More On Internment Camps
by Chuck Baldwin
August 28, 2009
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column questioning why it was necessary for our federal government to be constructing internment camps all over America. See the original column at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090811.html
I felt it was time for someone such as me to publicly broach the subject. Needless to say, the response was overwhelming. Even more interesting is the fact that the web link to the National Guard Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) of "Internment/Resettlement Specialist" that I included in my column was removed shortly after the column was published. Was this a coincidence?
Of course, the U.S. Army still has their web site soliciting recruitment for "Internment/Resettlement Specialist" online. See it at
http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=292
Readers might also want to familiarize themselves with this story out of Fort Leavenworth:
http://www.ftleavenworthlamp.com/articles/2009/04/16/news/news1.txt
Predictably, I heard from a sizeable number of readers who expressed concern about my "credibility." Some were more direct: descriptions such as "conspiracy nut," "lunatic," "fringe," etc., popped up quite often. Several readers dismissed the entire proposition on the basis that, apparently, the link I provided to a photo of one such camp that was reported in the Idaho Observer as a FEMA camp was actually constructed in another country. Which, if true, changes nothing, of course. Others pointed to a very shallow "exposé" published in Popular Mechanics that attempted (lamely) to debunk the whole notion of internment camps. (This was the same source Glenn Beck used to dismiss the idea.) See the report at
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4312850.html
Criticism and name-calling aside, after reading the responses from hundreds of readers (and examining the evidence they submitted), I am more convinced than ever that our federal government is, indeed, constructing large numbers of internment camps. And as one might expect, I heard from a large number of military and law enforcement personnel, which made the evidence even more compelling.
One statement from a retired Air Force colonel (who is still active in military associations and stays well-informed on military issues) was especially telling. He said, "The Indiana plant is an AMTRAK repair area--there are probably similar reasons for other facilities. [Which is, no doubt, true.] I was a primary member of 'Continuity of Operations' planning in my second tour in the Pentagon in the 1960s--such planning has continued apace! This country was--and to a large extent still is--totally unprepared for the after effects of nuclear exchange. The millions of casualties of humans and animals--notwithstanding the almost total loss of communications and government infrastructure like police, fire, emergency response, etc. THERE ARE AND SHOULD BE PLANS TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW to keep order, to provide assistance for food, shelter, medical, etc. FEMA was designed to do this work to fill the terrible losses in continuity of operations, which would keep this country viable. Katrina is a tiny example of how an emergency can destroy an entire geographical area--and Katrina is just a minor example of where we would be as a result of a nuclear exchange. As with all things military you plan for the worst and hope for the best.
"We remain vulnerable to massive catastrophes in this country--natural or man-caused. We need to be prepared and FEMA with all its faults--BACKED BY THE MILITARY--is charged with this job." (Emphasis added.)
(To learn more about "Continuity of Operations," to which the good colonel referred, start with these web sites:
http://www.nextgov.com/the_basics/tb_20080623_2687.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan
http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/fpc-65.htm )
Notice that the retired colonel did not challenge the existence of internment camps, but rather linked them, and military-backed FEMA, with martial law--and he saw nothing wrong with that. (Please note: the colonel brought up martial law; I did not. Plus, the colonel was not adversarial with me, but on the contrary, expressed familiarity and favor toward me.) Several military men who wrote me shared the colonel's sentiment. Some of them expressed concern about the impact these plans will have on freedom and constitutional government, while others seemed completely unconcerned regarding any potential encroachment that plans of military action against American citizens might have upon the Bill of Rights. What is enlightening, however, is the fact that, regardless of the personal position taken, none of the military personnel who wrote me discounted the existence of internment camps.
Since the colonel brought up martial law, U.S. Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA) recently indicated that he believed the U.S. government was intending to do just that. See his comments at
http://tinyurl.com/pandemic-martial-law
And last year, the San Francisco Chronicle published a major story regarding the potential for the federal government to suspend the Constitution and institute martial law. See the story at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL
In addition, is it a coincidence that a bill was recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 645) called the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act, which directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish "not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations"? See the report at
http://tinyurl.com/cong-to-auth-fema-camps
Is all of this information simply to be discarded as hysteria?
On the other hand, several readers chided me for being "late" to discuss the subject. And to be sure, some of these folks have done quite a bit of personal research and have amassed a large amount of data on the subject.
For example, readers supplied me with a plethora of material to substantiate the existence of large numbers of internment camps throughout the United States. I invite readers to peruse some of the information provided below and draw their own conclusions:
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/08/11/p27662
http://www.bing.com/search?q=fema+camps
http://tinyurl.com/locate-fema-camps1 (This site requires JavaScript to be enabled.)
Of course, the above is merely a sample of the scores of resources that were forwarded to me by readers. I encourage people to do their own research.
Even Mr. Skeptoid himself, Brian Dunning, grudgingly acknowledges the probability of the existence of internment camps on U.S. soil. As with the retired Air Force colonel referred to above, Dunning senses nothing sinister about the existence of the camps, and he doesn't address the numbers part of the story, but he does admit the plausibility of their existence.
Dunning wrote, "When I first heard the FEMA Prison Camp conspiracy story, it seemed ridiculous and paranoid at face value. But when I finally dug in to research it, I started by searching for the origins of the rumors, and found to my surprise that nearly all of the legal foundation and precedent for such a plan does in fact exist."
(See Dunning's blog at http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4145 )
As I was mulling over all this information, I remembered reading an interview that radio talk show host Geoff Metcalf had with author Ted Flynn regarding Flynn's (then) new book, "Hope of the Wicked: The Master Plan to Rule the World." According to Metcalf, "Flynn's book provides a strong historical basis to show that there is a global elite working to end the sovereignty of nations and to place every person on earth under the authority of the United Nations." This interview was conducted back in 2001, by the way.
In the interview, Metcalf asked Flynn, "Please explain what FEMA is. What is their authority and what is their job?"
Flynn replied, "The Federal Emergency Management Agency is probably going to be the enforcement arm of the New-World Order. Very few people could tell you that it is actually a cabinet position. By and large, a great percentage of their budget is 'black ops.' It's really not on the books. You only hear of them a little bit when there are disasters. But there is a great agenda to gather information for the government in stealth."
Metcalf then said, "I found it significant when Rep. Henry Gonzalez, D-Texas, clarified the question of the existence of civilian detention camps. In an interview a few years ago, he said, 'the truth is yes--you do have these standby provisions, and the plans are here . . . whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism . . . evoke the military and arrest Americans and put them in detention camps.' They DO exist."
Flynn replied, "They do."
(See the interview at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=8853 )
Again, that our federal government has built large numbers of internment camps seems undeniable. What has not been determined is the purpose for which these facilities have been constructed. No one wants to believe that our government is planning evil designs upon us. Then again, neither did German Jews want to believe that their government was up to no good.
America's founders believed that a central government could not be trusted, which is why they tried to fence it in with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Neither should citizens today trust the federal government. As President George Washington put it, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Therefore, keep a wary eye out for anything that the federal government could use to encroach upon our liberties and freedoms--even reports of internment camps. If the reports are bogus, you've lost nothing; but if they are real, you could end up losing your liberty.
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
© Chuck Baldwin
This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090828.html
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Has The Church Become Irrelevant?
Has The Church Become Irrelevant?
--------------------------------------------------
By Chuck Baldwin
---------------------------------------------------
The Covenant News ~ August 25, 2009
---------------------------------------------------
America's Christian heritage is both rich and deep. What most historians and educators refuse to acknowledge, our forebears understood clearly: it was mostly Christians and churches that formed and shaped the new land that became known as the United States of America.
For example, when discussing the brave exploits of the passengers on board the Mayflower, people seem to have forgotten that the voyage was mostly the endeavor of a single church congregation. And don't forget that it was Pastor Jonas Clark's male congregants who withstood British troops at Lexington and fired the very first of the shots heard 'round the world. The famous French historian, Alexis De Tocqueville, credited the pulpits and churches of Colonial America with inspiring America's successful War for Independence and subsequent prosperity much more than its institutions of learning, halls of Congress, or industries of invention. From the very beginning, America's Christians and pastors were intricately involved in the establishment and building of this republic.
It is no hyperbole to say that without the influence, sacrifice, dedication, blood, sweat, and tears of America's early Christians, this country would not exist.
But what do we see today? We see pastors and church congregations who are, for the most part, totally ignorant of their own heritage and history. They have little or no understanding of the principles of Natural Law--something America's founders knew almost by second nature (no pun intended). They seem to know next to nothing of the Biblical principles of liberty and government. All they seem to be able to do is regurgitate some mindless interpretation of Romans 13--an interpretation that could have been written by King George III or even Adolf Hitler.
