The Second Amendment: Does Anybody But Me Understand It?

March 16, 2016

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.


Islam Must Be Expelled From The West

March 13, 2016

Islam Must Be Expelled From The West

by Fjordman

Fjordman speaks the unspeakable.

(Editor’s Note: I first rolled this grenade into the room in December 2010 to gauge the reaction from readers. Now look at what has happened relating to Islam in the last two years. But does Islam pose a serious threat to any state that secedes and becomes a sovereign nation? Let us know your comments.)

On the 11th of December 2010, the first-ever suicide bombing in Scandinavia occurred when Taimour Abdulwahab, an Iraqi-born Muslim and Swedish citizen with a wife and children in Luton, Britain, was carrying explosives and mistakenly set off an explosion near a busy Christmas shopping street in Stockholm just before he could murder dozens of people.

Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, who is a passionate promoter of having Turkey as a full member of the European Union and Islam as an established part of European culture, stated that “We were extremely lucky… I mean minutes and just a couple of hundred metres from where it would have been very catastrophic.” Sweden’s intelligence agency and a news agency received an email with audio files in which a man called on “all hidden mujahedeen [Islamic holy warriors] in Europe, and especially in Sweden, it is now the time to fight back.” He criticized Sweden for its military presence in Afghanistan and its acceptance of the artist Lars Vilks, who had made some cartoons mocking Muhammad. The message warned that “now your children, daughters and sisters die like our brothers’ and sisters’ children die.”

We’ve been told for years that suicide bombers who blow themselves up in civilian areas in Israel are “freedom fighters struggling against Israeli occupation.” Does that mean that this Muslim blew himself up to protest against the Swedish occupation of Stockholm?

Sweden has no colonial history, at least not outside of northern Europe. It is a self-appointed champion of Third World countries and has virtually surrendered its third-largest city to immigrant mobs and substantial chunks of other cities, too. Swedish authorities are using the most extreme methods imaginable to suppress any dissent among the native people, who are being ethnically cleansed from their own land. The authorities always side with immigrants against the natives in the case of conflict. Muslims in Sweden can harass the natives as much as they want to and have access to all kinds of welfare goodies and a much higher standard of living than they would have in their own countries. In short, they have no imaginable, rational reason to complain, yet they still blow themselves up.

In Sweden, all the traditional excuses employed by Multiculturalists and Leftists throughout the Western world, fail. This leaves just one possible explanation, the only one never mentioned in Western mainstream media: That Muslims and their culture are fundamentally incompatible with our values and societies.

Hassan Moussa, who has worked as an imam at the largest mosque in the city of Stockholm, has earlier been accused of spreading double messages. What he said in his harsh speeches in Arabic didn’t match the text as translated in Swedish. A journalist warned that “Sweden’s mosques are slowly but surely being taken over” by the Muslim Brotherhood. Following the 2010 suicide bombing, Moussa’s recommendations for how to prevent similar events in the future involved giving more power to imams and having a “zero tolerance for Islamophobia.”

Prohibiting all forms of criticism or mockery of Islam and its Prophet is an essential part of sharia, Islamic religious law. According to Islamic historical sources, individuals such as the poetess Asma bint Marwan were killed by the followers of Muhammad for having done nothing other than mocking Islam. This then became a part of the Sunna, the personal example of Muhammad and his companions, which is the most authoritative source of Islamic law next to the Koran itself. It was for the same reason that Theo van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdam in 2004. Yes, mainstream, traditional Islam today stipulates that those who mock Islam deserve to be murdered. No other major religion on this planet dictates anything similar.

It sounds nearly unbelievable to the average person that one of the largest religions on Earth, which is “respected” by the United Nations and political leaders worldwide, can be that bad, but this is unfortunately true. Not only is this the case, but the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the largest voting bloc at the UN, is teaming up with other dictatorships and African nations as we speak to ban “Islamophobia” across the world, also in the West.

Islam is more totalitarian than the most totalitarian ideologies that have ever existed in the Western world. Even Der Führer or Comrade Stalin never expected or demanded that every single man should copy all of their personal habits and their silly little mustaches, for which we should be eternally grateful. Islam, on the other hand, stipulates that all men everywhere and for all times should copy Muhammad’s personal habits and example in minute detail.

