by Chuck Baldwin
September 29, 2009
According to Macedonian Radio and Television On-line (MRT), a Russian professor predicts the United States will fall apart in July 2010. MRT reports, "'Mr. Obama is similar to the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev was also making great promises for the Soviet Union, but the situation was only getting worse,' he said. By next summer, according to Professor Panarin, the US will disintegrate into six blocs--and everyone will get their piece. 'The probability that the United States of America fall apart in July 2010 is more than 50 percent,' said Igor Panarin, Professor at Moscow's Diplomatic Academy within the Russian Federation's Ministry of Foreign Affairs."
MRT went on to report, "Panarin came up with his grim forecast while analyzing the parallels between the Soviet Union in its final days and the current situation in the United States. 'American dream ballooned seven times in 11 years. During Gorbachev era, the Soviet dream ballooned five times.' Americans hope [President] Barack Obama 'can work miracles,' he wrote. 'But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles.'"
See the MRT report athttp://tinyurl.com/mrt-report
The Drudge Report confirmed the MRT report and added, "Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily IZVESTIA . . . 'The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse.'"
At least some of what Panarin said back in the fall of 2008 either has taken place or is in the process of taking place. Drudge reported, "When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: 'It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator.'"
Drudge continued reporting Panarin as saying that "the U.S. will break up into six parts-- the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong."
Panarin further suggested that Russia might even "claim Alaska."
See an archived version of Drudge's report athttp://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/readarchive_20090107.html
Reporting on the same story, The Wall Street Journal said, "Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russian relations."
The WSJ goes on to say that Panarin believes that "mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar."
See The Wall Street Journal report athttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html
This is not the first time that Comrade Panarin has made such a prediction. Joseph Farah, editor of World Net Daily, noted in December of 2008 that Panarin has been making similar projections for the past ten years. In a column regarding Panarin's predictions, Farah wrote, "Until recently, no one took him very seriously. And then came the economic calamity that has rocked Americans and the rest of the world, too. Now, Panarin's predictions of an end of the United States, due to economic and moral collapse, is being taken seriously by many."
Read Farah's column athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84884
So, will the United States break up in 2010? Or 2011? Or 2012? Or anytime in the near future, for that matter? If history is any teacher, the chances would seem good that Panarin's predictions may be closer to reality than anyone would like to admit.
A historian and linguist from South Africa recently wrote me a fascinating letter, in which he chronicled the major world empires of history, dating the time of their rise and fall. Here is what his calculations look like:
Assyria (859-612 B.C.): a 247-year reign.
Persia (538-330 B.C.): a 208-year reign.
Greece (331-100 B.C.): a 231-year reign.
The Roman Republic (260-27 B.C.): a 233-year reign.
The Roman Empire (27 B.C.-180 A.D.): a 207-year reign.
The Arab Empire (634-880 A.D.): a 246-year reign.
The Mameluke Empire (1250-1517 A.D.): a 267-year reign.
The Ottoman Empire (1320-1570 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
Spain (1500-1750 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
Romanov Russia (1682-1916 A.D.): a 234-year reign.
Great Britain (1700-1950 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
The USA (1790-2009 A.D.): 219 years and counting.
My honorable historian-friend calculates America's reign using its post-Revolutionary War years. He notes that America's reign is currently at 219 years. He further notes that the average duration of every world superpower listed above is a little over 238 years.
One does not need to be a master mathematician or possess a Ph.D. to realize that America is fast approaching the mark in which every major world power in history has either collapsed or, at a minimum, lost its world leadership and power.
My friend also reminded me of his homeland's (South Africa's) demise. He told me that he noticed the handwriting on the wall in time to relocate his family to a more peaceful and stable European country. Many of his friends and countrymen were not so fortunate, however, and thousands were killed and their properties confiscated. He then warned me, "The period of Grace is closing, in what is your homeland."
In addition, serious students of Holy Writ are also struck with the similarities between societal conditions in America and those of Old Testament Israel (as well as with Gentile nations) at those times of divine judgment and retribution. As someone trenchantly said, "If God spares the United States, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."
Will the Russian analyst's prophecies come true in 2010? Probably not. Does that mean that America is impervious to some sort of national demise? Not at all. Is America already in serious trouble? You bet. Could there be some sort of break-up within the United States in the near future? In my opinion, that is a very realistic probability. If this happens, will freedom suffer? Almost certainly. Will those with tyrannical tendencies use the opportunity of any national disaster to try and enslave us? They already do. I personally do not believe that there is any "If" to the question. The only questions are, "When?" and "To what degree?"
And, of course, there is another question: "When the break-up comes, how many Americans understand the principles of liberty enough, and are personally prepared enough, and are willing enough to resist whatever power it may be that seeks to place us under the thumb of oppression and fight for the same protections and vanguards of liberty that first established this land?" Obviously, the answer to that question is yet to be determined, isn't it?
*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_20090929.html
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Another LAY Case
by Chuck Baldwin's Son, Timothy Baldwin
September 25, 2009
[Note: My son, Tim, writes today's column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is the author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE.]
September 17, 2009 not only marked the celebrated day of the approval of our Constitution by the Constitutional Congress in 1787 (which had to be ratified by 9 of the 13 STATES--not the majority of the PEOPLE), it also marked another, what I call, LAY case, reflecting the power and control of the federal government over individual, local and state affairs, and the submission of its lowly subjects, We the People.
Some of you may have learned of the principal of Pace High School in Pace, Florida, Frank Lay, who was charged with violation of an order entered by Federal Judge Margaret C. "Casey" Rodgers, prohibiting him, the teachers and the staff of Pace High from praying or holding any religious ceremonies at school or at school functions, which originated out of a lawsuit brought by the ACLU. As you have likely already guessed, sometime after the order entered (and was actually consented to by Lay), Lay had a prayer conducted at a Pace High staff function (a building dedication with no students present). This was deemed a violation of the court's order and Lay was charged with contempt of court.
Lay had a hearing on the contempt charges on Constitution Day, September 17, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. (CDT). Hundreds of people stood outside the federal courthouse in Pensacola, Florida, showing their support for Lay, their disgust with the federal government, or just their interest to see what would happen. (A few even showed their protest against Lay.) It appeared as though it was a pep rally of sorts with high-school kids chanting, "We Love Jesus, Yes We Do, We Love Jesus, How 'Bout You!" and other similar chants. Around 11:30 a.m., much of the crowd began marching around the federal courthouse (which sits downtown Pensacola) seven times, to sort of re-enact and metaphorically demonstrate the judgment of God falling on the city of Jericho in the book of Joshua, as if to suggest that they wanted God to condemn Judge Rodgers, or that Judge Rodgers was attacking Lay and she was the sole evil presented in this case, or other similar theories to that effect.
It was obvious that most people present deemed the matter against Lay to be what they would classify as spiritual in nature; and by spiritual, I mean to say that the issue to them did not regard constitutional government, federalism, the evils of centralized power over State power, the true meaning and sense of the Constitution, etc. Rather, it had almost a tone of "We believe in God, and you, Judge Rodgers, do not . . . We believe in prayer, and you, Judge Rodgers, do not . . . We love Jesus, and you, Judge Rodgers, do not . . . Lay should be allowed to pray in school, and you, Judge Rodgers, should let him." It had very similar qualities to an "evolution verses creation" debate you would see at a college or university.
What most of these people fail to understand is that the matters of constitutional government, federalism, the evils of centralized power over State power, the true meaning and sense of the Constitution, etc., are just as spiritual in nature as the matters of praying in public and loving Jesus.
Do these people at the rally, most of whom would likely claim to be Christian, not understand that God created Natural Law (Thomas Jefferson called it "Nature and Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence) upon His creation of the world, a Law that God Himself binds Himself to for His glory and for man's benefit? Do these people not recognize that binding our government (State and federal) to their respective constitutions conforms to God's Natural Law, that men adhere to their agreements (i.e., compacts/constitutions)? Are these people still ignorant of the principles of limited power, jurisdiction and self-government created by God and expressed by Him in His Word--and that these principles apply even when their favorite political party is in office?
After several hours of waiting outside (even during serious downpour of rain), Frank Lay and his entourage exited the courthouse, with Lay's wife giving the "peace sign" with both hands and the rest of the group with smiles on their faces, anticipatorily revealing that Judge Rodgers had found Lay "not guilty" of the contempt charges. It was as if a major victory had been won for Lay, his family, all those who were supporting him outside of the courthouse and for all "public-prayer-supporting" Americans. You can be certain that many felt this was a victory.
The crux of the "not guilty" verdict, in fact, demonstrates just how Lay lost, how America lost, how tyrannical our federal government is, and how far gone and ignorant we are. It showed just how the citizens of this country willingly LAY down when actual confrontation arises. Consider how Lay was found "not guilty" and supposedly victory was won in this case:
First. The Prayer Was "Unintentional":
"Freeman was asked why he gave the prayer when Lay asked. 'It was just out of reflex,' he answered." (Source: The Pensacola News Journal) In other words, in order for Lay to "win" at this hearing, he essentially had to say, "Oops, Judge, I'm sorry; I didn't mean to do it; it won't happen again." You call that a victory?
Second. The Judge's Order, Which Lay Consented To, Is "Constitutional":
"Both sides also agreed that the constitutionality of Rodgers' temporary injunction will not be up for debate, meaning today's proceeding will focus on whether Lay and Freeman violated the order." (Source: Ibid.) Not only did Lay have to metaphorically bow at the feet of Judge Rodgers to keep from going to jail, but Lay also had to literally admit that the order prohibiting him from praying at school or at school functions was constitutional and that he is bound to follow it. Again, how is this a victory?
