FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACTS:
Jason Sorens, President             Timothy Condon, Esq.
Free State Project, Inc.            Director of Member Services
Phone: (828) 225-1951               Free State Project, Inc.
         Phone: (813) 251-2626
http://www.freestateproject.org>   

NRA HAS OWN MEMBER ARRESTED AT NATIONAL CONVENTION

April 29, 2003 - The National Rifle Association apparently had one of its
members, a pro-gun activist, arrested at its national convention on Sunday,
April 27, 2003 in Orlando, Florida for handing out pro-gun freedom
literature from the Free State Project, Inc. The unlucky NRA member was
Timothy Condon, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Director of Member
Services for the rapidly growing Free State Project. He was arrested by the
Orange County Sheriff's Department Sunday for "trespassing"
outside the Orange County Convention Center
when he refused to leave or cease handing out the Free State Project
literature (sample attached).

"I believe there is a First Amendment problem with prohibiting people
from passing out political literature on public property where there is no
problem caused by it," said Condon, who also happens to be an attorney
who practices law in Tampa, Florida. "What is even more bizarre to me
is that the National Rifle Association would have one of its own members
arrested for passing out literature that supports the Second Amendment
right to keep and bear arms."

Condon, who was attending the NRA convention himself, was held for 10 hours
at the Orange County Jail before being released on bond. Jason Sorens,
founder and president of the Free State Project, vowed to explore legal
action against the National Rifle Association. "This is just
outrageous," said Sorens. "It appears that the NRA only supports
the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution if it's done according
to their orders. I really think members of the NRA need to question their
loyalty to an organization that would have one of its own members arrested
for passing out pro-gun literature at its own convention."

Condon, a longtime NRA member, vowed to plead not guilty to the charge of
trespassing, and said he is considering canceling his membership in the
organization. "It looks as if the Free State Project is a stronger
supporter of the Second Amendment, not to mention the First Amendment, than
the NRA," he quipped.

* * * * * * * * * * *

A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

As a seasoned amateur performer, having participated in a score or more of
community theatre productions, I have a love for both pageantry and
audience participation. Thus, combining that with my love for this country,
and for the flags of our past, present, and future, I have always enjoyed
The Pledge of Allegiance. However, it has also somewhat troubled me. Many
patriotic Americans love this country and her flag no less for being
non-religious, and many of us, understanding the principles of States'
Rights and State Sovereignty, would often find ourselves pausing over the
expression "one nation
under god, indivisible."

While we are, indeed, a single Confederation of States, there is no support
in our Constitution for the concept of indivisibility, and, while there is
also no mention of a "separation of church and State", the First
Amendment does stipulate that the "Congress shall make no law
respecting the establishment of religion," which leads inevitably to
the conclusion that there can be no Federal or national support for
religion. Therefore, as a Pledge to the Flag of the United States, the
expression, "one nation under god, indivisible" is at
best discordant, and more likely presumptuous.

I would not attempt to do away with a cherished public ritual that acts so
well to draw a crowd to a common feeling and a common purpose. I would,
however, like to offer an alternative to awkward silence for those of an
atheist (or simply more private) persuasion, as well as those understanding
the voluntary and confederal structure of our Union.

If I may...

    I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
    of the United States of America,
    and to the Republic for which it stands,
    Sovereign States, in Confederation,
    with Liberty and Justice for All.

Lehr Duquesne [lehr{at}citizenduquesne.org]

* * * * * * * * * * *

VOTE SWAPPING TO ESCAPE THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM

I've thought of a way to punch at least a small hole in the two party
system and allow some votes to leak out. I call it vote swapping, and it
works like this:

Get a mail-in (absentee) ballot, and before you hold your nose and vote for
a D or an R, call up a friend who is likely to be canceling your vote with
as little enthusiasm. Sit down together and cast *both* of your votes for
minor party candidates (like Libertarians).

You can look over each other's ballots for verification and then seal them
and drop them in the mail together, going away satisfied that while voting
for your true favorite(s), you still managed to cancel "the
enemy". The margin between D's and R's will be unchanged by the
compromise, but the support for minor parties will be more fully expressed.

Who knows? If my idea spreads and becomes a movement, organizations (like
the Libertarian parties of the various states... hint, hint) could host
"vote swapping parties" to facilitate the process. Individuals
could also shop for vote swappers online. Since erstwhile D's and R's would
meet face to face, our feelings oriented mass media could hope to create
multicultural irony to film, so newspapers and local TV stations, might
jump in with swap meets of their own. Do it right, and we might actually
elect some L's to Congress or even the
electoral college.

This and my other ramblings can be found at my steadily growing web site:
http://jeffryfisher.net/statesman>

Jeff Fisher [statesman{at}jeffryfisher.net]

* * * * * * * * * * *

THE ILLEGITIMACY OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Dear Editor:

I've been having somewhat of a philosophical evolution of late, and I'm
beginning to have seditious thoughts. I don't know who to speak to about
these thoughts, so I am sending them to you in the hope that I'll get some
wisdom in return. Possibly, this letter will spark a lively dialogue.