Islam is a creed which says that men should urinate like Muhammad and that Muslims should wage a war against all other men on the planet until they, too, urinate like their Prophet. This is a provocative way of putting things, yes, but theologically speaking it is not incorrect. While Muhammad was not divine he was, as some Muslims say, the “living Koran.” John L. Esposito in Islam: The Straight Path, one of the most pro-Islamic books in existence, states:

“Muslims look to Muhammad’s example for guidance in all aspects of life: how to treat friends as well as enemies, what to eat and drink, how to make love and war. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the growth of Prophetic traditions….His impact on Muslim life cannot be overestimated, since he served as both religious and political head of Medina: prophet of God, ruler, military commander, chief judge, lawgiver. As a result, the practice of the Prophet, his Sunna or example, became the norm for community life. Muslims observed and remembered stories about what the Prophet said and did. These reports or traditions (hadith) were preserved and passed on in oral and written form. The corpus of hadith literature reveals the comprehensive scope of Muhammad’s example; he is the ideal religiopolitical leader as well as the exemplary husband and father. Thus when many Muslims pray five times each day or make the pilgrimage to Mecca, they seek to pray as the Prophet prayed, without adding or subtracting from the way Muhammad is reported to have worshipped. Traditions of the Prophet provide guidance for personal hygiene, dress, eating, marriage, treatment of wives, diplomacy, and warfare.”

According to sharia, non-Muslim dhimmis can on certain conditions be allowed to retain their lives under Islamic rule, provided that they remain totally submissive to Muslims at all times. Any perceived “insult,” however slight, could immediately trigger violent reactions. In practice, a mere rumor that anybody has done something which displeases Muslims can cause retaliations and murders. This is how Christians in Pakistan or elsewhere live on a daily basis, constantly fearful of Jihadist attacks, and this is how many Muslims want us to live as well. Meanwhile, our authorities, intellectuals and mass media continue to import people who are plotting to murder us while we have our genetalia screened and checked at our airports.

If a single non-Muslim says anything critical about Islam, his entire community can in principle be punished for this. Basically, this means that if one cartoonist in Germany, the USA or Denmark makes a cartoon mocking Muhammad, this could potentially trigger Jihadist terrorist attacks against his entire country for “waging a war against Islam,” because his “tribe” is held collectively responsible for his actions. This was exactly the Islamic logic behind Taimour Abdulwahab’s terror attack in Stockholm. There is no such thing as an individual in this culture; the tribe is everything. Muslims, being good hypocrites, are always the first following an Islamic terrorist attack to state that all Muslims should not be punished for the actions of a few, yet this is precisely what their own laws prescribe for non-Muslims.

Before the general elections in 2006 the Swedish Muslim League, the largest Islamic organization in the country, published a long list where they not merely requested, but essentially demanded, separate family laws for Muslims; that public schools should employ imams to teach homogeneous classes of Muslims children in the language of their original homeland. (The Swedish city of Malmö already has pre-school classes where all teaching is conducted in Arabic. This is “good for integration.”); a “mosque in every municipality,” built through interest-free loans made available by local municipalities to demonstrate “Islam’s right to exist in Sweden” and to “heighten the status of and respect for” Muslims; separation between boys and girls in gymnastics and swimming education; and laws instating Islamic holidays as public holidays for Muslims. Swedes should also ensure that all Muslims get two hours off from work during the congregational Friday prayer every week and an Islamic burial ground available in every municipality in which there are Muslims. Last, but not least, they demanded that the authorities and the already heavily censored, pro-Multicultural mass media should take even stronger steps to combat “Islamophobia” in the general public.

These demands were rejected back then, but they will be repeated, not just in Sweden but throughout the Western world. As long as we have sizeable Muslim communities here this is inevitable. Muslims are not here to live in peace as equals; they are here to colonize, subjugate, harass and dominate us. Their holy book, the Koran, demands nothing less.

But if all of this is true, how can we coexist peacefully with Muslims in our countries? The short answer is that we cannot. No matter how much you appease them, it will never be enough. As a matter of fact, since they come from a culture which respects only brute force they will despise you as weak and become more aggressive if you try to reason with them.