Third. From Now On, He Will Comply With the Order Not to Pray:
In a 10:00 p.m. interview with WEAR, Channel 3 News, Lay admitted on live television that he will comply with the "Consent Order" not to pray and that "changes will be made at Pace High School" to reflect this compliance. Just like a little child who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar and knows he is in trouble with his parents, Lay had to promise to be a good little boy and to do exactly what he was told by the federal government to get off the hook of punishment.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is not victory! It shows every sign of defeat! This is, once again, precedent to reaffirm and reestablish that the federal government is America's god. We will do what it says, when it says, and how it says. We will not challenge the issue on philosophical and foundational merits, because to do so would require us to reconsider the power of the federal government over jurisdiction that originally belonged to the states and the people.
While I speak in irritation, I am pleased, of course, that Lay was not found guilty and that he was not sentenced to jail and fined. I do not wish that on any person of any faith for simply praying. But what has to be recognized is that Lay did not win, LAY LAID DOWN: the federal government showed its force, and the people submitted. Lay can go home, but the "law" remains the same and tyranny is triumphant. I am also pleased that there is a legal attempt underway to challenge Judge Rodgers' order as being "too broad" and, yes, unconstitutional (for indeed it is). For, in fact, this is the kind of challenge that is needed in cases such as this. The American people simply cannot sit by and let these rogue federal judges continue to trample our religious liberties!
In the meantime, people--and particularly Christian people--repeatedly complain about the federal government when issues like this arise, proclaiming that their "freedom of religion" is being denied. But do these same people stop to think about the reasons why? Are these the same people who think that by voting for a George W. Bush/John McCain-type Republican, America will be spared more federal tyranny? Was not Judge Casey Rodgers appointed by G.W. Bush in November 2003? Was not Alabama Attorney General, Bill Pryor, who prosecuted the removal of Chief Justice Roy Moore from the bench for acknowledging God, later appointed to the federal bench by G.W. Bush? (My dad, Chuck Baldwin, and many others strongly believe that Pryor's appointment to the federal bench was actually a reward for prosecuting Judge Moore.) Do they not stop to realize that the people they have been electing and reelecting to public office are the very ones who make the laws and appoint the judges and bureaucrats who continue to make war against our liberties?
To start with, the only way to become victorious in these matters (on a national level) is for the people to retake power usurped by the federal government through the constitutional amendment process. This means we must revoke the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments. We must abandon the "lesser of two evils" philosophy when going to the voting booth and elect only those candidates who demonstrate a firm commitment to constitutional government. We must support State representatives, governors, and sheriffs who will stand on the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights to defend their citizens against federal encroachment. We must re-educate the masses into principles that founded our federal republic. We must begin taking responsibility for our own actions, and teaching our children the fundamental tenets of liberty. Only then will we be able to kick the federal government out of the affairs in which they do not belong.
The reality is, this federal takeover did not happen overnight, and if things keep going the way they are, and people keep acting the way they do, you will never be free from the tyranny in your lifetime and your children will never be free from it in their lifetime. What is worse, the vast majority of people's ignorance seems to be at a pinnacle, thus perpetuating the death grip of federal control over freedom. The result: LAY case after LAY case after LAY case; one person LAYing down after the other. Consequently, these cases are never victories for the principles of freedom in America. They serve only to remind us that the principles of tyranny prevail in this country. Yes, individuals like Frank Lay may be let go from time to time--at least for now. But the time will inevitably come when EVERYONE will be forced to submit and lay down.
*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_20090925.html
September 25, 2009
[Note: My son, Tim, writes today's column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is the author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE.]
September 17, 2009 not only marked the celebrated day of the approval of our Constitution by the Constitutional Congress in 1787 (which had to be ratified by 9 of the 13 STATES--not the majority of the PEOPLE), it also marked another, what I call, LAY case, reflecting the power and control of the federal government over individual, local and state affairs, and the submission of its lowly subjects, We the People.
Some of you may have learned of the principal of Pace High School in Pace, Florida, Frank Lay, who was charged with violation of an order entered by Federal Judge Margaret C. "Casey" Rodgers, prohibiting him, the teachers and the staff of Pace High from praying or holding any religious ceremonies at school or at school functions, which originated out of a lawsuit brought by the ACLU. As you have likely already guessed, sometime after the order entered (and was actually consented to by Lay), Lay had a prayer conducted at a Pace High staff function (a building dedication with no students present). This was deemed a violation of the court's order and Lay was charged with contempt of court.
Lay had a hearing on the contempt charges on Constitution Day, September 17, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. (CDT). Hundreds of people stood outside the federal courthouse in Pensacola, Florida, showing their support for Lay, their disgust with the federal government, or just their interest to see what would happen. (A few even showed their protest against Lay.) It appeared as though it was a pep rally of sorts with high-school kids chanting, "We Love Jesus, Yes We Do, We Love Jesus, How 'Bout You!" and other similar chants. Around 11:30 a.m., much of the crowd began marching around the federal courthouse (which sits downtown Pensacola) seven times, to sort of re-enact and metaphorically demonstrate the judgment of God falling on the city of Jericho in the book of Joshua, as if to suggest that they wanted God to condemn Judge Rodgers, or that Judge Rodgers was attacking Lay and she was the sole evil presented in this case, or other similar theories to that effect.
It was obvious that most people present deemed the matter against Lay to be what they would classify as spiritual in nature; and by spiritual, I mean to say that the issue to them did not regard constitutional government, federalism, the evils of centralized power over State power, the true meaning and sense of the Constitution, etc. Rather, it had almost a tone of "We believe in God, and you, Judge Rodgers, do not . . . We believe in prayer, and you, Judge Rodgers, do not . . . We love Jesus, and you, Judge Rodgers, do not . . . Lay should be allowed to pray in school, and you, Judge Rodgers, should let him." It had very similar qualities to an "evolution verses creation" debate you would see at a college or university.
What most of these people fail to understand is that the matters of constitutional government, federalism, the evils of centralized power over State power, the true meaning and sense of the Constitution, etc., are just as spiritual in nature as the matters of praying in public and loving Jesus.
Do these people at the rally, most of whom would likely claim to be Christian, not understand that God created Natural Law (Thomas Jefferson called it "Nature and Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence) upon His creation of the world, a Law that God Himself binds Himself to for His glory and for man's benefit? Do these people not recognize that binding our government (State and federal) to their respective constitutions conforms to God's Natural Law, that men adhere to their agreements (i.e., compacts/constitutions)? Are these people still ignorant of the principles of limited power, jurisdiction and self-government created by God and expressed by Him in His Word--and that these principles apply even when their favorite political party is in office?
After several hours of waiting outside (even during serious downpour of rain), Frank Lay and his entourage exited the courthouse, with Lay's wife giving the "peace sign" with both hands and the rest of the group with smiles on their faces, anticipatorily revealing that Judge Rodgers had found Lay "not guilty" of the contempt charges. It was as if a major victory had been won for Lay, his family, all those who were supporting him outside of the courthouse and for all "public-prayer-supporting" Americans. You can be certain that many felt this was a victory.
The crux of the "not guilty" verdict, in fact, demonstrates just how Lay lost, how America lost, how tyrannical our federal government is, and how far gone and ignorant we are. It showed just how the citizens of this country willingly LAY down when actual confrontation arises. Consider how Lay was found "not guilty" and supposedly victory was won in this case:
First. The Prayer Was "Unintentional":
"Freeman was asked why he gave the prayer when Lay asked. 'It was just out of reflex,' he answered." (Source: The Pensacola News Journal) In other words, in order for Lay to "win" at this hearing, he essentially had to say, "Oops, Judge, I'm sorry; I didn't mean to do it; it won't happen again." You call that a victory?
Second. The Judge's Order, Which Lay Consented To, Is "Constitutional":
"Both sides also agreed that the constitutionality of Rodgers' temporary injunction will not be up for debate, meaning today's proceeding will focus on whether Lay and Freeman violated the order." (Source: Ibid.) Not only did Lay have to metaphorically bow at the feet of Judge Rodgers to keep from going to jail, but Lay also had to literally admit that the order prohibiting him from praying at school or at school functions was constitutional and that he is bound to follow it. Again, how is this a victory?
Third. From Now On, He Will Comply With the Order Not to Pray:
In a 10:00 p.m. interview with WEAR, Channel 3 News, Lay admitted on live television that he will comply with the "Consent Order" not to pray and that "changes will be made at Pace High School" to reflect this compliance. Just like a little child who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar and knows he is in trouble with his parents, Lay had to promise to be a good little boy and to do exactly what he was told by the federal government to get off the hook of punishment.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is not victory! It shows every sign of defeat! This is, once again, precedent to reaffirm and reestablish that the federal government is America's god. We will do what it says, when it says, and how it says. We will not challenge the issue on philosophical and foundational merits, because to do so would require us to reconsider the power of the federal government over jurisdiction that originally belonged to the states and the people.
While I speak in irritation, I am pleased, of course, that Lay was not found guilty and that he was not sentenced to jail and fined. I do not wish that on any person of any faith for simply praying. But what has to be recognized is that Lay did not win, LAY LAID DOWN: the federal government showed its force, and the people submitted. Lay can go home, but the "law" remains the same and tyranny is triumphant. I am also pleased that there is a legal attempt underway to challenge Judge Rodgers' order as being "too broad" and, yes, unconstitutional (for indeed it is). For, in fact, this is the kind of challenge that is needed in cases such as this. The American people simply cannot sit by and let these rogue federal judges continue to trample our religious liberties!