Read my column regarding Romans 13.
Ignoring the great examples and exhortations of both Testaments, today's Christians seem to have lazily latched onto a modern-day "divine right of kings" philosophy, through which they have become the pathetic slaves of arrogant and pompous political wolves dressed (barely) in the sheepskins of legitimacy.
Where are America's watchmen on the wall? Where are the great stories of courage and commitment demonstrated by America's founders that once emanated from church pulpits? How is it that today's Christians know more about sports celebrities than they do America's heroes? How is it that these lying, conniving, con artists called politicians can sucker church members as easily as they do the un-churched? How is it that Christians do not seem to recognize the devilish doctrines of socialism, fascism, elitism, or globalism for what they are? How can they be so easily manipulated? How is it that these corrupt politicians--who vote to kill unborn babies, merge America into internationalist and global entities, strip Americans of their God-given natural right of self defense, promote homosexual marriage, or allow America to lose its identity, culture, and heritage through unbridled illegal immigration--remain in "good standing" with any number of supposed "Christian" churches?
Even though there are more churches in America than anywhere else in the world, the pastors and Christians of this country have, for the most part, become completely irrelevant to preserving "the blessings of liberty"--or even fundamental Biblical principles, for that matter.
Churches used to be respected as lighthouses in communities: places free from the jaundiced juxtaposition of political correctness and avarice. Today's churches are filled with both. Where once churches stood as guardians of truth, they have now become progenitors of error. Where once preachers stood in the similitude of Elijah and John the Baptist, they now grovel in the image of Joel Osteen and Rick Warren. Sunday Schools were once bastions of Bible teaching; today they are glorified coffee shops and playgrounds. The modern Christian home cannot even disciple its own children: how can it then be expected to "make disciples of all nations"?
I repeat: the modern American church has, for the most part, become irrelevant.
It is little wonder that more and more people are losing interest in the organized church. Instead of finding Christian love and kindness, they find the same kind of gossip, slander, petty bickering, favoritism, and selfishness that they might find at any office water cooler. Instead of hearing a prophet of God declare the Word of God, they hear a milquetoast minister meekly musing the latest self-help book.
The complete irrelevance of today's organized church in America to the preservation of Christian liberty and constitutional government is especially disconcerting to those of us who still have freedom's fire burning in our souls. Where do we go for respite and instruction?
I tell you the truth: there are hundreds of thousands of patriotic, freedom-minded Christians all over America who have had it "up to here" with these spineless social clubs called churches! They are tired of petrified pastors groveling before corrupt politicians and businessmen. They hunger for truth, and they are not finding it in most organized churches.
As an example, go to my list of people who have written me to let me know that they are desperately seeking a Black Regiment-type church that they can attend. The list grows by the day. See the list here.
These people are not looking to be entertained or pampered. They do not care about social standing or making "business contacts." They don't care which church has the "most exciting" youth program, or how many softball teams it has. They want a church where the pastor isn't afraid to speak truth to power and take a stand for liberty. And, unfortunately, such churches are getting harder and harder to find.
In fact, I submit that the true church is not "emerging"; it is "submerging." As in totalitarian regimes all over the world, where there are basically two types of churches: the organized State-approved church, where people who worship the State go to put on a religious show; and the underground church, where real Christians go to worship God with honest, likeminded believers.
The "underground" church in America is not totally underground--yet. But the schism is taking place rapidly. Unlike the houses of State Worship, which enjoy large congregations and ornate buildings, underground churches are, for the most part, small and unassuming. Home churches are also mushrooming and must be considered part of the underground church movement. And, of course, Black Regiment churches are springing up all across the country. See the list of Black Regiment churches here.
I am convinced that it is through these independent, unaffiliated, unorganized, or underground churches that relevancy will return. It is in these churches where Christians can be taught the Biblical principles of Natural Law, where children who are disciplined and know how to behave are not considered oddities, where pastors aren't afraid to proclaim truth, where people are still committed to constitutional government--and understand the difference between a democracy and a republic--and where self-serving neocons are not regarded as heroes.
So, if you are a Christian and you want to be relevant to the preservation of liberty in this country, you need to get out of these establishment, State-worshipping churches and find yourself an "underground," unaffiliated, or Black Regiment church. And you need to do it quickly!
Chuck Baldwin
chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Chuck Baldwin Live
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com
More from Chuck Baldwin
************
Onward Christian Soldiers!
Why did ancient Israel have an army? Was it because they didn't have faith? Did they believe in themselves instead of trusting God? Did they insist on fighting their own battles, rather than let God wage war for them?
Separation of Church and State? Says Who?
God calls upon our Israelite family of nations to RESTORE HIS LAW AND ORDER, and we'll receive blessing to the degree we love and obey and He will bless our NATIONAL EFFORTS that reflect national repentance, learning to go by God's Word as LAW, trusting in His wisdom, rather than leaning to our own understanding with all our different political parties of men.
God's One Government Has Two Branches!
The Sabbath-keeping Church of God (that remains faithful to the plain truth of the Bible that Herbert W. Armstrong taught) has heard a lot about government, but many seem to have forgotten that God's ONE government has TWO branches: Church (Priest) and State (King).
Should Christians Judge?
All judgment must be tempered with mercy. Jesus clearly taught that we can see others imperfections (the "mote" in their eye) and help to remove it once we have first gotten the "beam" out of our own eye. The purpose is to help and not hurt: constructive criticism, not self-righteousness or sinister motivations.
www.davidbenariel.org
--------------------------------------------------
By Chuck Baldwin
---------------------------------------------------
The Covenant News ~ August 25, 2009
---------------------------------------------------
America's Christian heritage is both rich and deep. What most historians and educators refuse to acknowledge, our forebears understood clearly: it was mostly Christians and churches that formed and shaped the new land that became known as the United States of America.
For example, when discussing the brave exploits of the passengers on board the Mayflower, people seem to have forgotten that the voyage was mostly the endeavor of a single church congregation. And don't forget that it was Pastor Jonas Clark's male congregants who withstood British troops at Lexington and fired the very first of the shots heard 'round the world. The famous French historian, Alexis De Tocqueville, credited the pulpits and churches of Colonial America with inspiring America's successful War for Independence and subsequent prosperity much more than its institutions of learning, halls of Congress, or industries of invention. From the very beginning, America's Christians and pastors were intricately involved in the establishment and building of this republic.
It is no hyperbole to say that without the influence, sacrifice, dedication, blood, sweat, and tears of America's early Christians, this country would not exist.
But what do we see today? We see pastors and church congregations who are, for the most part, totally ignorant of their own heritage and history. They have little or no understanding of the principles of Natural Law--something America's founders knew almost by second nature (no pun intended). They seem to know next to nothing of the Biblical principles of liberty and government. All they seem to be able to do is regurgitate some mindless interpretation of Romans 13--an interpretation that could have been written by King George III or even Adolf Hitler.
Read my column regarding Romans 13.
Ignoring the great examples and exhortations of both Testaments, today's Christians seem to have lazily latched onto a modern-day "divine right of kings" philosophy, through which they have become the pathetic slaves of arrogant and pompous political wolves dressed (barely) in the sheepskins of legitimacy.
Where are America's watchmen on the wall? Where are the great stories of courage and commitment demonstrated by America's founders that once emanated from church pulpits? How is it that today's Christians know more about sports celebrities than they do America's heroes? How is it that these lying, conniving, con artists called politicians can sucker church members as easily as they do the un-churched? How is it that Christians do not seem to recognize the devilish doctrines of socialism, fascism, elitism, or globalism for what they are? How can they be so easily manipulated? How is it that these corrupt politicians--who vote to kill unborn babies, merge America into internationalist and global entities, strip Americans of their God-given natural right of self defense, promote homosexual marriage, or allow America to lose its identity, culture, and heritage through unbridled illegal immigration--remain in "good standing" with any number of supposed "Christian" churches?
Even though there are more churches in America than anywhere else in the world, the pastors and Christians of this country have, for the most part, become completely irrelevant to preserving "the blessings of liberty"--or even fundamental Biblical principles, for that matter.
Churches used to be respected as lighthouses in communities: places free from the jaundiced juxtaposition of political correctness and avarice. Today's churches are filled with both. Where once churches stood as guardians of truth, they have now become progenitors of error. Where once preachers stood in the similitude of Elijah and John the Baptist, they now grovel in the image of Joel Osteen and Rick Warren. Sunday Schools were once bastions of Bible teaching; today they are glorified coffee shops and playgrounds. The modern Christian home cannot even disciple its own children: how can it then be expected to "make disciples of all nations"?
I repeat: the modern American church has, for the most part, become irrelevant.