Their religion also states that Muslims are the “best of peoples” – the true master race – and that they are destined by Allah to rule all mankind. They are filled with illusions of grandeur and superiority, yet the harsh reality is that their societies are lagging behind those of others. This constitutes an inversion of the natural order which can only have been caused by demonic actions and must be reversed at all costs. As long as they remain in our countries, they will work to subvert and destroy us. It is quite literally a religious duty for them to do so.

So why don’t you hear this from most Western political leaders or mass media? Because they are lying to you, plain and simple. The truth is that there is no such thing as a moderate Islam; that nobody has yet managed to come up with a credible theoretical way to reform Islam; and that there are no practical indications of any softening or modernization of Islam actually taking place. Since the adherents of this creed in its present form are waging a war of annihilation against us and the civilization we have created, this leaves only one possible conclusion if we wish to retain our culture and freedom: Physical separation. Islam and those who practice it must be totally and permanently removed from all Western nations.

Potential objections can be raised to this solution. One is that it might provoke Muslims and trigger a world war. To this I will say that our mere existence as free and self-ruled peoples constitutes a provocation to them. Besides, we are already in a world war. Technically speaking, it started 1400 years ago, the mother of all wars. Against European civilization it has witnessed two main phases, the first one with the Arabs in early medieval times, and the second one with the Turks in early modern times. This is the third Islamic Jihad, and it has penetrated deeper into Europe than ever before because we don’t fight back. If the other guy walks up to you and starts punching you in the face then you are already in a fight, whether you want this or not. If you do not defend yourself properly then you have already lost.

Another objection is that expelling Muslims from the West would not end the war. They would merely continue from their original home countries, aided by missiles and modern technology. This could well be true. The separationist strategy does not imply that removing Islam from the West alone is all that will ever be required, only that this is the bare minimum that is acceptable. If Muslims remain aggressive, we retain the option of further actions, including directly targeting their holy cities of Mecca and Medina using conventional or non-conventional weapons. Having large numbers of Muslims in our societies is anyway very costly, and the aggressive fifth column in our midst will severely limit our freedom of action.

Finally, one could claim that the overall problem with the modern West is the general mass immigration and Multiculturalism promoted by our treasonous elites and that Islam merely constitutes a secondary infection. This is also partly true. No, just because Muslim immigration is especially bad does not mean that all other forms of immigration are unproblematic. Nevertheless, Muslims top the list over hostile aliens who do not belong in European or European-derived nations. The Islamic threat is real and needs to be dealt with.

The Serbian-American writer Serge Trifkovic, author of the book Defeating Jihad, has stated that the ongoing failure by their entrusted leaders to demographically protect European and European-derived nations constitutes the greatest betrayal in history. I am tempted to agree with him. In the end, the traitors and fifth columnists we have in our media and academia must be removed from power and replaced with people who are loyal to us and our nations.

Courtesy www.Europenews.dk


DumpDC Is Endorsing Hillary Clinton For President

March 8, 2016

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?

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.


The FRONA Corporate Model Of Governance

February 11, 2016

The FRONA Corporate Model Of Governance
by Russell D. Longcore

(Editor’s Note: “FRONA” is an acronym for the Free Republic of North America, that mythical new nation borne of secession and created in the fertile gray matter of your Editor. This is an update of an article that ran at LewRockwell.com in October 2009.)

The US Constitution is a dead document. It has been dead nearly from its inception. It is neither contract nor treaty, either of which would give it the force of law. It does not, and cannot bind any two persons to each other, nor can it bind any person to the rogue government called “The United States of America” that is the occupying force in Washington DC.

In this article, I will prove that the Constitution is without authority and that the subject of secession related to the Constitution is entirely irrelevant, and that any states need not concern themselves with the constitutionality of secession.

When you are able to wrap your mind around this truth, it may cause you some consternation. This means that all of the things that you learned about the US Constitution in elementary school, high school government class, college and any information you’ve learned since you became an adult…IS WRONG. If you went to law school and took Constitutional Law classes, they lied to you.

Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying that all of the debates that are made about the details of the Constitution are in error. We can all spend our days arguing about the articles and clauses and their meanings. But if the US Constitution is dead, and cannot bind anyone to it, arguing about the merits of constitutionality of any government action is simply an exercise in re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

A constitution, or any document organizing a government, must have authority and validity. But the US Constitution has no inherent authority or validity and has never had either. If we can learn what the US Constitution is and what it is not, we can understand the flaws in the old constitution and then craft a new constitution for any seceding state with authority and validity.

I believe that one of the major reasons that Washington is able to operate as it does, outside the strictures of the Constitution, is because those persons in power know that the Constitution is not legally enforceable. Absent a restraining legal document coupled with principals that have the power to enforce the terms of the document, the DC criminals do exactly what they wish and what they can get away with.

The US Constitution has the following words in its Preamble, showing the intent of the Framers:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the united States of America.

The Founder’s sentiments seek to secure blessings to themselves and their posterity, meaning future generation of citizens. But a loose agreement cannot by law or reason bind any future person to its details. Contracts cannot obligate persons who will live in the future, either. They can only obligate persons who are living presently and who sign and receive the contract.

Even though the old constitution wishes to bestow blessings and liberty on their posterity, it has no power whatsoever to achieve this goal. Further, it never showed any intention toward future generations other than to offer useful recommendations to their posterity toward the blessings of liberty. If they were in some way able to bind future generations to the Constitution, they would not have bestowed liberty but slavery upon their posterity, since their children would be bound to it from birth, like it or not.

So what exactly is this Constitution?

I think it could only be called a “loose agreement” between certain people at the time that it was written and ratified. It is not a treaty ratified between sovereign states, which would have the weight of law. It cannot be considered a legal contract, since legal contracts have characteristics that the old constitution does not have.

It was ratified by votes in the several states. But ratification in any form didn’t turn it into a legal document with enforceability and authority.

The US Constitution is not a legal contract. The Constitution never bound any two or more parties in a legal way, nor did it ever purport to bind anyone. A timeless principle in contract law is that the contract is not valid until the contract is signed by all parties and delivered to the parties, or the representative of any signatory party. Any party may refuse to sign or deliver a written instrument and thus invalidate the contract. The US Constitution was not signed by anyone or anyone’s legal representative. It was not delivered to anyone or their representative. No one in the USA, either alive or dead, has ever signed the Constitution as a legal contract between parties. So how could it be a legal document with binding authority or validity?

Contracts are also voluntary. The parties come together for a purpose, but are free to dissolve the contract based upon the terms of the contract. Even if they leave contrary to the contract terms, there may be consequences, but they can still leave.

Abraham Lincoln’s position was that, once in the Union, no state can ever leave. And if the US Constitution was an enforceable contract between parties, his position would have been rejected instantly and laughed out of any court in the land. But in light of the unenforceable nature of the Constitution, Lincoln was free to do what he pleased as it related to the Confederate States of America and war. But the Confederate states were also right to secede from a Union that could not bind them. Constitutionality was irrelevant then, just as it is today.

The Constitution is not a perpetual corporation. The perpetuity of a corporation would require that new members voluntarily assent to its laws and by-laws as old members die off. New members must accept in writing because without their legal signatures, they would not be members and could not vote on corporate issues. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Framers intended the US Constitution to be a corporation’s organizational document…at least not a corporation in the strictest sense.

“The United States of America” is the name given in the US Constitution to the organization that the states created. Compare the work of the Founders to a group of thirteen property owners that need a management company to manage their properties. So, they created a management company and gave it specific tasks and responsibilities. The property owners retained to themselves all other powers not specifically delegated to the management company. They also did not transfer ownership of their properties to the manager. The owners remained the sovereign principals, controlling the manager. But there is NOT ONE WORD in the US Constitution that purports to create a new nation. Look for yourself.

So we can see that the Constitution is not a contract. It binds no one, and never did bind any persons. We see that all those who pretend to operate under its perceived authority act without any legal and legitimate authority.

But we voted and elected these Representatives and Senators. They are our duly elected officials, aren’t they?

Are our elected representatives our personal agents with legal authority to bind each of us individually and collectively? No they are not. In order for you to have a legal representative, you must sign your name to a document that gives the representative the power to act in your behalf. This document is commonly known as a “power of attorney.” You must also deliver the document to the agent.