In the meantime, people--and particularly Christian people--repeatedly complain about the federal government when issues like this arise, proclaiming that their "freedom of religion" is being denied. But do these same people stop to think about the reasons why? Are these the same people who think that by voting for a George W. Bush/John McCain-type Republican, America will be spared more federal tyranny? Was not Judge Casey Rodgers appointed by G.W. Bush in November 2003? Was not Alabama Attorney General, Bill Pryor, who prosecuted the removal of Chief Justice Roy Moore from the bench for acknowledging God, later appointed to the federal bench by G.W. Bush? (My dad, Chuck Baldwin, and many others strongly believe that Pryor's appointment to the federal bench was actually a reward for prosecuting Judge Moore.) Do they not stop to realize that the people they have been electing and reelecting to public office are the very ones who make the laws and appoint the judges and bureaucrats who continue to make war against our liberties?
To start with, the only way to become victorious in these matters (on a national level) is for the people to retake power usurped by the federal government through the constitutional amendment process. This means we must revoke the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments. We must abandon the "lesser of two evils" philosophy when going to the voting booth and elect only those candidates who demonstrate a firm commitment to constitutional government. We must support State representatives, governors, and sheriffs who will stand on the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights to defend their citizens against federal encroachment. We must re-educate the masses into principles that founded our federal republic. We must begin taking responsibility for our own actions, and teaching our children the fundamental tenets of liberty. Only then will we be able to kick the federal government out of the affairs in which they do not belong.
The reality is, this federal takeover did not happen overnight, and if things keep going the way they are, and people keep acting the way they do, you will never be free from the tyranny in your lifetime and your children will never be free from it in their lifetime. What is worse, the vast majority of people's ignorance seems to be at a pinnacle, thus perpetuating the death grip of federal control over freedom. The result: LAY case after LAY case after LAY case; one person LAYing down after the other. Consequently, these cases are never victories for the principles of freedom in America. They serve only to remind us that the principles of tyranny prevail in this country. Yes, individuals like Frank Lay may be let go from time to time--at least for now. But the time will inevitably come when EVERYONE will be forced to submit and lay down.
*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_20090925.html
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
It Is Going To Be A Rocky Road by Chuck Baldwin, September 22, 2009
It Is Going To Be A Rocky Road
by Chuck Baldwin
September 22, 2009
Let's face it: most Americans live in a world of false security. This is somewhat understandable, given the fact that the majority of the U.S. population was born after 1945. Few remember the dangers and hardships of World War II; fewer still remember the Great Depression. Few Americans know what it's like to not have some sort of "supercenter" nearby with shelves stocked with every kind of food imaginable, twenty-four hours a day. Few know what life was like before there were restaurants of all sizes and types on virtually every street corner in America. And only a handful remembers when most roads were unpaved, or when sports were truly a pastime and not a megabuck obsession.
Modern living within the world's only "superpower" has created a giant unsuspecting, soft, lackadaisical, and lethargic society. We expect the government to keep our streets safe, our roads paved, our stores stocked, our jobs secure, and our enemies at bay. However, in the desire to make government the panacea for all our problems, we have sold not only our independence, but also our virtue.
Where the federal government was contracted (via the U.S. Constitution) to accept limited power for the overall good of both states and people, it has become a monster of gargantuan proportions, claiming authority over virtually every liberty and right known to man. And in the process, it decided it didn't need God, either.
It is no hyperbole to say that the U.S. federal government has been on a "Ban God" bandwagon for the past 50 years. Whether it kicks prayer and Bible reading out of school, bars military chaplains from praying in Jesus' name, burns Bibles in Iraq, removes state supreme court chief justices from their positions for posting the Ten Commandments, or threatens high school principals with jail for asking the blessing, the federal government has invoked the judgment of Heaven upon our country as surely as did Old Testament Israel.
Although the comfortable, sports-crazed, TV addicts probably aren't paying attention, this country is on the verge of an implosion like you cannot believe. For anyone who cares to notice, the signs are everywhere.
First of all, Israel and Iran are on the verge of war. And right now, I'm not concentrating on the "why" or "who's right or wrong" of the equation. I'm simply telling you, war between Israel and Iran could break out at any time. And when it does, the chances that it will not become nuclear and not become global are miniscule. Yes, I am saying it: the prospects for nuclear war have never been greater. The CBS-canceled TV show, JERICHO, could become a reality in these United States in the very near future. (I strongly urge readers to purchase both seasons of JERICHO and watch them, because this could be our future.)
Secondly, America is on the verge of total financial collapse. By the end of this year, America's budget deficit will stand at around $2 trillion. The debt gap is many trillions more than that. But the nail in the coffin for America's fiscal health will be the decision by China to dump the U.S. dollar. Ladies and gentlemen, this will be the death knell for our financial stability (and a painful lesson in sowing and reaping).
It is estimated that China owns around one-third of all U.S. debt. If and when China dumps the U.S. dollar, there would be nothing left to stabilize it, and Weimar Republic/Zimbabwe-style inflation will ensue. America will be thrust into financial chaos. (If one doubts that China is planning to dump the dollar, consider that China is currently purchasing and stockpiling gold at an unprecedented level. This is why gold has suddenly surged to over $1,000 per ounce and why it will continue to rise.)
Third, the paranoia regarding the Swine Flu being demonstrated by both government and media spokesmen begs a giant push for some type of "government solution." If they keep hyping this "pandemic," mass hysteria and fear (created by the government and its lackeys in the media) will result. This would, no doubt, necessitate some form of forced vaccination, quarantine (maybe this is what all those internment camps will be used for), and martial law.
Exactly how and when all of the above will actually materialize is yet to be seen. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that within the next few months, the world that we know today is going to vanish. And most Americans are totally unprepared for what's coming.
If you are able to get out of debt, do it. If you need to scale down your lifestyle in order to be better prepared for difficult days, do it. If you don't have guns and ammo, buy them. If you have not prepared some sort of preserved food pantry, do it. If you don't have some kind of survival plan in place for you and your family, get one. If you are not physically fit, get in shape. If you are able to move to a more secure, out-of-harm's-way location, do it. (During any kind of financial or societal meltdown, urban areas will quickly turn into war zones. Can anyone say, "New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina"?) In other words, get your nose out of the boob tube, get your bottom off the easy chair, and get busy.
Am I worried or discouraged? Absolutely not! (But I am preparing.) The potential good that may result from all of the above is that perhaps God will protect and raise up a remnant of people who would be willing to rebuild a place where Natural Law is respected, constitutional government is revered, and where a ubiquitous, loathsome, overbearing federal government is far, far away. You know, like America's Founding Fathers did 233 years ago.
In the meantime, get ready. It's going to be a rocky road.
*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_20090922.html
by Chuck Baldwin
September 22, 2009
Let's face it: most Americans live in a world of false security. This is somewhat understandable, given the fact that the majority of the U.S. population was born after 1945. Few remember the dangers and hardships of World War II; fewer still remember the Great Depression. Few Americans know what it's like to not have some sort of "supercenter" nearby with shelves stocked with every kind of food imaginable, twenty-four hours a day. Few know what life was like before there were restaurants of all sizes and types on virtually every street corner in America. And only a handful remembers when most roads were unpaved, or when sports were truly a pastime and not a megabuck obsession.
Modern living within the world's only "superpower" has created a giant unsuspecting, soft, lackadaisical, and lethargic society. We expect the government to keep our streets safe, our roads paved, our stores stocked, our jobs secure, and our enemies at bay. However, in the desire to make government the panacea for all our problems, we have sold not only our independence, but also our virtue.
Where the federal government was contracted (via the U.S. Constitution) to accept limited power for the overall good of both states and people, it has become a monster of gargantuan proportions, claiming authority over virtually every liberty and right known to man. And in the process, it decided it didn't need God, either.
It is no hyperbole to say that the U.S. federal government has been on a "Ban God" bandwagon for the past 50 years. Whether it kicks prayer and Bible reading out of school, bars military chaplains from praying in Jesus' name, burns Bibles in Iraq, removes state supreme court chief justices from their positions for posting the Ten Commandments, or threatens high school principals with jail for asking the blessing, the federal government has invoked the judgment of Heaven upon our country as surely as did Old Testament Israel.
Although the comfortable, sports-crazed, TV addicts probably aren't paying attention, this country is on the verge of an implosion like you cannot believe. For anyone who cares to notice, the signs are everywhere.
First of all, Israel and Iran are on the verge of war. And right now, I'm not concentrating on the "why" or "who's right or wrong" of the equation. I'm simply telling you, war between Israel and Iran could break out at any time. And when it does, the chances that it will not become nuclear and not become global are miniscule. Yes, I am saying it: the prospects for nuclear war have never been greater. The CBS-canceled TV show, JERICHO, could become a reality in these United States in the very near future. (I strongly urge readers to purchase both seasons of JERICHO and watch them, because this could be our future.)
Secondly, America is on the verge of total financial collapse. By the end of this year, America's budget deficit will stand at around $2 trillion. The debt gap is many trillions more than that. But the nail in the coffin for America's fiscal health will be the decision by China to dump the U.S. dollar. Ladies and gentlemen, this will be the death knell for our financial stability (and a painful lesson in sowing and reaping).
