Office of the President
August 7, 1998
Letter to the Editor:
Houston Chronicle
PO Box 4260
Houston, Texas 77210
On July 24, 1998 your newspaper published an article entitled "Adviser to separatists guilty in tax case." I would like to comment on this article and some of its implications.
First, lets look at the word "separatist" that seems to always be used when referring to the Republic of Texas.
Webster's New World Dictionary defines SEPARATISM: "The advocacy of political, religious or racial separation." The logical conclusion is that a separatist is "One who advocates political, religious or racial separation."
My question is, which of these three "separatist positions" do the People of the Republic of Texas take? What is your newspaper implying by the use of the word "separatist?" Who are the People of the Republic of Texas separating themselves from?
In all of the material put out by the Republic of Texas, the People affirm the fact that they want freedom for ALL Texans. They have specifically stated that "there are no racial, political or religious boundaries" for those who wish to join them in their struggle for freedom. One of the published goals of the People of the Republic of Texas is the restoration of freedom of religious expression, at work, at school, and in public.
Some might say that the word separatist applies because the People of the Republic of Texas want to "separate" from the United States. This, however, is a flawed argument because you cannot separate from something of which you are not LAWFULLY a part.
So what do you, and other media outlets, mean by the use of the word separatist? It appears that the only conclusion one can reach is that it is intended to vilify the People of the Republic of Texas and give the impression to all who read or hear the reports that the People of the Republic of Texas are religious nuts or racists. Both of these implications are not only ridiculous but patently false.
While we will not deny that at times Mr. Jacques Jaikaran has been consulted on financial matters, and we will not dispute the reported fact that he was convicted in a federal trial, there are many errors in your article.
The People associated with the lawful Provisional Government have never considered purchasing a "compound with gun turrets, a bomb shelter, and an operating room" and have never considered making anything in "northeast Harris county the Republic of Texas capital." Your article goes on to say that "The Republic of Texas, which has links to right-wing, anti-government militias..." is another incorrect and false statement, apparently designed to cause fear among your readers.
One truly bizarre statement is that "Members float their own currency." Say What? Where is this currency? Could you show some of this currency? If you are referring to the "treasury warrants" issued by McLaren and his bunch, please be advised that we issued warnings to every country in the world not to participate with him in such transactions.
Then you get to the "mainline" story referring to Richard McLaren as the "group's leader." Your paper, along with hundreds of other media outlets, has been notified many times that Richard McLaren was removed from his position of leadership on November 30, 1996, six months before his famous "standoff in West Texas." He still has a small group of followers, who did not agree with his removal, but that doesnÕt change the fact that he was lawfully removed from office and is not the leader of the Republic of Texas. If George Bush claimed to still be president, would that make it so?
It is clear by the entire tone of your article that you want to paint a picture of the People of the Republic of Texas as being a really bad bunch of people. You are completely wrong.
The People of the Republic, not "members" but declared Citizens, are those who have opened their eyes to the fraud and oppression being perpetrated upon the People of Texas as well as the United States. We have studied the law and learned that the current governments are violating their Constitutions at every turn and literally doing away with the right to be free and live your life as you choose.
We are not "anti-government." This is just another word used to vilify freedom-loving people. If we were anti-government, why is it that the first act of the People was to establish a Provisional Government? We believe in LAWFUL GOVERNMENT. We are against elected officials violating the law and the rights of the people. Certainly, we are concerned about our freedom, but we know that unless ALL of the people (regardless of the color of their skin or their religious beliefs) of Texas are free, then no one is free.
Our primary purpose is to restore the freedoms and liberties that we have lost, through a lawful constitutional convention that will form a lawful government that is responsive to the needs of the people without violating their rights. We want a government that recognizes the true purpose of a government in a society of free people; that purpose being to protect the rights and liberties of its people, not control them from cradle to grave.
What, may I ask, is wrong with that? Are you going to print this side of the story?
Respectfully,
Jesse Enloe, President
Provisional Government, Republic of Texas