People regularly sign a “power of attorney” for health care decisions and other legal matters. But what would you do if a stranger went to your doctor and usurped your wishes for your medical treatment, stating that he had your power of attorney? Any reasonable person would require the stranger to produce a written document bearing your signature prior to any changes of treatment. How much more should there be a written power of attorney for the DC stranger who plunders your income and steals your liberty?

Did you ever sign a power of attorney so that any elected officeholder could make binding decisions on your behalf? Did you authorize any person to obligate you to laws, regulations or the payment of taxes to any governmental body? I know that I have not done so. Neither have you.

And the secret ballot makes the concept of any elected representative acting as your agent even more ridiculous. How could secret voters hire an agent? How could secret voters enter into a power of attorney agreement?

So we see that those persons acting as our elected representatives are acting unlawfully, and that we have both the right and duty to treat them as usurpers and frauds.

Then upon what authority does the Federal Government operate? Who gave them the authority to enact laws, tax, confiscate men’s property and kill other men who resist their machinations?

You could say that voters select their representatives by secret ballot, and so bestow authority upon them. But in matter of law and reason, this is not true. It would not be upheld in a court of common law. If you and three of your friends voted in favor of a proposal in which a fourth friend would take it upon himself to deprive me of my property or my life, he would be a robber and/or a murderer. If he presented himself at my door to do his work, he would be unable to produce any legal authority to complete his task. Absent legal authority, I should treat him as a robber and murderer and resist his efforts even unto deadly force.

In a courtroom, a judge would ask to see your representative’s written authority to act in your behalf. You would be unable to produce such written authority.

So voting is neither a contract nor a power of attorney. And secret ballots should never be considered legally binding, since no signed contract between parties ever existed. Further, if voters authorize another person to act as their agent, they should do so in an open manner so to accept responsibility for the agent’s acts. That’s called “liability,” and that’s what happens out here in “the real world.” But the US Constitution, in Article I, Sec. 6, says that “for any speech or debate (or vote) in either house, they (Senators or Representatives) shall not be questioned in any other place.” So your agent cannot be held responsible for any laws they make…and neither can you. So, if no one is responsible, who is responsible?

NO ONE.

And let’s return to the subject of legal authority. The Constitution has no legal authority to bind any two or more persons. If it did, you would possess a copy upon which you would find your own signature and at least one other person’s signature. But that document does not exist in any form and has not existed in over 235 years. So, absent that authority, voting is only theater. It is an exercise that makes the citizen feel that he is participating in a legitimate government.

The Federal Government in Washington has been illegitimate from its origin. There is no enforceable law or principal possessing superior force to restrain it from any act. It was only the morality and ethics of the earliest founders that restrained them from tyranny. Unfortunately for Americans, that morality and ethical restraint are a quaint memory.

OK. Convinced that the old Constitution is a cruel joke? Then, how can the new constitution be crafted to guarantee legitimacy and legality? If the framers of the new constitution write one like the old one, it will suffer the same illegitimacy issues as the old one.

Here are suggestions on how to write a new Constitution for a seceding State that wants to become a new sovereign nation.

The New FRONA Corporate Model of Governance

Form the new nation in the style of a corporation. Let’s call it The Free Republic of North America, or for short, “FRONA.” The Constitution, or Charter, can be its laws and by-laws. Each person will be given the option to subscribe to FRONA and become a citizen. That person would have to be presented with a copy of the Charter. Each person would have the choice to accept the Charter in writing. Once accepted, each citizen would be, in essence, a shareholder in the corporation, since a person could not be a citizen/shareholder without signed consent. Each citizen would pay one once of .999 purity silver and would be issued one share of common stock with one vote. No citizen could buy or own more than one share of common stock. That would also mean that those rejecting the Charter could not be citizens of FRONA. Minors could not be citizens until they were of legal age to enter into a contract, usually eighteen years of age. So, in FRONA, there would be two groups of people: citizens and residents. Residents would obviously not have the same legal rights as citizens.