It is estimated that China owns around one-third of all U.S. debt. If and when China dumps the U.S. dollar, there would be nothing left to stabilize it, and Weimar Republic/Zimbabwe-style inflation will ensue. America will be thrust into financial chaos. (If one doubts that China is planning to dump the dollar, consider that China is currently purchasing and stockpiling gold at an unprecedented level. This is why gold has suddenly surged to over $1,000 per ounce and why it will continue to rise.)
Third, the paranoia regarding the Swine Flu being demonstrated by both government and media spokesmen begs a giant push for some type of "government solution." If they keep hyping this "pandemic," mass hysteria and fear (created by the government and its lackeys in the media) will result. This would, no doubt, necessitate some form of forced vaccination, quarantine (maybe this is what all those internment camps will be used for), and martial law.
Exactly how and when all of the above will actually materialize is yet to be seen. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that within the next few months, the world that we know today is going to vanish. And most Americans are totally unprepared for what's coming.
If you are able to get out of debt, do it. If you need to scale down your lifestyle in order to be better prepared for difficult days, do it. If you don't have guns and ammo, buy them. If you have not prepared some sort of preserved food pantry, do it. If you don't have some kind of survival plan in place for you and your family, get one. If you are not physically fit, get in shape. If you are able to move to a more secure, out-of-harm's-way location, do it. (During any kind of financial or societal meltdown, urban areas will quickly turn into war zones. Can anyone say, "New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina"?) In other words, get your nose out of the boob tube, get your bottom off the easy chair, and get busy.
Am I worried or discouraged? Absolutely not! (But I am preparing.) The potential good that may result from all of the above is that perhaps God will protect and raise up a remnant of people who would be willing to rebuild a place where Natural Law is respected, constitutional government is revered, and where a ubiquitous, loathsome, overbearing federal government is far, far away. You know, like America's Founding Fathers did 233 years ago.
In the meantime, get ready. It's going to be a rocky road.
*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_20090922.html
Monday, September 21, 2009
Justice pursues Obama!
Orly Taitz: the Alexander Solzhenitsyn in this Constitutional crisis!
I will respond to Judge Land’s outrageous attack and threat of sanctions. This is very similar to what I have seen in the communist dictatorship in the Soviet Union.
- Notice. Important
September 20th, 2009
God bless you Orly Taitz! You're the Alexander Solzhenitsyn in this Constitutional crisis created by the president usurper, speaking truth to power, demanding Emperor Obama stop keeping America in the dark and start bringing documents to light to prove whether or not he is a natural born citizen!
http://www.davidbenariel.org/
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Push For Globalism Continues
by Chuck Baldwin
September 15, 2009
When George W. Bush was President, he greatly advanced the prospect of integrating the United States with a North American Union (NAU). With no thanks to most Christian conservatives or the mainstream news media, hundreds of thousands of patriotic Americans rallied against this proposal and--at least temporarily--seriously stymied Bush's draconian dream. But if you thought President Barack Obama would be content to let the NAU die a natural death, think again.
Reporting for World Net Daily, author/researcher Jerome Corsi recently reported, "President Obama is continuing President George W. Bush's effort to advance North American integration with a public-relations makeover calculated to place the program under the radar of public opinion and to deflect concerns about border security and national sovereignty.
"The Obama administration has 'rebranded' and 'refocused' the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, to advance the Bush administration's agenda of North American integration under the rubric of the "North American Leaders Summit,' a less controversial banner, according to confidential sources in the U.S. Department of Commerce and State Department who agreed to speak with WND only if their comments were kept off the record."
As further evidence of President Obama's determination to continue the Bush policy of a commercial union between countries (or "League of Democracies" as John McCain called it), Corsi also reported, "President Obama has actively backtracked on his campaign promises to renegotiate NAFTA to get provisions more favorable to American workers."
Corsi also wrote, "In the Ohio and Pennsylvania Democratic Party primaries, candidate Obama had pledged to renegotiate NAFTA as part of his appeal to workers in the states that have lost manufacturing jobs under the free trade agreements negotiated by Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush."
However, Obama is now viewed as reneging on that campaign promise by appointing University of Chicago economics professor, Austan Goolsbee, as chief economist and staff director of the newly created Presidential Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which is chaired by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. Obama also appointed Goolsbee to the Council of Economic Advisors, or CEA, which is charged with assisting in the development of White House economic policy, according to Corsi.
Readers should know that Goolsbee is a fellow traveler of Robert Pastor, longtime professor at American University. And readers should well remember that Pastor is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and one of the chief promoters and architects of the NAU. Of course, Volcker is also a member of the CFR. In fact, at last count, President Obama has appointed at least 20 members of the CFR to key positions within his cabinet and administration.
Back in June of 2006, I interviewed Dr. Corsi regarding Bush's attempts to merge America into a North American Union. To listen to that interview, go here:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/Interview_Corsi.html
Ever since the administrations of George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton, one fact remains constant: regardless of petty partisan differences, the push for globalism continues. Both Bush administrations (Republican) and the Clinton and Obama administrations (Democrat) enthusiastically have embraced and endorsed the doctrines and principles of global unification. That equates to more than two decades of determined effort by both Republican and Democratic Presidential administrations to compromise U.S. sovereignty and independence. It also helps explain why neither recent Republican nor Democratic Presidential administrations have had any intention of securing our borders and putting a stop to illegal immigration--and why they all promoted the creation of the NAFTA superhighway.
And just as George W. Bush was willing to betray conservatives and Christians in order to achieve global unification, so, too, Barack Obama is willing to betray union workers and America's tradesmen in order to accomplish the same agenda.
When will the American people wake up and realize that for the last twenty years, both major political parties (at the national level) have been co-opted by globalists and internationalists who have no respect or appreciation for U.S. sovereignty, and who desire to create world government? When will they look past party labels and start seeing these globalists for what they really are: traitors to the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and upon which America was established?
I urge readers to watch very carefully--and prepare to vigorously resist--as Obama attempts to finalize what his predecessors started: the complete implementation of a North American Union and related globalization. You won't find this information in the mainstream news media, of course. It will take independent writers and reporters to keep us abreast of these developments, and this we fully and faithfully intend to do.
In the meantime, know that those of us who believe in an independent and sovereign United States of America still do not have a friend in the White House--political party label notwithstanding.
*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_20090915.html
September 15, 2009
When George W. Bush was President, he greatly advanced the prospect of integrating the United States with a North American Union (NAU). With no thanks to most Christian conservatives or the mainstream news media, hundreds of thousands of patriotic Americans rallied against this proposal and--at least temporarily--seriously stymied Bush's draconian dream. But if you thought President Barack Obama would be content to let the NAU die a natural death, think again.
Reporting for World Net Daily, author/researcher Jerome Corsi recently reported, "President Obama is continuing President George W. Bush's effort to advance North American integration with a public-relations makeover calculated to place the program under the radar of public opinion and to deflect concerns about border security and national sovereignty.
"The Obama administration has 'rebranded' and 'refocused' the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, to advance the Bush administration's agenda of North American integration under the rubric of the "North American Leaders Summit,' a less controversial banner, according to confidential sources in the U.S. Department of Commerce and State Department who agreed to speak with WND only if their comments were kept off the record."
As further evidence of President Obama's determination to continue the Bush policy of a commercial union between countries (or "League of Democracies" as John McCain called it), Corsi also reported, "President Obama has actively backtracked on his campaign promises to renegotiate NAFTA to get provisions more favorable to American workers."
Corsi also wrote, "In the Ohio and Pennsylvania Democratic Party primaries, candidate Obama had pledged to renegotiate NAFTA as part of his appeal to workers in the states that have lost manufacturing jobs under the free trade agreements negotiated by Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush."
However, Obama is now viewed as reneging on that campaign promise by appointing University of Chicago economics professor, Austan Goolsbee, as chief economist and staff director of the newly created Presidential Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which is chaired by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. Obama also appointed Goolsbee to the Council of Economic Advisors, or CEA, which is charged with assisting in the development of White House economic policy, according to Corsi.
Readers should know that Goolsbee is a fellow traveler of Robert Pastor, longtime professor at American University. And readers should well remember that Pastor is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and one of the chief promoters and architects of the NAU. Of course, Volcker is also a member of the CFR. In fact, at last count, President Obama has appointed at least 20 members of the CFR to key positions within his cabinet and administration.
Back in June of 2006, I interviewed Dr. Corsi regarding Bush's attempts to merge America into a North American Union. To listen to that interview, go here:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/Interview_Corsi.html
Ever since the administrations of George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton, one fact remains constant: regardless of petty partisan differences, the push for globalism continues. Both Bush administrations (Republican) and the Clinton and Obama administrations (Democrat) enthusiastically have embraced and endorsed the doctrines and principles of global unification. That equates to more than two decades of determined effort by both Republican and Democratic Presidential administrations to compromise U.S. sovereignty and independence. It also helps explain why neither recent Republican nor Democratic Presidential administrations have had any intention of securing our borders and putting a stop to illegal immigration--and why they all promoted the creation of the NAFTA superhighway.
And just as George W. Bush was willing to betray conservatives and Christians in order to achieve global unification, so, too, Barack Obama is willing to betray union workers and America's tradesmen in order to accomplish the same agenda.
When will the American people wake up and realize that for the last twenty years, both major political parties (at the national level) have been co-opted by globalists and internationalists who have no respect or appreciation for U.S. sovereignty, and who desire to create world government? When will they look past party labels and start seeing these globalists for what they really are: traitors to the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and upon which America was established?