It is little wonder that more and more people are losing interest in the organized church. Instead of finding Christian love and kindness, they find the same kind of gossip, slander, petty bickering, favoritism, and selfishness that they might find at any office water cooler. Instead of hearing a prophet of God declare the Word of God, they hear a milquetoast minister meekly musing the latest self-help book.
The complete irrelevance of today's organized church in America to the preservation of Christian liberty and constitutional government is especially disconcerting to those of us who still have freedom's fire burning in our souls. Where do we go for respite and instruction?
I tell you the truth: there are hundreds of thousands of patriotic, freedom-minded Christians all over America who have had it "up to here" with these spineless social clubs called churches! They are tired of petrified pastors groveling before corrupt politicians and businessmen. They hunger for truth, and they are not finding it in most organized churches.
As an example, go to my list of people who have written me to let me know that they are desperately seeking a Black Regiment-type church that they can attend. The list grows by the day. See the list here.
These people are not looking to be entertained or pampered. They do not care about social standing or making "business contacts." They don't care which church has the "most exciting" youth program, or how many softball teams it has. They want a church where the pastor isn't afraid to speak truth to power and take a stand for liberty. And, unfortunately, such churches are getting harder and harder to find.
In fact, I submit that the true church is not "emerging"; it is "submerging." As in totalitarian regimes all over the world, where there are basically two types of churches: the organized State-approved church, where people who worship the State go to put on a religious show; and the underground church, where real Christians go to worship God with honest, likeminded believers.
The "underground" church in America is not totally underground--yet. But the schism is taking place rapidly. Unlike the houses of State Worship, which enjoy large congregations and ornate buildings, underground churches are, for the most part, small and unassuming. Home churches are also mushrooming and must be considered part of the underground church movement. And, of course, Black Regiment churches are springing up all across the country. See the list of Black Regiment churches here.
I am convinced that it is through these independent, unaffiliated, unorganized, or underground churches that relevancy will return. It is in these churches where Christians can be taught the Biblical principles of Natural Law, where children who are disciplined and know how to behave are not considered oddities, where pastors aren't afraid to proclaim truth, where people are still committed to constitutional government--and understand the difference between a democracy and a republic--and where self-serving neocons are not regarded as heroes.
So, if you are a Christian and you want to be relevant to the preservation of liberty in this country, you need to get out of these establishment, State-worshipping churches and find yourself an "underground," unaffiliated, or Black Regiment church. And you need to do it quickly!
Chuck Baldwin
chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Chuck Baldwin Live
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com
More from Chuck Baldwin
************
Onward Christian Soldiers!
Why did ancient Israel have an army? Was it because they didn't have faith? Did they believe in themselves instead of trusting God? Did they insist on fighting their own battles, rather than let God wage war for them?
Separation of Church and State? Says Who?
God calls upon our Israelite family of nations to RESTORE HIS LAW AND ORDER, and we'll receive blessing to the degree we love and obey and He will bless our NATIONAL EFFORTS that reflect national repentance, learning to go by God's Word as LAW, trusting in His wisdom, rather than leaning to our own understanding with all our different political parties of men.
God's One Government Has Two Branches!
The Sabbath-keeping Church of God (that remains faithful to the plain truth of the Bible that Herbert W. Armstrong taught) has heard a lot about government, but many seem to have forgotten that God's ONE government has TWO branches: Church (Priest) and State (King).
Should Christians Judge?
All judgment must be tempered with mercy. Jesus clearly taught that we can see others imperfections (the "mote" in their eye) and help to remove it once we have first gotten the "beam" out of our own eye. The purpose is to help and not hurt: constructive criticism, not self-righteousness or sinister motivations.
www.davidbenariel.org
Saturday, August 22, 2009
The Sotomayor Scare
The Sotomayor Scare
by Chuck Baldwin's Son: Timothy Baldwin
August 21, 2009
[Note: My son, Tim, writes today's column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a new book, published soon by Agrapha Publishing, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE.]
Yes, yes, we have all heard the remarks from those who would call themselves conservative, libertarian or the like concerning the nomination and now swearing-in of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court, which took place on August 8, 2009. Yes, yes, books have been written by those conservative and libertarian editorialists and authors who have explained to us that the United States Supreme Court (US S CT) is "out of control" and how we must elect "conservative" Presidents to appoint "conservative" judges. Ironically, this infatuation with the federal government, and specifically with the judicial branch of the federal government, has actually (at least in part) created the growing enslavement of the people of these States United.
Certainly we should care about who sits on the US S CT bench. However, the time has come in our Confederate Republic (the USA) to acknowledge and understand that the power to govern ourselves justly and constitutionally is in the hands of the people of the several states of America--NOT in the hands of the branches of federal government. What most people in America have been duped to believe is that the US S CT is the final arbiter in all matters concerning government actions related to the US Constitution.
When it comes to US S CT rulings that contradict the US Constitution and that reject the historical facts and principles of our Republic, people feel hopeless and think that regaining freedom somehow means replacing the "liberal" judges with "conservative" judges. Such an approach to preserving freedom is not only un-American; it is fruitless and ineffectual. History now proves this. Additionally, this approach proves that the vast majority of Americans have been indoctrinated into the centralist-ideology imposed on us by not-so-innocent advocates of such a political belief system.
Let me state this clearly: the US Constitution does not grant to the US S CT the power to interpret the Constitution in contradiction to the terms of the Constitution, and it does not strip the powers of the States to actively arrest and resist tyrannical federal actions. The US S CT can no more violate the Constitution than the Legislative and Executive branches can. What sense does it make that the US S CT is bound by an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then has the power to interpret it however the heck they want to? Do you think our founders were so near-sighted and unlearned that they would have given to the US S CT this unchecked and unlimited power in the very document that states its purpose is "to secure the blessings of liberty"?
The framework of our Confederate Republic was clearly understood by those who advocated its ratification, namely, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay: the writers of the Federalist Papers. These are the men who some today would argue advocated for a centralist government, reducing and eliminating the power of the states to resist and arrest federal usurpation of power. Obviously, these advocates of centralism would not have you aware of what these founders said on the subject, nor would they like to admit that the US Constitution formed a league of states, which was acceded to by each independent and sovereign act of the states, and which secured the right and duty of the states to actively guard against the encroachments of the federal government they created for the security of the blessings of liberty.
It must first be admitted that the US Constitution never gave to the US S CT the power to substitute their will for the intentions of the Founders of the Constitution. This is easy to prove. Alexander Hamilton admits this in Federalist Paper 78:
"It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature . . . The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."
Here, Hamilton points out the fact that, in our Confederate Republic, the US S CT MUST apply the Constitution to all federal laws as intended by the Founders. They are NOT to place their will above the will of those who framed and acceded to the US Constitution. To suggest that the US S CT has the power to alter, change or amend the Constitution at will is to place the US S CT above the Constitution: they can no more do this than the legislative branch can pass an unconstitutional law and the executive branch can carry out an unconstitutional law. Or as Hamilton puts it, putting their will above the Constitution will "equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." Neither is acceptable and neither is constitutional.
One cannot credibly and correctly argue that whatever the US S CT says goes. I should not even have to restate this maxim, but in America, it has been held true that any unconstitutional act is null and void. This applies to the US S CT as well. Thus, the question becomes, what can and what must the states do when all three branches of the federal government ignore the Constitution and trample over the intents of its foundational principles? The authors of the Federalist Papers give us some guidance on the subject.
In Federalist Paper 16, Hamilton explains in detail the states' right to actively resist federal tyranny and usurpation of power. Listen to Hamilton:
"The plausibility of this objection [that the states will at any time obstruct the execution of federal laws] will vanish the moment we advert to the essential difference between a mere NON-COMPLIANCE and a DIRECT and ACTIVE RESISTANCE. If the interposition of the State legislatures be necessary to give effect to a measure of the Union, they have only NOT TO ACT, or to ACT EVASIVELY, and the measure is defeated. This neglect of duty may be disguised under affected but unsubstantial provisions, so as not to appear, and of course not to excite any alarm in the people for the safety of the Constitution. The State leaders may even make a merit of their surreptitious invasions of it on the ground of some temporary convenience, exemption, or advantage.
"But if the execution of the laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor evasions would answer the end. They would be obliged to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights . . . Attempts of this kind would not often be made with levity or rashness, because they could seldom be made without danger to the authors, UNLESS IN CASES OF A TYRANNICAL EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY." (Emphasis added.)
