and Unalienable Rights.

Many gun control advocates support, and have been successful in the criminalization of the ownership of certain automatic and semi-automatic weapons, the so-called “assault weapons”. They now seek to restrict the ownership of nearly all firearms by private citizens. Yet the issue of advancing technology was not an issue that the framers of the Constitution even considered worthy of mention. These were learned men, and were well aware of the technological improvements that were made in weaponry just in their lifetimes. They knew world history and knew that guns and gunpowder were relative newcomers to the art of war.

But please consider: at the time of the Revolutionary War, did not the Continental armies possess the same technology of armaments as the Redcoats? Yes.

Hadn’t the Colonial citizens owned and used firearms since the early 1600s? Yes!

Did the English soldiers have cartridges for their rifles while the Colonials had only musket and ball? No. Musket, ball and cannon were the leading technologies of the day.

Did only the King have the ability to build ships, forge cannon and cannonball? No. John Paul Jones was a privateer, which is basically a government-sponsored pirate, preying on English ships. His first wartime command was aboard the ship Providence, owned by New England businessman John Brown. The Providence bristled with cannons.

Both of the combatants in the Revolutionary War had the same technology in armaments. The Continental armies consisted of fighting citizens, taking up their rifles and pistols, forging cannon and going to war against superior numbers in the British army and navy, but not against superior weapons.

Therefore, when it came time for the framers of the Constitution to consider the Amendments, they did not even mention the possibility that the private citizen should be prevented from owning the same weapons as the military. Ladies and Gentlemen, the militias of the Colonies WERE the military!! Could it be that they considered the threat of government tyranny greater than that of citizens owning the latest, most advanced weapons? If the Continentals had the same technology in armaments as the British military, how is it that today’s politician has concluded that (a) semi-auto firearms are not necessary for a citizen to own, (b) full-auto firearms have mostly been outlawed, and that (c) firearms should be OK as long as they are used for hunting or sporting purposes? Where in HELL did this hunting and sporting idea come from?

One of the beauties of the Constitution is its simplicity. The Second Amendment is written with no ambiguity in clear, simple words. Words have meaning. For decades now, those who would subjugate our citizens with Federal and State tyranny have fought to redefine the words of the Second Amendment. They have been successful in passing unconstitutional laws that do in fact infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. The framers understood that with freedom comes responsibility, and that the ideas and acts of men have consequences. Yet they entrusted to future generations this simple Amendment. They possessed the foreknowledge that this newly-formed government would have the same potential as governments throughout history to decline toward tyranny and totalitarianism.

Finally, you might want to take a look at Ammo: Isn’t It Obvious? which is likely the next logical step for Washington to take to disarm America.

Liberty lovers, tyranny is usually not completed in one grand sweep. There is no single foreign enemy that is going to invade America and enslave its people. It is much more effective when the tyrants enslave people a tiny bit at a time. Tyrants are patient, and the people are usually too busy living their lives to care. It’s death by a thousand little cuts. And you still end up dead.

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms is yet another great reason that secession is the ONLY solution for individual liberty and property rights in North America.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

*CDC stats 2009

© Copyright 2012, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Keep Moving Folks. Nothing To See Here.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Unhappy with your present cell phone provider? Monthly bills out of control? Discover Unlimited Voice, Unlimited Text and Unlimited Data on a Nationwide 4G Network. No Contract! Only $49 a month! Go to: Solavei.com to sign up TODAY!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

By Russell D. Longcore

The title is what cops say to gapers and rubberneckers at accident scenes. And I’m telling you that this story about secession petitions is a non-story. But I could be wrong. Happened before…

I was on the air Monday on WJCN 1360 am in Philadelphia from 3:00 to 4:00, being interviewed about secession. Loved it…caught some drive time listeners. The host, Susan Payne, was all excited about the story she had seen about secession petitions that have been sent to the White House. She mentioned a Washington Post article about the petitions. She asked me to comment.

I read the Washington Post article which quotes excerpts from the Alabama secession petition. Then I went to the WhiteHouse.gov website and actually read all the petitions. And nearly all of them are written incorrectly, beginning thus: “We petition the Obama Administration to Peacefully grant the State of _______ to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own new government.”

That is not the method whereby a state secedes. This is tantamount to an employer asking his employee for permission to fire the employee. Although the petitioners and signatories are sincere in their desires, they exhibit a breathtaking ignorance of history, law and the Constitution. I am also a product of government schools, but I did not stop reading books when I received my high school diploma. So while I would like to blame Federal schools for the mind-numbed populace, the numbing was self-inflicted by “Them The People.”

Reminds me of the Pink Floyd song, “Comfortably Numb”… “Just a little pin prick…..”

There are certain states that do not need to ask permission to secede from the Union because the Federal Government in Washington DC is not a party to the agreement between the states. DC has no standing, as they say in court proceedings. Any state properly secedes when it prepares an Ordinance of Secession and presents it to the other states.

An Ordinance of Secession is not a petition. It is a declaration of independence that revokes and dissolves the union between that state and the other states.

I can assure you that these petitions are not being taken seriously in Washington. Fact is, they welcome the diversion from the CIA Petraeus story.

A crucial point sprang into my bourbon-sotted mind as I wrote this article. The US Constitution was written and ratified (allegedly) by the thirteen sovereign nations that were the original thirteen colonies that fought and won the First North America Secession of 1776. Get it? Thirteen nations…not 50. Later, West Virginia was carved out of the State of Virginia by Lincoln and his cronies. Texas was a sovereign nation when it was granted statehood. And Hawaii was a sovereign nation that was overthrown by DC and stolen. ALL THE REST of the states that now exist WERE NOT NATIONS prior to their statehood. Some states were formed when sovereign nations actually DONATED land to the Federal Government. Most of the states were TERRITORIES, and not sovereign nations. And the territories were owned by Washington DC.¹

A reasonable argument could be made that any current state that was not a sovereign nation at the time it was granted statehood might have a difficult time seceding from the United States of America and getting shed of Washington. Understand that I am not an attorney, and I’m only offering my opinion on this date. I have not read the State Constitutions of any of the US States. More information may come to me that will cause me to change this opinion.

Looks to me like Texas is the front runner in the race to be a new nation!

Dump DC: Six Letters That Can Change History.

Copyright 2012: Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

¹ Wikipedia – List of US States by Date of Statehood