I urge readers to watch very carefully--and prepare to vigorously resist--as Obama attempts to finalize what his predecessors started: the complete implementation of a North American Union and related globalization. You won't find this information in the mainstream news media, of course. It will take independent writers and reporters to keep us abreast of these developments, and this we fully and faithfully intend to do.
In the meantime, know that those of us who believe in an independent and sovereign United States of America still do not have a friend in the White House--political party label notwithstanding.
*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_20090915.html
Monday, September 14, 2009
Obama hates sovereignty
Obama resurrects Bush plan to kill sovereignty
Surprise! President Obama is continuing President George W. Bush's effort to advance North American integration with a public-relations makeover calculated to place the program under the radar of public opinion and to deflect concerns about border security and national sovereignty.
Read the latest now on WND.com.
************
Stop the North American Union!
Prepare for WAR ~ Arm Yourself With Knowledge!
Stop The North American Union!
How the Plutocratic Oligarchy Rules in the EU
American Sovereignty Is A Joke To George Bush
Sudden Destruction: Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)
The Nazi Connection between the EU and NAU
The North American Union is modeled after the Nazi-designed "European Union." The industrialists supported Hitler, just like the globalists today (all members of the cult of CORPORATISM) are aiding and abetting Germany's Fourth Reich to secure its position throughout the world.
Germany's Fourth Reich Spreads Its Wings Over the World
Is Germany in Danger of Backsliding?
The Intelligence Summit Misses the Mark: the German-Jesuit Threat to World Peace
Friday, September 11, 2009
Hate America? Count Me Out!
Hate America? Count Me Out!
by Chuck Baldwin
September 11, 2009
On this 8th anniversary of the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, it behooves me to comment on the spirit of hatred that seems to motivate many people in and out of our great land. That the supporters and disciples of Vladimir Lenin, Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Mao Tse-tung, and Adolf Hitler would hate America is understandable. Communism, socialism, and fascism are diametrically opposed to everything the United States was founded upon. Therefore, it is not surprising that people who espouse the tenets of these "isms" would exude hatred for America--at least for the America of our forebears. What is most disconcerting, however, is the number of people within our country (and I don't mean illegal aliens) who harbor hatred in their hearts for our beloved land.
To be sure, one can count me in with those who hate the manner in which the international banking cartel has wormed its way into the inner workings of our federal government. I hate the condescending, elitist attitudes of many in higher education. I hate the way globalists--such as David Rockefeller and his ilk--have been able to use the federal government to promote and safeguard their own private financial and political agendas. I hate the way secularists in public education and private organizations--such as the ACLU, People For the American Way, the Anti Defamation League, etc.--have been able to strip our culture of its Christian heritage. I hate the way politicians from both parties in Washington, D.C., ignore and trample the U.S. Constitution. I hate the way professing Christians and "conservatives" turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the warmongering, police-state mentality of many within the national Republican Party. I hate the way Nancy Pelosi and her gaggle of liberal Democrats use their power to promote socialism in America. I hate the liberal bias of the mainstream news media. I hate the so-called "political correctness" that permeates the philosophy of virtually every major organization in America these days. I hate the attempts by liberals and "do-gooders" of all stripes to take away my right to keep and bear arms. And, yes, I hate the way America's foreign policy has been manipulated by foreign lobbyists, socialists within the United Nations, and international business interests.
With all of that said, however, if you hate America, count me out!
If Canaan was the Promised Land for Old Testament Israel, America was an earthly Promised Land for Christians and lovers of liberty. In the Providence of God, America was established by the right people, at the right time, and for the right purpose. With all its shortcomings, the U.S. Constitution--along with the Bill of Rights--is the greatest governing document ever devised by man. And the Declaration of Independence is the greatest birth certificate a nation ever had.
In fact, without the freedom and liberty protected by a 200-year history of constitutional government, all those anti-America, anti-Constitution, and anti-Founding Fathers critics out there could not even exist! As God gives the atheist the breath he uses to blaspheme his Creator, so, too, the Constitution protects the right of America-haters to foment their delirium.
I do find it demonstrably hypocritical, however, for these 21st Century preachers to condemn America's Founding Fathers as being disobedient to Romans 13, only to turn around and celebrate Independence Day--and even conduct patriotic services in their churches. Even more egregious is the way these same preachers who condemn the 13 colonies in their fight for independence against the British Crown so quickly take up the war cry for military aggression all over the world. Obviously, inconsistency is one of the most consistent trademarks of Pharisaism.
The problem today is not that America is intrinsically bad. The principles of religious liberty, State sovereignty, Natural Law, self-government, and federalism are as righteous and good today as they were in 1776. The problem today is that the American people have lost touch with these principles and have allowed those who deny these principles to gain ascendancy within our land. The problem is, the America that was created 233 years ago is being supplanted with new doctrines and ideas. In fact, the doctrines and ideas prevalent today are really nothing new: they are the same antiquated doctrines of centralism and collectivism from which the 13 Colonies broke free so long ago.
So, I say it proudly and loudly: I love the America our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us. I love our republican form of government. I love America's Christian heritage. I love the principles of federalism and constitutional government. I love the Declaration of Independence. I love the Bill of Rights. I love what our flag represents: a united federation of states. I love the examples of sacrifices made at Bunker Hill, Lexington Green, and Concord Bridge. I love the resolve and dedication of the colonial patriot-preachers known as the Black Regiment [1]. I love the combined wisdom, courage, and commitment to liberty demonstrated by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, James Otis, Joseph Warren, James Madison, John Jay, et al.
My criticisms and condemnations are reserved for those who would remove America from her roots, who would strip her of her principles, and who would destroy the fabric of her foundation. Don't think for one minute that because I loathe those who are trying to merge America into an international New World Order or are working to dismantle constitutional government or are attempting to turn America into a socialist state, that I am in league with those who, in their hearts, hate America. I claim no brotherhood with them, for they hate what I love.
[1] To read my column regarding the Black Regiment that is published exclusively in the current edition of The New American magazine, go here:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/american/1789
And while you're visiting The New American, why don't you subscribe to their twice-monthly publication? In my opinion, it is the very best news magazine in the country. I encourage my readers to take out a subscription to The New American today, and while you're at it, why don't you send one to a friend? I've been a subscriber for years. To subscribe, go here:
http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/tna/subscriptions.html
*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_20090911.html
by Chuck Baldwin
September 11, 2009
On this 8th anniversary of the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, it behooves me to comment on the spirit of hatred that seems to motivate many people in and out of our great land. That the supporters and disciples of Vladimir Lenin, Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Mao Tse-tung, and Adolf Hitler would hate America is understandable. Communism, socialism, and fascism are diametrically opposed to everything the United States was founded upon. Therefore, it is not surprising that people who espouse the tenets of these "isms" would exude hatred for America--at least for the America of our forebears. What is most disconcerting, however, is the number of people within our country (and I don't mean illegal aliens) who harbor hatred in their hearts for our beloved land.
To be sure, one can count me in with those who hate the manner in which the international banking cartel has wormed its way into the inner workings of our federal government. I hate the condescending, elitist attitudes of many in higher education. I hate the way globalists--such as David Rockefeller and his ilk--have been able to use the federal government to promote and safeguard their own private financial and political agendas. I hate the way secularists in public education and private organizations--such as the ACLU, People For the American Way, the Anti Defamation League, etc.--have been able to strip our culture of its Christian heritage. I hate the way politicians from both parties in Washington, D.C., ignore and trample the U.S. Constitution. I hate the way professing Christians and "conservatives" turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the warmongering, police-state mentality of many within the national Republican Party. I hate the way Nancy Pelosi and her gaggle of liberal Democrats use their power to promote socialism in America. I hate the liberal bias of the mainstream news media. I hate the so-called "political correctness" that permeates the philosophy of virtually every major organization in America these days. I hate the attempts by liberals and "do-gooders" of all stripes to take away my right to keep and bear arms. And, yes, I hate the way America's foreign policy has been manipulated by foreign lobbyists, socialists within the United Nations, and international business interests.
With all of that said, however, if you hate America, count me out!
If Canaan was the Promised Land for Old Testament Israel, America was an earthly Promised Land for Christians and lovers of liberty. In the Providence of God, America was established by the right people, at the right time, and for the right purpose. With all its shortcomings, the U.S. Constitution--along with the Bill of Rights--is the greatest governing document ever devised by man. And the Declaration of Independence is the greatest birth certificate a nation ever had.
In fact, without the freedom and liberty protected by a 200-year history of constitutional government, all those anti-America, anti-Constitution, and anti-Founding Fathers critics out there could not even exist! As God gives the atheist the breath he uses to blaspheme his Creator, so, too, the Constitution protects the right of America-haters to foment their delirium.
I do find it demonstrably hypocritical, however, for these 21st Century preachers to condemn America's Founding Fathers as being disobedient to Romans 13, only to turn around and celebrate Independence Day--and even conduct patriotic services in their churches. Even more egregious is the way these same preachers who condemn the 13 colonies in their fight for independence against the British Crown so quickly take up the war cry for military aggression all over the world. Obviously, inconsistency is one of the most consistent trademarks of Pharisaism.