FRONA might also issue preferred stock. The shareholder/citizens could actually invest their own money in preferred stock. This would provide the new nation with additional capital. Shareholders holding preferred stock might receive dividends if FRONA makes a profit.

FRONA would also be able to issue debentures and corporate bonds to raise capital.

As the corporate structure would be a closely-held private corporation, the charter could specify that the stock could not be resold to non-citizens. Only FRONA would be eligible to buy back the stock to be reissued to new citizen/investors.

The founders of FRONA would have the right to present the offer of citizenship to anyone anywhere on the planet. They could cherry pick the world for the best and brightest talent! It would be a powerful component of immigration policy.

Voting could be done by proxies (power of attorney), and the citizen could designate an elected representative as his proxy in writing. Or he could vote himself on any issue. This creates a hybrid between direct democracy and representative democracy.

Think this is unworkable? The largest corporations on the planet have been running this way for hundreds of years. GM (pre-nationization), Exxon, Standard Oil, all of the Dow Jones top 30…they all work this way just fine. Many have millions of shareholders, just like FRONA would have. In fact, Sweden’s Stora Kopparberg was incorporated by King Magnus Eriksson in 1347 and still operates today.

FRONA Monetary Policy

The new Charter must have an article about monetary policy. This article will authorize the private minting of gold and silver coins, and will mandate that coins only show their purity and weight, not any monetary value.

Banking, Entity Structure and Privacy

The new Charter must contain an article about banking. Specifically, Fractional Reserve Banking must be prohibited. In addition, strict protections of privacy must be enacted, shielding citizens from the tax laws of other nations.

The new Charter must contain laws that prevent tax treaties with other nations, thereby protecting FRONA citizens from predatory taxation by other jurisdictions. Statutes must also protect the privacy of business entities such as corporations.

Taxation

The sole method of taxation that is at once most restrictive to government yet least confiscatory to individuals is the sales tax. FRONA should establish the sales tax as the sole source of government revenue.

The Militia

FRONA must organize, train and equip a citizen militia, comprised of able-bodied men and women between the ages of 18 and 55. This will be an entirely voluntary militia, since requiring conscription is tantamount to involuntary servitude, and does not protect individual liberty. As the well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the natural right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Following the Swiss model of militia organization would be a good idea.

If the new FRONA Charter only had those articles about monetary policy, banking, taxation and militia, that would be sufficient to form a core government and bring FRONA to life. Because the power of the purse and the power of the sword make all else possible. There are many details that must be worked out that are not listed in this article. But this article was not written to form a new government. It was written to get you thinking about constitutions and how they directly affect YOU.

Thomas Jefferson’s shining jewel, the Declaration of Independence, states that when a government shows a long train of abuses meant to reduce the people under absolute despotism, it is the people’s right and duty to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security. The Free Republic of North America could be that new guard that secures the future of a new nation.

FRONA. A new model for governance on the American continent. An idea whose time is come.

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

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

For a wider analysis of this constitutional issue, read “No Treason,” by Lysander Spooner.


Bread And Circuses: America’s Growing Desire For Socialism

February 5, 2016

by Russell D. Longcore

(Author’s Note: This was written back in July 2009 and updated for the 2016 election season.)

The term “Bread and Circuses” is credited to Juvenal, a Roman writer and satirist* (AD 55-127). He was describing the Roman citizens’ enthusiasm for free food handouts and gladiatorial games at the Circus Maximus and later at the Colosseum. He felt that Romans had lost the capacity to govern themselves through their mindless self-gratification.

“Bread and Circuses” is a phrase that can accurately be used to describe the desires of the American population. Americans are so addicted to entertainment and personal pleasure that they ignore civic responsibility and gladly accept government authority with unflinching obedience.

Well, maybe some of us flinch a little. Reminds me of a bawdy story.

Three friends dared each other to go skydiving. They found a skydiving club and paid their money. After a short lesson, the instructor took them up to 8,000 feet and opened the door of the plane. The first two friends jumped, but the third friend was too scared.

The instructor yelled, “If you don’t jump right now, I’m going to rip off your pants, bend you over and have sex with you.”

“Did you jump?” his friends asked him later.

“Well yes…a little at first,” was his reply.