Here, Hamilton clearly recognizes the states' ability to actively intervene against the federal government "in cases of a tyrannical exercise of the federal authority." Hamilton also expounds upon the natural protection that the new system of the US Constitution provides, in that states will not so easily and readily interfere with federal action when such interference must be made actively and openly against the federal government. Certainly, where at least three-fourths (the percentage needed to amend the Constitution) of the states disagree with the State actively resisting the federal government, that State will consider the risks and costs to be too great to carry out and thus would not resist actively; instead, that State would use its VOICE and not its ARM to communicate its discontent. However, as told by Hamilton, "IN CASES OF A TYRANNICAL EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY," the states most certainly would use their ARM to arrest such tyrannical actions.
Hamilton describes the use of this ARM of the States in Federalist Paper 26:
"[T]he State legislatures, WHO WILL ALWAYS BE NOT ONLY VIGILANT BUT SUSPICIOUS AND JEALOUS GUARDIANS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS AGAINST ENCROACHMENTS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent . . . [T]he people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person." (Emphasis added.)
Hamilton goes so far as to say, if the federal government has usurped its powers and the people of the states feel it necessary, the states should secede from the union, dividing "themselves into as many states as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person." This is not I stating this: this is one of the most well-known Founding Fathers in American history. Hamilton further expounds upon this states' right and duty to check federal usurpation of power in Federalist Paper 28. He says,
"Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and THESE [THE STATES] WILL HAVE THE SAME DISPOSITION TOWARDS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. IF THEIR RIGHTS ARE INVADED BY EITHER, THEY CAN MAKE USE OF THE OTHER AS THE INSTRUMENT OF REDRESS. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!" (Emphasis added.)
Very clearly, Hamilton sees the brilliance of our Confederate Republic system of government, whereby the states can check the federal government and that where "rights are invaded" by the federal government, the people "can make use of the [states] as the instrument of redress." Hamilton continues in this discussion, saying:
"It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that THE STATE GOVERNMENTS WILL, IN ALL POSSIBLE CONTINGENCIES, AFFORD COMPLETE SECURITY AGAINST INVASIONS OF THE PUBLIC LIBERTY BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, THEY CAN AT ONCE ADOPT A REGULAR PLAN OF OPPOSITION, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and UNITE THEIR COMMON FORCES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR COMMON LIBERTY." (Emphasis added.)
Even as expressed by the centralists' hero, Alexander Hamilton, the states were not left impotent regarding federal tyranny and were not stuck with the fruitless redress only through the US S CT. Hamilton clearly suggests that the states have the sovereign and active power to arrest the exercise of federal tyranny.
Again, the question here is not, does the federal government have the power to act within its delegated powers, for we all would concede that the federal government has the power to do what we the people in the several states delegated to the federal government. We acknowledge, as Hamilton expresses in Federalist Paper 27, "the laws of the Confederacy, as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land." Rather, the question is, what are the states going to do in response to the usurpation of powers that have been tyrannically taken by all three branches of the federal government? The question is, what are the states going to do when the federal government has passed, upheld and executed laws that are not "enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction"? After all, such laws are by definition NOT the supreme laws of the land and consequently, the people of the states and the states themselves are not bound to them. (Of course, this necessarily implies that we the people understand the Constitution, the principles of our government and the true character and nature of our government.)
Are the people of the states to sit back and let the federal government trample over the rights, principles and structure of our Confederate Republic? Is every State to shirk its responsibilities and duties to actively protect, preserve and defend the freedoms of its sovereign (the people of the State) against federal tyranny? Are the people of the states to live and be governed in tyranny with the only hope that we will hopefully elect a President who will hopefully appoint a US S CT justice to the bench so that the Court can hopefully hear a case on the direct issue so that the Court will hopefully rule the correct way? Nonsense!
The time has come that the people of the several states of America wake up to the truth of their history: they are citizens of independent and sovereign states; the US S CT is NOT the final arbiter in matters of freedom; the federal government is not the source of our freedom; the states have the duty to resist the encroachments of federal usurpation; and freedom can be restored when the Confederate Republic is restored. To that end, we must not fear Sotamayor; rather, we should insist that she fear the states--and obey the Constitution!
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
© Chuck Baldwin
This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090821.html
************
The Curse of Reverse Discrimination Grows!
Re: Sonia Sotomayor 'La Raza member'
by Chuck Baldwin's Son: Timothy Baldwin
August 21, 2009
[Note: My son, Tim, writes today's column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a new book, published soon by Agrapha Publishing, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE.]
Yes, yes, we have all heard the remarks from those who would call themselves conservative, libertarian or the like concerning the nomination and now swearing-in of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court, which took place on August 8, 2009. Yes, yes, books have been written by those conservative and libertarian editorialists and authors who have explained to us that the United States Supreme Court (US S CT) is "out of control" and how we must elect "conservative" Presidents to appoint "conservative" judges. Ironically, this infatuation with the federal government, and specifically with the judicial branch of the federal government, has actually (at least in part) created the growing enslavement of the people of these States United.
Certainly we should care about who sits on the US S CT bench. However, the time has come in our Confederate Republic (the USA) to acknowledge and understand that the power to govern ourselves justly and constitutionally is in the hands of the people of the several states of America--NOT in the hands of the branches of federal government. What most people in America have been duped to believe is that the US S CT is the final arbiter in all matters concerning government actions related to the US Constitution.
When it comes to US S CT rulings that contradict the US Constitution and that reject the historical facts and principles of our Republic, people feel hopeless and think that regaining freedom somehow means replacing the "liberal" judges with "conservative" judges. Such an approach to preserving freedom is not only un-American; it is fruitless and ineffectual. History now proves this. Additionally, this approach proves that the vast majority of Americans have been indoctrinated into the centralist-ideology imposed on us by not-so-innocent advocates of such a political belief system.
Let me state this clearly: the US Constitution does not grant to the US S CT the power to interpret the Constitution in contradiction to the terms of the Constitution, and it does not strip the powers of the States to actively arrest and resist tyrannical federal actions. The US S CT can no more violate the Constitution than the Legislative and Executive branches can. What sense does it make that the US S CT is bound by an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then has the power to interpret it however the heck they want to? Do you think our founders were so near-sighted and unlearned that they would have given to the US S CT this unchecked and unlimited power in the very document that states its purpose is "to secure the blessings of liberty"?
The framework of our Confederate Republic was clearly understood by those who advocated its ratification, namely, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay: the writers of the Federalist Papers. These are the men who some today would argue advocated for a centralist government, reducing and eliminating the power of the states to resist and arrest federal usurpation of power. Obviously, these advocates of centralism would not have you aware of what these founders said on the subject, nor would they like to admit that the US Constitution formed a league of states, which was acceded to by each independent and sovereign act of the states, and which secured the right and duty of the states to actively guard against the encroachments of the federal government they created for the security of the blessings of liberty.
It must first be admitted that the US Constitution never gave to the US S CT the power to substitute their will for the intentions of the Founders of the Constitution. This is easy to prove. Alexander Hamilton admits this in Federalist Paper 78:
"It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature . . . The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."
Here, Hamilton points out the fact that, in our Confederate Republic, the US S CT MUST apply the Constitution to all federal laws as intended by the Founders. They are NOT to place their will above the will of those who framed and acceded to the US Constitution. To suggest that the US S CT has the power to alter, change or amend the Constitution at will is to place the US S CT above the Constitution: they can no more do this than the legislative branch can pass an unconstitutional law and the executive branch can carry out an unconstitutional law. Or as Hamilton puts it, putting their will above the Constitution will "equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." Neither is acceptable and neither is constitutional.
One cannot credibly and correctly argue that whatever the US S CT says goes. I should not even have to restate this maxim, but in America, it has been held true that any unconstitutional act is null and void. This applies to the US S CT as well. Thus, the question becomes, what can and what must the states do when all three branches of the federal government ignore the Constitution and trample over the intents of its foundational principles? The authors of the Federalist Papers give us some guidance on the subject.
In Federalist Paper 16, Hamilton explains in detail the states' right to actively resist federal tyranny and usurpation of power. Listen to Hamilton:
"The plausibility of this objection [that the states will at any time obstruct the execution of federal laws] will vanish the moment we advert to the essential difference between a mere NON-COMPLIANCE and a DIRECT and ACTIVE RESISTANCE. If the interposition of the State legislatures be necessary to give effect to a measure of the Union, they have only NOT TO ACT, or to ACT EVASIVELY, and the measure is defeated. This neglect of duty may be disguised under affected but unsubstantial provisions, so as not to appear, and of course not to excite any alarm in the people for the safety of the Constitution. The State leaders may even make a merit of their surreptitious invasions of it on the ground of some temporary convenience, exemption, or advantage.