Merriam Webster defines the word "legitimate" in five ways.

The first is about birth, so doesn't apply here. The final definition
relates to actors, and doesn't apply here either.(maybe it
does....politicians act like the Constitution matters....as they ignore
it.) It is the three in the middle with which we'll concern ourselves
today.

The second definition is "being exactly as purposed, neither spurious
nor false." The original thirteen States of America were founded long
before they were united. In fact, the Declaration of Independence uses the
uncapitalized word "united", which was to describe their relation
to each other, not to apply a new portion of the name of a new nation. The
Constitution, ratified in 1789, is the form of government "being
exactly as purposed, neither spurious nor false." Any deviation from
that original document must come through the
amendment process, given in the very Constitution. All other deviations are
illegitimate. Therefore, our present government, which in most instances
does not acknowledge the strictures of the Constitution upon it, is both
false and illegitimate. Naturally, all laws enacted by that government
which do not acknowledge the strictures of the Constitution, are false and
illegitimate.

The third definition is "accordant with law or with established legal
forms and requirements." Our Federal Government's legitimacy rests in
the Constitution, and it alone. To the extent that the FedGov deviates or
simply ignores the Constitution in its machinations, it is both tyrannical
and illegitimate. Today, it makes war, spends money, and passes laws
illegitimately and unconstitutionally.

The fourth definition is "conforming to recognized principles or
accepted rules and standards." This definition is much fuzzier than
the last two. Today, legal precedent is being given greater weight than the
underlying law of our nation, which is the Constitution. To embrace this
definition is an acceptance of the Secular Humanist philosophy of
"situational ethics." It also goes along with the philosophy of a
"Living Constitution", in which the founding document is subject
to change if only by the edict of a Supreme Court ruling. So, if a rule or
standard is "accepted" then it's legitimate. This is
the zeitgeist of today's Federal Government, and of the majority of the
citizens of the USA.

I believe that by simply applying the definitions found above to the myriad
ways our Federal Government employees operate in their office, we can
easily see that the Federal Government of the United States of America is
an illegitimate government. Those elected or appointed to positions in the
Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches are required to swear an oath
of office (Article II, Article VI) to support, protect and defend the
Constitution. Any of those persons who fail to do so are traitors, and
should be arrested and tried in a court of law for their crimes. At the
very least, those politicians should be fired or impeached and removed from
office.

What are just some of the ways each of the branches violate the Constitution?

Executive:
1. Executive orders
2. Making war without a Congressional Declaration of War
3. Signing bills into law that are unconstitutional
4. Helping to create entire departments, like Homeland Security, that are
unconstitutional
5. Sign annual budgets that spend money unconstitutionally

Legislative:
1. Failure to declare war.
2. Creating legislation with no constitutional basis, violating the Constitution.
3. Authorizing spending on unconstitutional expenditures. Fully 75% of the
Federal budget is unconstitutional.

Judicial:
1.Making rulings that reinterpret the Constitution and do violence to both
its overt meaning and its intent.

The illegitimate Federal Government funds itself in a number of ways:
1. taxation
2. tariffs
3. borrowing, including bonds
4. printing fiat paper currency
5. inflation of the currency

Are we bound by morals or law to send our taxes to an illegitimate government?

Are we bound by morals to obey illegitimate laws passed by an illegitimate
government? If another sovereign nation passed a law that, for example,
assessed a $10 per person tax on each American citizen, would American
citizens send in their money? Or, would they consider that law, and that
government illegitimate.....and ignore it? If they would ignore that law,
passed by an illegitimate government, why would the American citizen
willingly succumb to thousands of illegitimate laws that affect them 24
hours a day, 7 days a week? Is it because we elected these scoundrels, and
feel obligated? Is it simply geographical, in that these tyrants are on our
soil?

Are we so afraid of the IRS and its power that we send our money in as a
kind of protection payoff.......hoping that they'll just leave us alone?
Please don't misunderstand me. I don't wish to become a tax protestor. The
FedGov loves to crush unruly individuals as a good example to the rest of
the sheep what will happen to them if they step out of line. So, maybe I'm
just a coward. It just seems to me that my protest would serve no purpose.
But, what would the FedGov do if 25 million people simply refused to send
their money to the IRS?

For me and my wife, becoming an expatriate seems to be a better idea. I
can't believe that I'm entertaining this thought seriously, but I cannot
see how the USA is going to survive. Libertarians are not going to bail out
this rowboat fast enough to save her. I can run my Internet businesses from
anywhere in the world that I can get an Internet connection and a phone
line. Also, I can run my insurance claims adjusting business from
anywhere.....and hurricanes blow
through the Caribbean pretty regularly. Hurricane Georges smacked the
Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico pretty hard in 1998.

The Dominican Republic or Panama are both looking pretty good to me right
now....maybe Grand Cayman.

For Liberty,
Russell D. Longcore [vocalmagic{at}mindspring.com]

---