Americans jumped “a little at first” after the Revolutionary War and up into the mid-1800s. Shays’ Rebellion happened in 1787, The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were written in 1798 an ’99 by Jefferson in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the Nullification Crisis happened in 1832. But by 1860, they were willing to allow Lincoln to make war upon the Confederate States of America and completely ignore the Constitution. It was all downhill from then until now.

Thankfully, there are still some American patriots that jump when someone tries to attack them from behind, so to speak.

Just as Juvenal observed in his day, so I believe that Americans have lost the capacity to govern themselves.

Actions speak louder than words. Stated another way, if you want to learn what people truly value, don’t listen to what they say, only watch what they do.

The majority of American citizens want socialism. They may say that they are against socialism but they continue to elect and re-elect politicians that enact socialistic laws and regulations. They do not storm Washington when those politicians violate the Constitution and commit treasonous, criminal acts. They do not impeach and prosecute the criminals in Washington.

The two remaining candidates for president for the Democrat Party are socialists. Bernie Sanders is not even a Democrat. He describes himself as a Socialist. And Mrs. Clinton supports most of the beliefs and proposals that Sanders is making. And in the Iowa Caucuses, the outcome was a statistical tie. Both candidates got HALF the votes.

But wait!! “How To Get Away With Murder” is on TV. “Star Wars” is in the theaters. The Super Bowl is Sunday, and baseball season is just around the corner.

America is on the auction block, and the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government are the auctioneers. The American citizens expect their elected officials to “bring home the bacon,” which means get more Federal dollars coming back home than they are sending to Washington. American citizens want more than their share.

America wants socialism.

Over the past 100 years, American citizens have become addicted to the money that comes to them from Washington. It comes as fat defense contracts to little machine shops, farm subsidies, student loans, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, The GI Bill, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security…and the list goes on. Because most Americans have their taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks, they don’t feel the weight of their tax burden. So, it FEELS like benefits are flowing from Washington back to home.

America wants socialism.

In 2008 and 2009, the Federal Government nationalized the banking industry, the investment industry, a giant insurance company and part of the automobile industry. America barely made a peep.

America wants socialism.

The afore-mentioned Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the biggest entitlement programs in the history of the planet, have become as familiar as the air we breathe. Conservatives in Washington accepted the big social welfare programs long ago, and don’t lift a finger any more to fight against them…or even try to control their budgets. In fact, some of the biggest spending legislation ever enacted came from Washington while Conservatives controlled the House and Senate, and Republicans lived in the White House.

America wants socialism.

America totally forgave George Bush for lying the USA into a Middle East war. American has completely accepted an ever-expanding worldwide military, and embraced the wars in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan. They festoon everything with yellow ribbons, and “support the troops”…even when the troops are murdering foreign civilians and violating the Constitution with their actions abroad. (By the way, a tenet of communism was to spread communism by military action. Americans think we’re trying to spread democracy.)

America wants socialism.

Washington politicians have gutted what was left of the Constitution since 2001. Individual liberties have been destroyed. The Patriot Act was enacted, the Transportation Safety Administration made airports into “no-rights zones,” and the Department of Homeland Security has vastly expanded its power over American citizens. All done with only a few whimpers and few objections.

America wants socialism.

The Obama Administration took over health care and health insurance in the USA. American citizens have watched the nation’s insurance companies destroy the health insurance industry. There are over 45 million Americans today without any health insurance at all. So, Obama and Congress had the political cover to do a government takeover. American citizens are exhausted from fighting to get health insurance. They want health insurance at any cost, and are willing to trust Uncle Sam to run the healthcare and health insurance system.

And the Republicans in the US House of Representatives and Senate vowed to repeal Obamacare. Now that they are the majority party in both houses, some Americans expected them to make good on their vow. But in the budget that was signed into law at the end of 2015, the Republicans made not a peep about it, and passed the largest budget in the history of mankind.

Americans want socialism. And Americans are getting socialism as quickly as Washington can deliver it.

I always used to think that America was being misused and abused by Washington. I have changed my thinking about that. I believe that Washington is simply giving America what it wants.

An America that still believed it was the master of DC, and not its slave, would rise up and end the socialism coming from Washington. Some might even entertain the idea of secession, and end the bread and circuses once and for all.