"But if the execution of the laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor evasions would answer the end. They would be obliged to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights . . . Attempts of this kind would not often be made with levity or rashness, because they could seldom be made without danger to the authors, UNLESS IN CASES OF A TYRANNICAL EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY." (Emphasis added.)
Here, Hamilton clearly recognizes the states' ability to actively intervene against the federal government "in cases of a tyrannical exercise of the federal authority." Hamilton also expounds upon the natural protection that the new system of the US Constitution provides, in that states will not so easily and readily interfere with federal action when such interference must be made actively and openly against the federal government. Certainly, where at least three-fourths (the percentage needed to amend the Constitution) of the states disagree with the State actively resisting the federal government, that State will consider the risks and costs to be too great to carry out and thus would not resist actively; instead, that State would use its VOICE and not its ARM to communicate its discontent. However, as told by Hamilton, "IN CASES OF A TYRANNICAL EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY," the states most certainly would use their ARM to arrest such tyrannical actions.
Hamilton describes the use of this ARM of the States in Federalist Paper 26:
"[T]he State legislatures, WHO WILL ALWAYS BE NOT ONLY VIGILANT BUT SUSPICIOUS AND JEALOUS GUARDIANS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS AGAINST ENCROACHMENTS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent . . . [T]he people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person." (Emphasis added.)
Hamilton goes so far as to say, if the federal government has usurped its powers and the people of the states feel it necessary, the states should secede from the union, dividing "themselves into as many states as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person." This is not I stating this: this is one of the most well-known Founding Fathers in American history. Hamilton further expounds upon this states' right and duty to check federal usurpation of power in Federalist Paper 28. He says,
"Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and THESE [THE STATES] WILL HAVE THE SAME DISPOSITION TOWARDS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. IF THEIR RIGHTS ARE INVADED BY EITHER, THEY CAN MAKE USE OF THE OTHER AS THE INSTRUMENT OF REDRESS. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!" (Emphasis added.)
Very clearly, Hamilton sees the brilliance of our Confederate Republic system of government, whereby the states can check the federal government and that where "rights are invaded" by the federal government, the people "can make use of the [states] as the instrument of redress." Hamilton continues in this discussion, saying:
"It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that THE STATE GOVERNMENTS WILL, IN ALL POSSIBLE CONTINGENCIES, AFFORD COMPLETE SECURITY AGAINST INVASIONS OF THE PUBLIC LIBERTY BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, THEY CAN AT ONCE ADOPT A REGULAR PLAN OF OPPOSITION, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and UNITE THEIR COMMON FORCES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR COMMON LIBERTY." (Emphasis added.)
Even as expressed by the centralists' hero, Alexander Hamilton, the states were not left impotent regarding federal tyranny and were not stuck with the fruitless redress only through the US S CT. Hamilton clearly suggests that the states have the sovereign and active power to arrest the exercise of federal tyranny.
Again, the question here is not, does the federal government have the power to act within its delegated powers, for we all would concede that the federal government has the power to do what we the people in the several states delegated to the federal government. We acknowledge, as Hamilton expresses in Federalist Paper 27, "the laws of the Confederacy, as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land." Rather, the question is, what are the states going to do in response to the usurpation of powers that have been tyrannically taken by all three branches of the federal government? The question is, what are the states going to do when the federal government has passed, upheld and executed laws that are not "enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction"? After all, such laws are by definition NOT the supreme laws of the land and consequently, the people of the states and the states themselves are not bound to them. (Of course, this necessarily implies that we the people understand the Constitution, the principles of our government and the true character and nature of our government.)
Are the people of the states to sit back and let the federal government trample over the rights, principles and structure of our Confederate Republic? Is every State to shirk its responsibilities and duties to actively protect, preserve and defend the freedoms of its sovereign (the people of the State) against federal tyranny? Are the people of the states to live and be governed in tyranny with the only hope that we will hopefully elect a President who will hopefully appoint a US S CT justice to the bench so that the Court can hopefully hear a case on the direct issue so that the Court will hopefully rule the correct way? Nonsense!
The time has come that the people of the several states of America wake up to the truth of their history: they are citizens of independent and sovereign states; the US S CT is NOT the final arbiter in matters of freedom; the federal government is not the source of our freedom; the states have the duty to resist the encroachments of federal usurpation; and freedom can be restored when the Confederate Republic is restored. To that end, we must not fear Sotamayor; rather, we should insist that she fear the states--and obey the Constitution!
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
© Chuck Baldwin
This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090821.html
************
The Curse of Reverse Discrimination Grows!
Re: Sonia Sotomayor 'La Raza member'
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Why Are Internment Camps Being Built?
by Chuck Baldwin
August 11, 2009
The Internet is abuzz with news about the construction of internment camps all across America. Of course, "mainstream" media outlets refuse to touch the subject; or if they do, they pooh-pooh the story; they do what Glenn Beck recently did: try to debunk the story as fallacious and impugn people who speak of it as "conspiracy nuts." The fact that the Becks, Hannitys, Limbaughs, and O'Reillys of the media circus refuse to deal with the construction of large numbers of internment camps does not make them disappear, however.
For starters, all anyone need do to begin a serious investigation of the subject of internment camps is Google the phrase "FEMA Camps." There is more than enough evidence in that search engine alone to keep one busy with some in-depth private investigation of the subject for quite a while.
Another URL to check out is this one from the June 2009 Idaho Observer:
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20090609.htm
As people read my columns all across America, I have had numerous readers contact me, saying that they have personally witnessed the transportation of construction materials used for internment camps, have actually worked in and around them, or have personally seen such camps. These eyewitness testimonies have come from very credible people, including law enforcement and military personnel, as well as airline pilots and construction workers.
Just a few weeks ago, I was aboard a cross-country flight when the passenger I was sitting next to (a total stranger) asked me to take a look out the window. He asked, "Do those look like internment camps to you?" I was astonished that the man (1) would even know to notice such a potentiality, and (2) would be so bold as to ask such a question of a total stranger. I must say, I was extremely happy to make his acquaintance. And we had a very warm and invigorating discussion the rest of the trip.
We were flying over Colorado, over extreme wilderness terrain, and, yes, right in the middle of nowhere, the buildings and surrounding features that I saw sure looked like internment camps to me. Of course, flying at over 30,000 feet in the sky makes it difficult for any kind of detailed analysis to take place; that is for sure.
Then, a friend recently brought this URL to my attention:
http://www.nationalguard.com/careers/mos/description.php?mos_code=31E
This is an advertisement by the National Guard promoting the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) of "Internment/Resettlement Specialist." Question: why does the National Guard need to recruit Internment/Resettlement Specialists? What do they know that we should know?
Furthermore, I have had military personnel tell me that many of the US military bases that have been recently "closed" are also being prepared as large-scale "holding areas."
Obviously, the question that begs to be asked is, "Who is the US government planning to intern and resettle?" And another question is, "How many people are they planning to intern that would require the massive number of camps that are apparently being constructed?"
Some suggest that these facilities are being prepared for large numbers of illegal immigrants. This seems extremely doubtful, however, considering the propensity of the federal government to (1) do next to nothing to seriously curtail the flood of illegal aliens into America, (2) do virtually nothing to apprehend illegals known to be in the US, and (3) do everything it can to facilitate the release of those illegals incarcerated by State and local authorities. To think that the federal government intends to place thousands of illegal aliens in internment camps borders on lunacy. If anything, the federal government (with either Democrats or Republicans in charge) has done everything it can to (1) entice illegals to come to America, and (2) provide every incentive for them to stay illegally in this country after having entered. I feel safe in saying that we can eliminate the possibility that these camps are being prepared for illegal aliens.
Others suggest that these internment camps are being constructed to accommodate "enemy combatants" from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Yet, the total number of these types of detainees is miniscule compared to the detention space being constructed. Can one really imagine the need to build facilities that could accommodate prisoners numbering in the tens of thousands to house a few hundred foreign troops? I don't think so.
Then, of course, there are those who continue to deny that these internment camps exist at all. But then, were there not thousands of Germans who denied the existence of concentration camps during World War II? These types of people would refuse to believe the sun came up in the east if the government spinmeisters told them it didn't.
That our federal government is building large numbers of "holding areas" or internment camps seems to be an established fact. The only questions that remain are "Why?" and "For whom?"
At this point, the imagination can take us anywhere, but it is not a little disconcerting when the same federal government that is building these internment camps begins categorizing Christians, conservatives, people who support the Second Amendment, people who oppose abortion and homosexual marriage, people who oppose the North American Union and the New World Order, people who oppose the United Nations and illegal immigration, and people who voted for Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin as "extremists," or "potential dangerous militia members."
Anyone knows that before a government can begin persecuting and imprisoning large groups of people, they must first marginalize them. As someone said, "Just because you are paranoid does not mean they really aren't trying to get you."