The problem today is not that America is intrinsically bad. The principles of religious liberty, State sovereignty, Natural Law, self-government, and federalism are as righteous and good today as they were in 1776. The problem today is that the American people have lost touch with these principles and have allowed those who deny these principles to gain ascendancy within our land. The problem is, the America that was created 233 years ago is being supplanted with new doctrines and ideas. In fact, the doctrines and ideas prevalent today are really nothing new: they are the same antiquated doctrines of centralism and collectivism from which the 13 Colonies broke free so long ago.
So, I say it proudly and loudly: I love the America our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us. I love our republican form of government. I love America's Christian heritage. I love the principles of federalism and constitutional government. I love the Declaration of Independence. I love the Bill of Rights. I love what our flag represents: a united federation of states. I love the examples of sacrifices made at Bunker Hill, Lexington Green, and Concord Bridge. I love the resolve and dedication of the colonial patriot-preachers known as the Black Regiment [1]. I love the combined wisdom, courage, and commitment to liberty demonstrated by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, James Otis, Joseph Warren, James Madison, John Jay, et al.
My criticisms and condemnations are reserved for those who would remove America from her roots, who would strip her of her principles, and who would destroy the fabric of her foundation. Don't think for one minute that because I loathe those who are trying to merge America into an international New World Order or are working to dismantle constitutional government or are attempting to turn America into a socialist state, that I am in league with those who, in their hearts, hate America. I claim no brotherhood with them, for they hate what I love.
[1] To read my column regarding the Black Regiment that is published exclusively in the current edition of The New American magazine, go here:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/american/1789
And while you're visiting The New American, why don't you subscribe to their twice-monthly publication? In my opinion, it is the very best news magazine in the country. I encourage my readers to take out a subscription to The New American today, and while you're at it, why don't you send one to a friend? I've been a subscriber for years. To subscribe, go here:
http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/tna/subscriptions.html
*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_20090911.html
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Where's Obama's apology to America?
Instant fame for South Carolina GOP congressman who heckled Obama [as Graham defends Obama]
Obama owes America an apology! The president usurperObama/Soetoro/Obama has YET to prove he is legitimate, that he is a natural born citizen, and doesn't deserve any respect. These sheeple can "respect" the fraud and foreigner all the way to the slaughter, while brave souls will expose Emperor Obama has no clothes!
Obama owes America an apology! The president usurper
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Update on Red Flag Alert
Update On Red Flag Report
By Chuck Baldwin
September 9, 2009
This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090909_2.html
Even as my column is being distributed today, the White House is reporting that it will NOT fly China's flag on the South Lawn. Here is a link to a FoxNews report that was just sent to me. I am passing it on to my readers.
http://tinyurl.com/not-at-whitehouse
If it is true that the White House has decided to not fly the Red Flag overthe South Lawn, it is assuredly because of the outcry of thousands ofAmericans opposed to it. You see, "We the people" can still make adifference.
I will continue to monitor this story, and I encourage readers to do the same
(c) Chuck Baldwin
By Chuck Baldwin
September 9, 2009
This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090909_2.html
Even as my column is being distributed today, the White House is reporting that it will NOT fly China's flag on the South Lawn. Here is a link to a FoxNews report that was just sent to me. I am passing it on to my readers.
http://tinyurl.com/not-at-whitehouse
If it is true that the White House has decided to not fly the Red Flag overthe South Lawn, it is assuredly because of the outcry of thousands ofAmericans opposed to it. You see, "We the people" can still make adifference.
I will continue to monitor this story, and I encourage readers to do the same
(c) Chuck Baldwin
Red Flag To Fly Over White House
Red Flag To Fly Over White House
by Chuck Baldwin
Lest anyone doubt the communist leanings of President Barack Obama, look no further than to his decision to hoist the Red Chinese flag (for the first time in history) over the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Sunday, September 20.
According to China Daily, "Chinese associations in the United States had applied to hold a ceremony in front of the US President's residence to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of PRC [People's Republic of China] . . .
"More than 1,000 people will attend the ceremony and the performances held after it, according to Zhao Luqun, who will direct the performances.
"Zhao said the performances will demonstrate the friendship, magnanimous spirit and kindness of modern Chinese people."
Trying to find words to describe the extreme offensiveness of flying the Communist Chinese flag over the White House challenges my vocabulary. Words such as UNBELIEVABLE, UNREAL, HORRIFIC, OBSCENE, even TRAITOROUS quickly come to mind. Maybe Obama really is the Manchurian Candidate.
Remember, the communist leaders of Mao's China are not called the "Butchers of Beijing" for nothing. Since seizing power in 1949, it is estimated that the communist government in China has murdered more than 50 million people (some reports say the number is over 70 million). As many as 3 million were killed in Mao's initial revolution.
The historical record of Mao's murderous march to power staggers the imagination. According to Chinese historian Jung Chang, from 1958-1961, 38 million Chinese people were starved or worked to death, and 27 million died in Laogai death camps through 1976. The Weekly Standard quotes Chinese freedom fighter Harry Wu as saying that 15 million died in China's labor camps through 1997. According to Agence France Presse, as many as 5 million were killed in rural purges from 1946-1949, and 1 million were killed in urban purges through 1957.
Then there is Tiananmen Square in 1989, when the Communist Chinese army murdered more than 2,000 college students. The number first reported by Chinese officials was 2,600, but then was quickly retracted. Early American estimates put the number at more than 3,000. The true number of deaths will likely never be known.
But let's bring the discussion closer to home. Does the name Chosin Reservoir mean anything to anyone? Obviously, the name doesn't mean anything to President Barack Obama. However, that name means much to the tens of thousands of American families who lost husbands, sons, and fathers there.
By mid-1950, the Korean conflict was all but over. U.S. Army and Marine forces had handily defeated the North Korean army. It looked realistic that our fighting men would be home by Christmas. But from October of that year, more than 60,000 communist troops from China crossed the border into North Korea. During the next two months, the invading communist forces killed more than 4,000 American troops. Of course, China's involvement in the conflict ensured a long, protracted war that resulted in the deaths of more than 50,000 brave Americans. And, of course, don't forget that Communist China also helped the Communist North Vietnamese kill more than 50,000 U.S. soldiers and Marines.
Now President Barack Obama is going to hoist the Communist Chinese flag above the White House to "celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of PRC."
This is the same PRC that murdered 50-70 million of its own people. This is the same PRC that murdered thousands of Chinese students at Tiananmen Square. This is the same PRC that sent tens of thousands of troops to kill American soldiers and Marines in North Korea and Vietnam. This is the same PRC that yet today persecutes, imprisons, tortures, and kills Christians, Buddhists, and other people of faith. This is the PRC that still operates torture chambers, labor camps, and death squads. This is the same PRC that demands that Chinese families have no more than one child: meaning death to children where there is already a sibling present in the home. This is the same PRC that Obama wants to "celebrate" by flying its flag above the White House.
Why is the mainstream press not all over this story? Where is the outrage by veterans' organizations (especially Korean War veterans)? Where is the national VFW? Where is the American Legion? Where is John Murtha? Where is John Kerry? Where is John McCain?
Perhaps one blogger summed it up the best. He said, "It can now be official--leave the [Chinese] flag there." His point is well taken.
China already owns more U.S. debt than any other entity. America's politicians from both parties have superintended over the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs and factories to (mostly) China. America's business elite at the Chamber of Commerce has willingly traded U.S. business interests to China at unprecedented and dangerous levels. Major banking institutions have enthusiastically orchestrated the commercial and financial buildup of Communist China. America's military and political leadership have even helped augment Red China's military apparatus.
"Made in China" labels appear on almost everything we buy today; perhaps it is appropriate that the Red flag flies over the White House. While we're at it, let's hoist the Red flag over the newsrooms of many of America's newspapers; the headquarters of ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN; most of the political science classrooms at America's major colleges and universities; many of our mainline "Christian" denominations; the boardrooms of many major U.S. corporations; and also over many of the smoke-filled parlors of Big Labor. In the end, they all seem to be colored a pale shade of red these days.
P.S. Readers can now keep up with my latest announcements and additions to my web site via Twitter, Facebook, and Myspace. To access my Twitter page, go to
http://twitter.com/drchuckbaldwin
To access my Facebook page, go to
http://www.facebook.com/people/Chuck-Baldwin/1797083514
To access my Myspace page, go to
http://www.myspace.com/489781727
Also, my staff has now posted an announcement page to our web site where you can monitor my radio and television interviews as well as my scheduled personal appearances. Go to
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_20090909.html
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The Marbury v. Madison Mantra
The Marbury v. Madison Mantra
by Chuck Baldwin's Son, Timothy Baldwin
September 1, 2009
[Note: My son, Tim, writes today's column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also one of America's foremost defenders of State sovereignty.]
The arguments against the power of the states to arrest federal tyranny are as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning, and they are as philosophical in nature as the Declaration of Independence. One of the most commonly used arguments against such a State power is the United States Supreme Court (US S CT) dicta opinion in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, written by Chief Justice John Marshall. Before getting into the misunderstandings and misapplications of that infamous decision, we must first recognize the source and character of Marshall's opinion. As Marshall himself admitted that the US is to be a country of "laws, not men," we must establish that Marshall's opinion does not equate to the "supreme law of the land" which the states and individuals are bound to obey. If our submission only requires that the US S CT speak, then we do not live as freemen, but as slaves.