Perhaps the Washington politicos are the most astute observers of human behavior. They are certainly the best at survival.

Curious, though…that last sentence also aptly describes the relationship between a leech and its host. And a leech will feed on its host until the host dies.

America…you have the government that you desire…and the government you deserve.

*“It is hard NOT to write satire.” ~Juvenal, Roman satirist, writing about the Rome of his day.


The Constitution Is Too Small

January 31, 2016

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.


Secession, Immigration and Multiculturalism

January 28, 2016

Secession, Immigration and Multiculturalism

by Russell D. Longcore

Secession, Immigration and Multiculturalism will give rise to societal problems as states secede from the Union. Better to start discussing this now rather than wait until the days after secession.

We who live in the USA…and in all the West…have had multiculturalism forced upon us since the 1960s. And while it sounds nice and friendly toward people that are different than us, there is a problem with it.

The problem is that some people who come to the USA have no intention of assimilating into the American culture. Some never learn the English language. And government eases the way for this behavior.

Most recently, America is faced with the immigration of so-called “refugees” from North Africa and the Middle Eastern nations. In many instances, these people are Muslims FIRST, and as Muslims, they are taught in the mosques that Western culture must be eliminated because all non-Muslims are infidels.

So, now what?

In my writings about The Free Republic of North America (aka FRONA), I have taken positions that promote maximum personal liberty and property rights for individuals. But I will admit openly that this issue of multiculturalism continues to cause me philosophical nightmares.

My first default position is to welcome any human being above the age of 18 years old who can pay the fee of one ounce of .999 silver to purchase one share of FRONA common stock and sign the Charter.

I struggle with any other restrictions on citizenship. For example, should FRONA prohibit Muslims from citizenship or residency? We know up front that Muslims believe that all people that are non-Muslims are infidels, and that Islam should erase all other cultures from the earth. So every Muslim allowed to come to FRONA has either overtly or tacitly agreed with their religion’s teachings…else why be a Muslim? Therefore, knowing up front that every Muslim has the potential to take action against the FRONA government, the FRONA culture and the FRONA citzenry, should FRONA allow them to settle in our new nation?

One argument for unlimited immigration and citizenship could be that a person who has committed no offense against the People or the government is innocent, and should be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Another argument for unlimited immigration and citizenship could be handled within the Charter. The Charter could be written with a clause with restrictions built in.

On the other side…would it be acceptable to simply prohibit ALL Muslims…Sunni, Shia or whatever…from residing in FRONA or becoming citizens? Doing so makes sure that people who are avowed to your destruction are not allowed to legally reside in FRONA. If FRONA prohibits Muslims, then a mechanism of a background check would have to be created to check out applicants prior to acceptance for citizenship.

If FRONA decides to ban Muslims from residency and citizenship, it would be necessary to remove all people of the Muslim religion from within FRONA’s territorial borders. Now we begin talking about deporting people who own property and/or businesses already existing in that state that becomes FRONA. This opens up another can of worms that is antithetical to individual liberty and property rights.

I do not see where FRONA can be pro-liberty and anti-liberty at the same time.

Therefore, at this time, I am re-stating my earlier position for FRONA, in which any person above the age of 18 years old who can pay the fee of one ounce of .999 silver to purchase one share of FRONA common stock and sign the Charter is eligible to become a FRONA citizen.

I am far more concerned with protecting individual liberty and property rights than any other single thing. I believe that if FRONA can be formed as the freest place on the planet, with sound money and a roaring economy…we will be so attractive to the rest of the world that many of the societal problems plaguing the rest of the world will be avoided and unknown in FRONA. And that includes the issue with Islam.

But if problems with Islam did arise, FRONA as a nation could handle it. Remember that there are plenty of nations around the world where roving men don’t rape women, blow themselves up in marketplaces, or set IEDs off that kill innocents. America has been so far immune to the sectarian war between Sunni and Shia Islam. Muslims seem to blow each other up in their own nations, not here.

Whenever there is a societal issue that demands attention, ALWAYS DEFAULT TO LIBERTY. Remember that NO ONE has ever lived in a place like The Free Republic of North America. Let’s try LIBERTY first.