In fact, an argument could be made that by today's politically correct definition, America's Founding Fathers would be categorized as "paranoid," "extremists," or "potential dangerous militia members." I would even go so far as to question the patriotism of anyone today that is not a little paranoid. This federal government has certainly earned whatever paranoia citizens feel.
Feelings of paranoia notwithstanding, why is the federal government constructing large numbers of internment camps, and who does the government plan on incarcerating in those camps?
Those questions still need to be answered.
P.S. If you live within driving distance of Oklahoma City, or Tulsa, Oklahoma, I will be appearing at several events in this area this Thursday and Friday, August 13 and 14. I would love to meet any of my readers who could attend these meetings. For details, go here:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/cbappearances.php
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
© Chuck Baldwin
This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090811.html
Saturday, August 8, 2009
The Stand For Sovereignty
The Stand For Sovereignty by Chuck Baldwin's Son: Timothy Baldwin, Esq.
August 7, 2009
[Note: My son, Tim (who turned 30 yesterday), writes today's column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is married to the former Miss Jennifer Hanssen.]
On July 10, 2009, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin became the second governor in these States United (Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee is the other one) to sign into effect a State Sovereignty Resolution. (See http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com ). These Sovereignty-type bills, resolutions and laws are an obvious and rightful response that the super-majority of the States in the Union is expressing to and against the usurping powers of the federal government. While the effects of federal tyranny are being felt more seriously than ever, history and human nature prove that the people of a society do not respond or revolt immediately against tyranny--though they have a right to. America's resistance is no different. Fortunately, the sleeping giant is being awakened, to the dismay of our Centralist-worshipers today.
An observer of history and these current events cannot help but draw strikingly similar comparisons to America's political struggles during the early to mid-1800s, where there was a serious threat to our original form of constitutional government by the Centralists of that day.
During the presidency of John Adams, the people of the States realized and rejected the pro-centralist view of Adams and his ilk (e.g., Alexander Hamilton), and a battle between the ideology of centralism and federalism thrust itself into the forefront of political concern.
On the heels of the Adams administration, the people of the States United spoke clearly and loudly through their election of Presidents Thomas Jefferson in 1801 through James Buchanan in 1857. All of these Presidents (through either political expediency or conviction) rejected the centralists' philosophy and confirmed the fundamental political ideology that the Constitution of the United States of America was a compact assented to by the individual Sovereign States of America, and that the Federal government's authority only extended to the specific and enumerated grants acceded to it by the sovereigns of each State. It was not until 1861 that this understanding of Constitutional government and State Sovereignty was seriously challenged.
Since the Reconstruction period after the War Between the States, the philosophical acknowledgements of what State Sovereignty means, implies and mandates has been flipped on its head, to where the States seem to believe that they are powerless over the demands of the federal government. This concept is completely contrary to the original principles of our Confederated Republic, which was overwhelmingly acknowledged from 1787 to 1860.
Those who adopted the views of the Centralists during the twentieth century, of course, had their heyday: from the implementation of the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments, to the implementation of our fiat currency system; from the assumption of all federal laws as superior to all state laws, to the Federal Supreme Court being considered the only arbitrator of issues regarding political sovereignty; from excessive federal borrowing and spending, to tyrannical federal mandates and directives imposed on the people of the States. Now, their heyday is turning into our payday and we the people are fronting the bill.
What Governor Palin acknowledged on July 10, 2009--as have thousands of men and women in their State government capacities across these States United--is what America's Founding Fathers and statesmen pre-1861 accepted, acknowledged and proclaimed: (1) that each of the States is independent and sovereign possessing a natural right to govern itself according to the will of its people reflected in its own constitution; (2) that each of those States has a natural and compactually agreed-upon right to defend, secure and protect the freedoms and liberties of its own people; and (3) that any powers not acceded to by those people through their States to the Federal government by the expressed intent and purposes understood and explained in the US Constitution are void and unenforceable. Indeed, most would have argued that each Sovereign State had all powers of nationhood (pursuant to the natural laws of nations, as understood by philosophical and political statesmen), with exception of those powers granted to the federal government in the United States Constitution, which was ratified and acceded to only for the WELL-BEING--not the suppression--of those sovereign peoples and those Sovereign States.
Most students of history would agree that Daniel Webster was one of America's most referred-to proponents of the Centralist view of our form of government. In the 1820s and 1830s, Webster ardently held the position that most Americans hold today: that the Federal government, through the "supreme laws of the land," is independent and shielded from the States Sovereign powers and has an inherent political right to be its own judge regarding all matters that it unilaterally assumes to itself. In other words, they believe the US Constitution does not allow the States to independently judge the constitutionality of the federal government's actions as it affects their independent sovereignty, and the US Supreme Court, alone, must make any such determination. Webster was (and still is) the "hero" of many who would (1) presuppose that the effect of the US Constitution somehow dissolved the independence and sovereignty of each State regarding matters of political sovereignty and, (2) suggest that each State has no power to resist the federal government.
While Webster may have classified himself as a proponent of such a view during the time of his life described above, his stated belief and position later in his political life certainly indicates that he recanted this Centralist position, as he became wiser and more mature to the true nature and character of our form of government. In 1851, Webster states the following concerning the States' right, through their independent and sovereign status, to resist the Federal government's usurpation of its constitutionally limited and delegated authority:
"How absurd it is to suppose that when different parties enter into a Compact for certain purposes, either can disregard any one provision, and expect, nevertheless, the other to observe the rest! I intend, for one, to regard, and maintain, and carry out, to the fullest extent, the Constitution of the United States . . . A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side . . . I am as ready to fight and to fall for the Constitutional rights of Virginia, as I am for those of Massachusetts." (Alexander Stephens, A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States, vol. 1 [Philadelphia, PA, National Publishing Co., 1870], 404-405.)
Webster's dogmatic view of State Sovereignty cited above certainly sheds light and perspective on the limits, character and nature of federal power and is in stark contrast to the Centralist view of our federal government. The vast majority of the people of the States through their State legislatures and Congressional Representatives in the House and Senate from 1776 to 1861, of course, repeatedly confirmed this view of State Sovereignty. And while the end of the War Between the States in 1865 may have seemed like a victory for the doctrines of the Centralists and believers in monstrosities of government control over the lives of the people and the States, evidence now proves that the truly American doctrine of freedom has not died with war or time.
Instead, the spirit of a free, confederated and republican form of government, based upon the principles and maxims of Natural Law, lives on and is brewing like hot magma from what most would have classified as a dormant volcano. Very clearly, the spirit of freedom lives on. Even the famed French historian, Alexis De Tocqueville, in his book, "Democracy in America" recognized that "the fate of the republic should not be confused with that of the Union. The Union is an accident which will last only as long as circumstances support it, but a republic seems to be the natural state for Americans . . . The Union's principal guarantee of existence is the LAW WHICH CREATED IT." (Tocqueville, Alexis De, Democracy in America, Translated by Bevan, Gerald E., [Strand, London, Penguin Books, 2003], 464.) (Emphasis added.)
What can be dogmatically stated is that freedom-lovers in America should be more concerned about guaranteeing the existence of the LAW that made America free. (For now, I withhold my comments regarding those who reject the Natural Laws that created the Union.) The Centralists' view of "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable" (expressed by Daniel Webster on January 26, 1830, before his conversion to the correct view of our Confederate Republic) is not the true understanding of the nature and character of our government or our federal Constitution, which was built upon the notions expressed in the Declaration of Independence. (Webster, Daniel, Constitutional Doctrines of Webster, Hayne and Calhoun, [Lovell & Co., New York, NY, 1897], p. 23.) To the contrary, our Confederate Republic was built upon the law which states: the People have a natural right "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 Safety and Happiness."
What freedom-loving American would ever advocate the idea that a group of freeborn persons in Sovereign States should be forced to be governed by a government that was initially created by the will and assent of those people in their sovereign and independent capacities, especially where that artificial creation (i.e., the federal government) has usurped the powers originally granted to it by the sovereigns of the States? Such a thought is repugnant to free society, free government, and American ideology, and mirrors more of the hereditary-right-to-rule notion argued by monarchs of yesteryear and forced upon its not-so-loyal subjects.
Not likely realizing the significance and effect of his words and not knowing how he would later change his political understanding of State Sovereignty, Webster admits in 1833 that "the natural converse of accession is secession; and therefore, when it is stated that the people of the States acceded to the Union, it may be more plausibly argued that they may secede from it." As seen in his statement in 1851 above, Webster certainly reached the conclusion that the States actually did accede to the Union and did in fact retain their Sovereign powers, which they have a duty to use to protect their citizens.