Marshall was an ardent member of the Federalist Party (a pro-centralist party) and served as the Secretary of State in the pro-centralist administration of President John Adams, who appointed Marshall to the US S CT in 1801 at the "midnight" hour before Thomas Jefferson was sworn into office as President of the US. Marshall's nationalist opinions were no secret either. Marshall believed that the US Constitution and Union were formed by the aggregate whole of the American people, and not by a compact of the states; that the Union formed "one nation, indivisible" and not a confederation of states; that State sovereignty as expressed in the Tenth Amendment equated more to a general idea than to any real applicable and relevant State power over the federal government; that the Constitution must be liberally interpreted for the sake of expanding federal powers at the expense of State sovereignty; and that the idea of State sovereignty was literally ridiculous. By the way, even most self-called conservatives today probably subscribe to these political beliefs, not even knowing the real historical facts behind such fallacious ideology.
Concerning Marshall's philosophical belief relative to the formation of the USA, this historical fact must be admitted. It is crucially important for our discussion today in America. Historian and politically-motivated author, Edward Samuel Corwin, said of Marshall in his book, "John Marshall and the Constitution" (New Haven, CT, Yale Univ. Press, 1920), p. 34: "[Marshall's] attitude [to strengthen the national power and to curtail State legislative power] was determined not only by his sympathy for the sufferings of his former comrades in arms and by his veneration for his father and for Washington . . . but also by his military experience, which had RENDERED THE PRETENSIONS OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY RIDICULOUS IN HIS EYES." (Emphasis added.) There is no question that Marshall had a pre-destined belief against State sovereignty in favor of national power. Corwin describes Marshall's political belief regarding the US as a "nationalistic creed."
So, is the nationalistic political persuasion of one man (appointed by a nationalistic President) and one court to form the basis of the true understanding of the nature and character of the USA? After all, Marshall admitted that the US is established by the rule of law, and not the rule of men. So, by Marshall's own definition in Marbury v. Madison, a US S CT opinion does not establish law, but rather should reflect what the paramount law already is: "The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it." So, as the age-old question has gone: who determines whether or not the federal government has usurped power from the people of the states and from the State governments? The Marbury v. Madison believers are likely jumping up and down right now, raising their hands, saying, "Oh! Pick me! Pick me! I know! I know!" I can just see smirks on the faces of most ABA-law school graduates as they condemn anyone who would advocate another position to be true which is contrary to what Marshall presupposed to be true. Of course, their rationale goes as deep as a kiddy-pool and their thought process as far as an inner-city driveway.
Since 1803, the nationalists have pointed to Marshall's declaration to conclusively say the states have no power over the opinion of the US S CT, for as Marshall states: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." From this, most American lawyers and law students come to the conclusion that there is no authority above and beyond the US S CT's interpretation of the US Constitution. Whatever the US S CT rules becomes "settled law" and the states are completely bound--of course, unless the US S CT says something different later. I was taught this in law school and every other ABA-accredited law school in America teaches this. But a true legal study of Marbury v. Madison reveals that Marshall's opinion (which was actually dicta) never addressed the issue of State sovereignty whatsoever. American historian, Forrest McDonald, reveals this fact in his book, "State's Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876." McDonald states, "Marshall was careful not to claim that the Supreme Court was the SOLE or FINAL ARBITER of acts of Congress." (Emphasis added.) Ibid., (Lawrence, KS, Univ. Press of Kansas, 2000), p. 56. This is, in fact, the case.
Perhaps most telling about Marshall's silence on the issue of being the sole or final arbiter is the fact that just a few years prior to his decision, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, through the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, had advocated the State's ability to actively nullify and resist unconstitutional actions from the federal government. Since Marshall's opinion was mostly dicta anyway--meaning it had no relevance to the issue at hand--why not go ahead and state that the US S CT is the ONLY final arbiter of the US Constitution? But Marshall never did, and neither has any US S CT decision since Marbury v. Madison.
Thus, when someone suggests that the states possess the sovereign power to arrest federal encroachments outside of constitutionally enumerated powers, the nationalists emphatically argue their unsupported conclusion that the USA is one nation, indivisible, where the US S CT possesses the sole authority as the final arbiter on all matters politically relative to the US Constitution, and to suggest otherwise is treason!--even when the most authoritative sources have been so pointedly laid out to the contrary. Marshall's opinions have not settled this matter, and the USA must come to grips with who we are, what we are and how we are.
What's more, Marshall's opinions of national expansion were conclusively derived from one main principle: that the USA is a nation formed by the whole people and not by individual states through a compact. This fact was admitted by Marshall-lover, Corwin, in 1920. Corwin clearly expresses this point as follows:
"The great principles which Marshall developed in his interpretation of the Constitution from the side of national power . . . were the following: '(1) THE CONSTITUTION IS AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND NOT A COMPACT OF THE STATES. (2) Consequently it is to be interpreted with a view to securing a beneficial use of the powers which it creates, not with the purpose of safeguarding the prerogatives of state sovereignty. (3) The Constitution was further designed . . . to be kept a commodious vehicle of the nation life . . . . (4) [The national government] is a sovereign government, both in its choice of the means by which to exercise its power and in its supremacy over all colliding or antagonistic powers. (5) The powers of Congress to regulate commerce is an exclusive power, so that the States may not intrude upon this field even though Congress has not acted. (6) The National Government and its instrumentalities are present within the States, not by the tolerance of the States, but by the supreme authority of the people of the United States.' Of these several principles, THE FIRST IS OBVIOUSLY THE MOST IMPORTANT AND TO A GREAT EXTENT THE SOURCE OF THE OTHERS." "John Marshall and the Constitution," pp. 144-145. (Emphasis added.)
Corwin admits that all of Marshall's opinions were based upon the presumption that the USA is a nation formed by the whole people as one body politic, and not by the individual, sovereign states via a compact. From this premise comes the vast expansion of federal power under the guise of constitutionality. Thus, if it were to be contrarily presumed that the USA is in fact a compact acceded to by the states, then the rules of interpretation that Marshall and subsequent US S CT justices used were wrong and require a different outcome. This fact cannot be overstated and is the source of all of the federal tyranny that many of you reading this article complain about. Thus, it behooves Americans to truly know WHAT IS THE TRUE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF OUR UNION: is it a National government formed by the whole people, or is it a compact among the states and acceded to by the states (otherwise known as a Confederacy)?
This article does not allow me to expound upon this subject in great depth, but it should be sufficient at this point at least to call into question Marshall's presupposition regarding the nature and character of the USA by referring to some of the most authoritative sources on the subject during the formation of the US Constitution. Let us start with James Madison, who was one of the Federalist Paper authors and considered to be the Father of the US Constitution. In Federalist Paper 39, Madison examines the nature and character of the formation of the Union under the US Constitution. He admits that the US was formed by a federative (league of states) and NOT a national act. Madison proclaims:
"[T]he Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but . . . this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, NOT AS INDIVIDUALS COMPOSING ONE ENTIRE NATION, BUT AS COMPOSING THE DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT STATES TO WHICH THEY RESPECTIVELY BELONG. It is to be the ASSENT AND RATIFICATION of the SEVERAL STATES . . . The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will NOT BE A NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.
"That it will be a federal and NOT A NATIONAL ACT . . . THE ACT OF THE PEOPLE, AS FORMING SO MANY INDEPENDENT STATES, NOT AS FORMING ONE AGGREGATE NATION, IS OBVIOUS from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS ASSENT OF THE SEVERAL STATES that are parties to it . . . [T]he new Constitution will . . . be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." (Emphasis added.)
Madison pens in the clearest of terms that the US Constitution is a compact assented to by the State sovereigns in their legal capacities as individual bodies politic, and NOT as one mass of people, forming one body politic. If this were not enough to at least raise a serious question as to what has been shoved down our throats for 150 years, consider that even Alexander Hamilton confirms that the US Constitution is a compact between the states, and NOT a national act of the whole people. He says in Federalist Paper 85:
"To its complete establishment throughout the Union, [the US Constitution] will therefore REQUIRE THE CONCURRENCE OF THIRTEEN STATES . . . [T]he necessity of moulding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole, in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the COMPACT . . . WE MAY SAFELY RELY ON THE DISPOSITION OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES TO ERECT BARRIERS AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENTS OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY." (Emphasis added.)
Just in these two short excerpts from Founding Fathers, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, we see that Marshall's premise that the USA is a nation formed by the whole of the people and not by the compact of the states is seriously called into question, which, of course, calls into question all of the principles of constitutional interpretation and resulting conclusions which derive from that false premise.
An honest look at the presumption that only the US S CT has the power to interpret federal encroachments on State sovereignty will reveal that the states have more power than what has been admitted ever since Marshall took the position of chief justice of the US S CT. For as Marshall admits in Marbury v. Madison, "questions [that are] in their nature political . . . CAN NEVER BE MADE IN THIS COURT." (Emphasis added.) By definition, issues of State sovereignty are in their nature political, just as a treaty between the USA and foreign countries regards the matter of political sovereignty. Therefore, when our states begin to assert their natural and sovereign right of self-defense against federal tyranny, each State will answer to their sovereign--the people--and NOT to the United States Supreme Court.
*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_20090901.html
by Chuck Baldwin's Son, Timothy Baldwin
September 1, 2009
[Note: My son, Tim, writes today's column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also one of America's foremost defenders of State sovereignty.]
The arguments against the power of the states to arrest federal tyranny are as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning, and they are as philosophical in nature as the Declaration of Independence. One of the most commonly used arguments against such a State power is the United States Supreme Court (US S CT) dicta opinion in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, written by Chief Justice John Marshall. Before getting into the misunderstandings and misapplications of that infamous decision, we must first recognize the source and character of Marshall's opinion. As Marshall himself admitted that the US is to be a country of "laws, not men," we must establish that Marshall's opinion does not equate to the "supreme law of the land" which the states and individuals are bound to obey. If our submission only requires that the US S CT speak, then we do not live as freemen, but as slaves.