While few are advocating secession (at least not yet), the battle for State Sovereignty against Federal usurpation and expansionism has clearly begun. Americans should not fear the movement for State Sovereignty. Rather, we should embrace it; because it is the only saving grace and vehicle for freedom left in this Confederate Republic we call the United States of America. Unless we stand for State Sovereignty, freedom will most certainly fall. Therefore, Americans everywhere should encourage their State governors and legislators to follow the example of Alaska in boldly declaring their State's autonomy and sovereignty.
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
© Chuck Baldwin
This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090807.html
August 7, 2009
[Note: My son, Tim (who turned 30 yesterday), writes today's column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is married to the former Miss Jennifer Hanssen.]
On July 10, 2009, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin became the second governor in these States United (Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee is the other one) to sign into effect a State Sovereignty Resolution. (See http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com ). These Sovereignty-type bills, resolutions and laws are an obvious and rightful response that the super-majority of the States in the Union is expressing to and against the usurping powers of the federal government. While the effects of federal tyranny are being felt more seriously than ever, history and human nature prove that the people of a society do not respond or revolt immediately against tyranny--though they have a right to. America's resistance is no different. Fortunately, the sleeping giant is being awakened, to the dismay of our Centralist-worshipers today.
An observer of history and these current events cannot help but draw strikingly similar comparisons to America's political struggles during the early to mid-1800s, where there was a serious threat to our original form of constitutional government by the Centralists of that day.
During the presidency of John Adams, the people of the States realized and rejected the pro-centralist view of Adams and his ilk (e.g., Alexander Hamilton), and a battle between the ideology of centralism and federalism thrust itself into the forefront of political concern.
On the heels of the Adams administration, the people of the States United spoke clearly and loudly through their election of Presidents Thomas Jefferson in 1801 through James Buchanan in 1857. All of these Presidents (through either political expediency or conviction) rejected the centralists' philosophy and confirmed the fundamental political ideology that the Constitution of the United States of America was a compact assented to by the individual Sovereign States of America, and that the Federal government's authority only extended to the specific and enumerated grants acceded to it by the sovereigns of each State. It was not until 1861 that this understanding of Constitutional government and State Sovereignty was seriously challenged.
Since the Reconstruction period after the War Between the States, the philosophical acknowledgements of what State Sovereignty means, implies and mandates has been flipped on its head, to where the States seem to believe that they are powerless over the demands of the federal government. This concept is completely contrary to the original principles of our Confederated Republic, which was overwhelmingly acknowledged from 1787 to 1860.
Those who adopted the views of the Centralists during the twentieth century, of course, had their heyday: from the implementation of the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments, to the implementation of our fiat currency system; from the assumption of all federal laws as superior to all state laws, to the Federal Supreme Court being considered the only arbitrator of issues regarding political sovereignty; from excessive federal borrowing and spending, to tyrannical federal mandates and directives imposed on the people of the States. Now, their heyday is turning into our payday and we the people are fronting the bill.
What Governor Palin acknowledged on July 10, 2009--as have thousands of men and women in their State government capacities across these States United--is what America's Founding Fathers and statesmen pre-1861 accepted, acknowledged and proclaimed: (1) that each of the States is independent and sovereign possessing a natural right to govern itself according to the will of its people reflected in its own constitution; (2) that each of those States has a natural and compactually agreed-upon right to defend, secure and protect the freedoms and liberties of its own people; and (3) that any powers not acceded to by those people through their States to the Federal government by the expressed intent and purposes understood and explained in the US Constitution are void and unenforceable. Indeed, most would have argued that each Sovereign State had all powers of nationhood (pursuant to the natural laws of nations, as understood by philosophical and political statesmen), with exception of those powers granted to the federal government in the United States Constitution, which was ratified and acceded to only for the WELL-BEING--not the suppression--of those sovereign peoples and those Sovereign States.
Most students of history would agree that Daniel Webster was one of America's most referred-to proponents of the Centralist view of our form of government. In the 1820s and 1830s, Webster ardently held the position that most Americans hold today: that the Federal government, through the "supreme laws of the land," is independent and shielded from the States Sovereign powers and has an inherent political right to be its own judge regarding all matters that it unilaterally assumes to itself. In other words, they believe the US Constitution does not allow the States to independently judge the constitutionality of the federal government's actions as it affects their independent sovereignty, and the US Supreme Court, alone, must make any such determination. Webster was (and still is) the "hero" of many who would (1) presuppose that the effect of the US Constitution somehow dissolved the independence and sovereignty of each State regarding matters of political sovereignty and, (2) suggest that each State has no power to resist the federal government.
While Webster may have classified himself as a proponent of such a view during the time of his life described above, his stated belief and position later in his political life certainly indicates that he recanted this Centralist position, as he became wiser and more mature to the true nature and character of our form of government. In 1851, Webster states the following concerning the States' right, through their independent and sovereign status, to resist the Federal government's usurpation of its constitutionally limited and delegated authority:
"How absurd it is to suppose that when different parties enter into a Compact for certain purposes, either can disregard any one provision, and expect, nevertheless, the other to observe the rest! I intend, for one, to regard, and maintain, and carry out, to the fullest extent, the Constitution of the United States . . . A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side . . . I am as ready to fight and to fall for the Constitutional rights of Virginia, as I am for those of Massachusetts." (Alexander Stephens, A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States, vol. 1 [Philadelphia, PA, National Publishing Co., 1870], 404-405.)
Webster's dogmatic view of State Sovereignty cited above certainly sheds light and perspective on the limits, character and nature of federal power and is in stark contrast to the Centralist view of our federal government. The vast majority of the people of the States through their State legislatures and Congressional Representatives in the House and Senate from 1776 to 1861, of course, repeatedly confirmed this view of State Sovereignty. And while the end of the War Between the States in 1865 may have seemed like a victory for the doctrines of the Centralists and believers in monstrosities of government control over the lives of the people and the States, evidence now proves that the truly American doctrine of freedom has not died with war or time.
Instead, the spirit of a free, confederated and republican form of government, based upon the principles and maxims of Natural Law, lives on and is brewing like hot magma from what most would have classified as a dormant volcano. Very clearly, the spirit of freedom lives on. Even the famed French historian, Alexis De Tocqueville, in his book, "Democracy in America" recognized that "the fate of the republic should not be confused with that of the Union. The Union is an accident which will last only as long as circumstances support it, but a republic seems to be the natural state for Americans . . . The Union's principal guarantee of existence is the LAW WHICH CREATED IT." (Tocqueville, Alexis De, Democracy in America, Translated by Bevan, Gerald E., [Strand, London, Penguin Books, 2003], 464.) (Emphasis added.)
What can be dogmatically stated is that freedom-lovers in America should be more concerned about guaranteeing the existence of the LAW that made America free. (For now, I withhold my comments regarding those who reject the Natural Laws that created the Union.) The Centralists' view of "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable" (expressed by Daniel Webster on January 26, 1830, before his conversion to the correct view of our Confederate Republic) is not the true understanding of the nature and character of our government or our federal Constitution, which was built upon the notions expressed in the Declaration of Independence. (Webster, Daniel, Constitutional Doctrines of Webster, Hayne and Calhoun, [Lovell & Co., New York, NY, 1897], p. 23.) To the contrary, our Confederate Republic was built upon the law which states: the People have a natural right "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 Safety and Happiness."
What freedom-loving American would ever advocate the idea that a group of freeborn persons in Sovereign States should be forced to be governed by a government that was initially created by the will and assent of those people in their sovereign and independent capacities, especially where that artificial creation (i.e., the federal government) has usurped the powers originally granted to it by the sovereigns of the States? Such a thought is repugnant to free society, free government, and American ideology, and mirrors more of the hereditary-right-to-rule notion argued by monarchs of yesteryear and forced upon its not-so-loyal subjects.
Not likely realizing the significance and effect of his words and not knowing how he would later change his political understanding of State Sovereignty, Webster admits in 1833 that "the natural converse of accession is secession; and therefore, when it is stated that the people of the States acceded to the Union, it may be more plausibly argued that they may secede from it." As seen in his statement in 1851 above, Webster certainly reached the conclusion that the States actually did accede to the Union and did in fact retain their Sovereign powers, which they have a duty to use to protect their citizens.
While few are advocating secession (at least not yet), the battle for State Sovereignty against Federal usurpation and expansionism has clearly begun. Americans should not fear the movement for State Sovereignty. Rather, we should embrace it; because it is the only saving grace and vehicle for freedom left in this Confederate Republic we call the United States of America. Unless we stand for State Sovereignty, freedom will most certainly fall. Therefore, Americans everywhere should encourage their State governors and legislators to follow the example of Alaska in boldly declaring their State's autonomy and sovereignty.