Marshall was an ardent member of the Federalist Party (a pro-centralist party) and served as the Secretary of State in the pro-centralist administration of President John Adams, who appointed Marshall to the US S CT in 1801 at the "midnight" hour before Thomas Jefferson was sworn into office as President of the US. Marshall's nationalist opinions were no secret either. Marshall believed that the US Constitution and Union were formed by the aggregate whole of the American people, and not by a compact of the states; that the Union formed "one nation, indivisible" and not a confederation of states; that State sovereignty as expressed in the Tenth Amendment equated more to a general idea than to any real applicable and relevant State power over the federal government; that the Constitution must be liberally interpreted for the sake of expanding federal powers at the expense of State sovereignty; and that the idea of State sovereignty was literally ridiculous. By the way, even most self-called conservatives today probably subscribe to these political beliefs, not even knowing the real historical facts behind such fallacious ideology.
Concerning Marshall's philosophical belief relative to the formation of the USA, this historical fact must be admitted. It is crucially important for our discussion today in America. Historian and politically-motivated author, Edward Samuel Corwin, said of Marshall in his book, "John Marshall and the Constitution" (New Haven, CT, Yale Univ. Press, 1920), p. 34: "[Marshall's] attitude [to strengthen the national power and to curtail State legislative power] was determined not only by his sympathy for the sufferings of his former comrades in arms and by his veneration for his father and for Washington . . . but also by his military experience, which had RENDERED THE PRETENSIONS OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY RIDICULOUS IN HIS EYES." (Emphasis added.) There is no question that Marshall had a pre-destined belief against State sovereignty in favor of national power. Corwin describes Marshall's political belief regarding the US as a "nationalistic creed."
So, is the nationalistic political persuasion of one man (appointed by a nationalistic President) and one court to form the basis of the true understanding of the nature and character of the USA? After all, Marshall admitted that the US is established by the rule of law, and not the rule of men. So, by Marshall's own definition in Marbury v. Madison, a US S CT opinion does not establish law, but rather should reflect what the paramount law already is: "The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it." So, as the age-old question has gone: who determines whether or not the federal government has usurped power from the people of the states and from the State governments? The Marbury v. Madison believers are likely jumping up and down right now, raising their hands, saying, "Oh! Pick me! Pick me! I know! I know!" I can just see smirks on the faces of most ABA-law school graduates as they condemn anyone who would advocate another position to be true which is contrary to what Marshall presupposed to be true. Of course, their rationale goes as deep as a kiddy-pool and their thought process as far as an inner-city driveway.
Since 1803, the nationalists have pointed to Marshall's declaration to conclusively say the states have no power over the opinion of the US S CT, for as Marshall states: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." From this, most American lawyers and law students come to the conclusion that there is no authority above and beyond the US S CT's interpretation of the US Constitution. Whatever the US S CT rules becomes "settled law" and the states are completely bound--of course, unless the US S CT says something different later. I was taught this in law school and every other ABA-accredited law school in America teaches this. But a true legal study of Marbury v. Madison reveals that Marshall's opinion (which was actually dicta) never addressed the issue of State sovereignty whatsoever. American historian, Forrest McDonald, reveals this fact in his book, "State's Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876." McDonald states, "Marshall was careful not to claim that the Supreme Court was the SOLE or FINAL ARBITER of acts of Congress." (Emphasis added.) Ibid., (Lawrence, KS, Univ. Press of Kansas, 2000), p. 56. This is, in fact, the case.
Perhaps most telling about Marshall's silence on the issue of being the sole or final arbiter is the fact that just a few years prior to his decision, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, through the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, had advocated the State's ability to actively nullify and resist unconstitutional actions from the federal government. Since Marshall's opinion was mostly dicta anyway--meaning it had no relevance to the issue at hand--why not go ahead and state that the US S CT is the ONLY final arbiter of the US Constitution? But Marshall never did, and neither has any US S CT decision since Marbury v. Madison.
Thus, when someone suggests that the states possess the sovereign power to arrest federal encroachments outside of constitutionally enumerated powers, the nationalists emphatically argue their unsupported conclusion that the USA is one nation, indivisible, where the US S CT possesses the sole authority as the final arbiter on all matters politically relative to the US Constitution, and to suggest otherwise is treason!--even when the most authoritative sources have been so pointedly laid out to the contrary. Marshall's opinions have not settled this matter, and the USA must come to grips with who we are, what we are and how we are.
What's more, Marshall's opinions of national expansion were conclusively derived from one main principle: that the USA is a nation formed by the whole people and not by individual states through a compact. This fact was admitted by Marshall-lover, Corwin, in 1920. Corwin clearly expresses this point as follows:
"The great principles which Marshall developed in his interpretation of the Constitution from the side of national power . . . were the following: '(1) THE CONSTITUTION IS AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND NOT A COMPACT OF THE STATES. (2) Consequently it is to be interpreted with a view to securing a beneficial use of the powers which it creates, not with the purpose of safeguarding the prerogatives of state sovereignty. (3) The Constitution was further designed . . . to be kept a commodious vehicle of the nation life . . . . (4) [The national government] is a sovereign government, both in its choice of the means by which to exercise its power and in its supremacy over all colliding or antagonistic powers. (5) The powers of Congress to regulate commerce is an exclusive power, so that the States may not intrude upon this field even though Congress has not acted. (6) The National Government and its instrumentalities are present within the States, not by the tolerance of the States, but by the supreme authority of the people of the United States.' Of these several principles, THE FIRST IS OBVIOUSLY THE MOST IMPORTANT AND TO A GREAT EXTENT THE SOURCE OF THE OTHERS." "John Marshall and the Constitution," pp. 144-145. (Emphasis added.)
Corwin admits that all of Marshall's opinions were based upon the presumption that the USA is a nation formed by the whole people as one body politic, and not by the individual, sovereign states via a compact. From this premise comes the vast expansion of federal power under the guise of constitutionality. Thus, if it were to be contrarily presumed that the USA is in fact a compact acceded to by the states, then the rules of interpretation that Marshall and subsequent US S CT justices used were wrong and require a different outcome. This fact cannot be overstated and is the source of all of the federal tyranny that many of you reading this article complain about. Thus, it behooves Americans to truly know WHAT IS THE TRUE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF OUR UNION: is it a National government formed by the whole people, or is it a compact among the states and acceded to by the states (otherwise known as a Confederacy)?
This article does not allow me to expound upon this subject in great depth, but it should be sufficient at this point at least to call into question Marshall's presupposition regarding the nature and character of the USA by referring to some of the most authoritative sources on the subject during the formation of the US Constitution. Let us start with James Madison, who was one of the Federalist Paper authors and considered to be the Father of the US Constitution. In Federalist Paper 39, Madison examines the nature and character of the formation of the Union under the US Constitution. He admits that the US was formed by a federative (league of states) and NOT a national act. Madison proclaims:
"[T]he Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but . . . this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, NOT AS INDIVIDUALS COMPOSING ONE ENTIRE NATION, BUT AS COMPOSING THE DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT STATES TO WHICH THEY RESPECTIVELY BELONG. It is to be the ASSENT AND RATIFICATION of the SEVERAL STATES . . . The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will NOT BE A NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.
"That it will be a federal and NOT A NATIONAL ACT . . . THE ACT OF THE PEOPLE, AS FORMING SO MANY INDEPENDENT STATES, NOT AS FORMING ONE AGGREGATE NATION, IS OBVIOUS from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS ASSENT OF THE SEVERAL STATES that are parties to it . . . [T]he new Constitution will . . . be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." (Emphasis added.)
Madison pens in the clearest of terms that the US Constitution is a compact assented to by the State sovereigns in their legal capacities as individual bodies politic, and NOT as one mass of people, forming one body politic. If this were not enough to at least raise a serious question as to what has been shoved down our throats for 150 years, consider that even Alexander Hamilton confirms that the US Constitution is a compact between the states, and NOT a national act of the whole people. He says in Federalist Paper 85:
"To its complete establishment throughout the Union, [the US Constitution] will therefore REQUIRE THE CONCURRENCE OF THIRTEEN STATES . . . [T]he necessity of moulding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole, in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the COMPACT . . . WE MAY SAFELY RELY ON THE DISPOSITION OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES TO ERECT BARRIERS AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENTS OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY." (Emphasis added.)
Just in these two short excerpts from Founding Fathers, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, we see that Marshall's premise that the USA is a nation formed by the whole of the people and not by the compact of the states is seriously called into question, which, of course, calls into question all of the principles of constitutional interpretation and resulting conclusions which derive from that false premise.
An honest look at the presumption that only the US S CT has the power to interpret federal encroachments on State sovereignty will reveal that the states have more power than what has been admitted ever since Marshall took the position of chief justice of the US S CT. For as Marshall admits in Marbury v. Madison, "questions [that are] in their nature political . . . CAN NEVER BE MADE IN THIS COURT." (Emphasis added.) By definition, issues of State sovereignty are in their nature political, just as a treaty between the USA and foreign countries regards the matter of political sovereignty. Therefore, when our states begin to assert their natural and sovereign right of self-defense against federal tyranny, each State will answer to their sovereign--the people--and NOT to the United States Supreme Court.
*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_20090901.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