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
© Chuck Baldwin
This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090807.html
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Chuck Baldwin columns and speeches
A Modern-Day Daniel - August 04, 2009
The American Revolution Revisited - July 24, 2009
"Let It Come!" - July 21, 2009
The Billings Murders - July 17, 2009
Romans Chapter 13 Revisited - July 15, 2009
Good For Nothing Christians - July 10, 2009
"The Age Of Despotism" - July 07, 2009
Independence Now And Forever - July 01, 2009
Gods Come Cheap These Days - June 12, 2009
Obama's Speech In Egypt - June 09, 2009
A Perfect Gift For Independence Day - June 05, 2009
A Salute To Mom And Dad - June 02, 2009
"Must Watch" Immigration Videos - May 29, 2009
The U.S. Government Has Become Patently Anti-Christian - May 19, 2009
It Is Getting Very Serious Now - May 12, 2009
Can Christians Serve In The New World Order Army? - May 07, 2009
Strictly Personal - May 01, 2009
"A Culture Of Surveillance" - April 28, 2009
Obama Positioning For Backdoor Gun Control - April 24, 2009
Obama Seeks Amnesty For Illegal Aliens - April 21, 2009
DHS Report Says "Disgruntled Military Veterans" Might Be "Rightwing Extremists" - April 17, 2009
The Big Business/Big Government Axis Of Evil - April 14, 2009
"He Is Risen" - April 07, 2009
Few Christians Have Biblical Worldview - March 31, 2009
Missouri Scraps MIAC Report - March 27, 2009
My Response To MIAC Report - March 24, 2009
States, Not Washington, D.C., Need Our Attention - March 20, 2009
Missouri State Police Think You And I Are Terrorists - March 17, 2009
Watch Me Live-Streamed This Sunday - March 13, 2009
Remembering The Alamo - March 10, 2009
Montana Has It Right On Second Amendment - March 03, 2009
Romans 13 Revisited - February 27, 2009
What Every Christian Should Know About The New World Order - February 24, 2009
Abraham Lincoln's America - February 18, 2009
Do Americans Cherish Freedom Anymore? - February 06, 2009
Christians Use Prophecy To Excuse Laziness - February 03, 2009
More On The New World Order - January 30, 2009
A Very Real New World Order - January 27, 2009
Ramos And Compean Are Going Home - January 20, 2009
Praise For Lee And Jackson - January 16, 2009
Virginia Takes Con Con Stage - January 13, 2009
Recommended Reading For 2009 - January 09, 2009
Best And Worst Of 2008 - January 06, 2009
The American Revolution Revisited - July 24, 2009
"Let It Come!" - July 21, 2009
The Billings Murders - July 17, 2009
Romans Chapter 13 Revisited - July 15, 2009
Good For Nothing Christians - July 10, 2009
"The Age Of Despotism" - July 07, 2009
Independence Now And Forever - July 01, 2009
Gods Come Cheap These Days - June 12, 2009
Obama's Speech In Egypt - June 09, 2009
A Perfect Gift For Independence Day - June 05, 2009
A Salute To Mom And Dad - June 02, 2009
"Must Watch" Immigration Videos - May 29, 2009
The U.S. Government Has Become Patently Anti-Christian - May 19, 2009
It Is Getting Very Serious Now - May 12, 2009
Can Christians Serve In The New World Order Army? - May 07, 2009
Strictly Personal - May 01, 2009
"A Culture Of Surveillance" - April 28, 2009
Obama Positioning For Backdoor Gun Control - April 24, 2009
Obama Seeks Amnesty For Illegal Aliens - April 21, 2009
DHS Report Says "Disgruntled Military Veterans" Might Be "Rightwing Extremists" - April 17, 2009
The Big Business/Big Government Axis Of Evil - April 14, 2009
"He Is Risen" - April 07, 2009
Few Christians Have Biblical Worldview - March 31, 2009
Missouri Scraps MIAC Report - March 27, 2009
My Response To MIAC Report - March 24, 2009
States, Not Washington, D.C., Need Our Attention - March 20, 2009
Missouri State Police Think You And I Are Terrorists - March 17, 2009
Watch Me Live-Streamed This Sunday - March 13, 2009
Remembering The Alamo - March 10, 2009
Montana Has It Right On Second Amendment - March 03, 2009
Romans 13 Revisited - February 27, 2009
What Every Christian Should Know About The New World Order - February 24, 2009
Abraham Lincoln's America - February 18, 2009
Do Americans Cherish Freedom Anymore? - February 06, 2009
Christians Use Prophecy To Excuse Laziness - February 03, 2009
More On The New World Order - January 30, 2009
A Very Real New World Order - January 27, 2009
Ramos And Compean Are Going Home - January 20, 2009
Praise For Lee And Jackson - January 16, 2009
Virginia Takes Con Con Stage - January 13, 2009
Recommended Reading For 2009 - January 09, 2009
Best And Worst Of 2008 - January 06, 2009
A Modern-Day Daniel
by Chuck Baldwin
August 4, 2009
The Biblical story of Daniel in the lion's den is one of the more famous stories of the Old Testament. In the story, Daniel is commanded to not pray by a decree from King Darius. Imagine that! Can you imagine any government forbidding its people to pray? What kind of totalitarian state would do such a thing? OK, perhaps Red China or North Korea, but that's about it, right? Oh, did I mention that Daniel was a government employee? (I guess the ACLU has been around a lot longer than everyone thought.)
Well, friends, think again. The nation that is resurrecting the totalitarian policies of old King Darius is none other than the good old United States of America.
For example, in an adjoining county to my hometown in Florida, a federal district judge by the name of Casey Rodgers has instigated criminal charges against a high school principal by the name of Frank Lay and his athletic director, Robert Freeman. Their crime: praying. Their possible sentence: jail. Darius' prosecutors are federal attorneys Randy Hensel and Dixie Morrow.
According to court records, Lay is accused of asking Freeman to offer a blessing before a January 28 luncheon at Pace (Florida) High School for people who helped with the school's new fieldhouse.
And guess what? The documents in which the judge sought the criminal charges are sealed, meaning they are not open to public view. Why they are sealed, an unusual step, could not immediately be determined. (Source: Pensacola News Journal)
Egad! A school employee asked to offer a blessing at a luncheon! Jail is not enough: to the lion's den with him! Or maybe even the burning fiery furnace!
What's that, you say, about religious liberty, the First Amendment, state sovereignty, and the Tenth Amendment? Those things are but relics from the "old republic." They are but memories of a bygone era. This is a new day, a new Amerika.
In today's Amerika, federal dictates are tantamount to the Law of the Medes and Persians. Federal judges have the authority of Caesars. Federal courts rule over states and local communities, as did Britain's royal governors in the original 13 Colonies. Federal police agencies use force and intimidation not unlike Hitler's SS. In short, this monstrosity known as the federal government has become a ubiquitous, gargantuan, out-of-control leviathan that is eating up the liberties (not to mention the tax dollars) of the American people faster than Elizabeth Taylor went through husbands.
Of course, since the feds are now jailing people who pray, there are other candidates they must consider worthy of the lion's den: those antiquated preachers who still quote the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality should also be cast into their pit. And, surely, the feds will want to add people who yet read (and believe) the words of George Washington, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson to the list of condemned.
And what about all those deluded souls out there who still believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms? The feds must surely believe that they belong in the furnaces. Then there are the misguided simpletons who believe that free markets are superior to socialized medicine. Maybe they are the ones who will inhabit all these empty prison compounds we see the feds putting up all over the country.
Well, why not? People who believe in the right to life; who believe illegal immigration must stop; who oppose the United Nations, the New World Order, and gun control; and who voted for Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin have already made it to the feds' "potential terrorists" list. What's next? The lion's den?
Let's face it: the America our forefathers bequeathed to us is dead and dying! All that is left are vestiges of a once-proud and free republic. As the Scripture says, "Woe be unto them that call evil good, and good evil." And there is another verse of Scripture that applies here: "For rulers are not a terror to good works."
But in Pace, Florida, a good man who is doing a good work (Frank Lay) is being terrorized by an oppressive federal government that is behaving as badly as did old King Darius. Therefore, from an historic, constitutional, and Biblical perspective, it is both an illegitimate and unlawful power.
Only when the various "free and independent states" begin reclaiming their sovereignty and standing up to this tyrannical federal leviathan in defense of their God-given liberties will the rights and freedoms of the American people begin to reemerge. Until then, Frank Lay faces jail for PRAYING.
Yes, America has a modern-day Daniel.
© Chuck Baldwin
This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090804.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
