Search This Blog

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Is The Day Of Great Leaders Past?

Is The Day Of Great Leaders Past?
By Chuck Baldwin
November 10, 2009 

A recent column co-authored by John Eidsmoe and Ben DuPré struck me. They titled their column, “What makes a ‘great’ president?”


The basic thrust of the column was to examine the qualities that make one a “great” President. They start by examining the Presidency of our 11th President, James K. Polk. They note that Polk is commonly regarded as being one of America’s top 12 greatest Presidents. To use their words, “between eighth and 12th among our greatest presidents.”

Eidsmoe and Dupré note that Polk was undoubtedly a man of outstanding Christian character and faith. They say that Polk was “the only president who kept and fulfilled every one of his campaign promises.” They observe him to be a man “with a Puritan work ethic, [who] literally worked himself to death as president, retired from office in broken health and died 103 days later.”

But Polk also greatly expanded the power of the Presidency. “In 1846, President Polk sent American troops into disputed territory where they were almost certain to become embroiled in hostilities, and then demanded that Congress recognize that a state of war already existed. Increasingly with Polk’s presidency and thereafter, the president set national policy and the Congress rubber-stamped the president’s decisions.”

Eidsmoe and Dupré note that the people who are charged with rating our Presidents are commonly academicians, “and as such they tend to be left of center. They believe in centralized power, and they therefore admire presidents who increased federal power and concentrated it in the presidency.”

In this regard, Eidsmoe and Dupré are 100% correct. Look at the heroes of liberal historians and who do you find? Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt. Not by accident, these same historians will extol the virtues of Hammurabi, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, and Napoleon. All these men have one thing in common: they were responsible for expanding (either by force or fraud) a centralized government.

Eidsmoe and Dupré correctly challenge the standard by which greatness is determined and offer alternatives to the avant-garde, politically correct formula. They proffer that “the truly great men of history are those who have defended and preserved individual liberty by resisting the increase and centralization of government power.”

To that I say a hearty “AMEN.”

Eidsmoe and Dupré then offer their own list of great men, which includes Judas Maccabeus, Cato and Cicero, Hermann the Liberator, Archbishop Stephen Langton of Canterbury, William Wallace and Robert the Bruce, and George Washington and Patrick Henry.

This brought to mind the fact that, several months ago, I had asked my friend, Howard Phillips, to rate his favorite US Presidents. This was his response:

1)      George Washington: for the standard he established during his Presidency.
2)      Thomas Jefferson: for his commitment to religious liberty and for recognizing the role of the states as he spelled out in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.
3)      Andrew Jackson: for his opposition to the second bank of the United States.
4)      John Tyler: for his role in the admission of Texas to the Union.
5)      James Polk: for advancing America’s “manifest destiny.”
6)      Grover Cleveland: for his fidelity for the Constitution of the United States.
7)      Calvin Coolidge: for his commitment to low taxes and limits on Federal spending as well as for his good character.

As for my personal list of greatest Presidents, it would largely mirror Howard’s list, with one deviation. I would suggest:

1)      George Washington: America’s greatest President, without whom this republic would not exist. His “Farewell Address” is the greatest political speech ever delivered on American soil and should be regarded as “must-reading” for every American citizen.
2)      Thomas Jefferson: America’s greatest defender of individual liberty and states’ rights.
3)      James Monroe: for his leadership in establishing America’s strategically important “Monroe Doctrine.”
4)      Andrew Jackson: for standing up against the bankers.
5)      John Tyler: for defying his own party (Whigs) and twice vetoing the incorporation of the US Bank. And also for supporting the Southern cause for secession.
6)      Grover Cleveland: for his honesty and devotion to the US Constitution.
7)      Calvin Coolidge: for his dogged determination to limit taxes and federal spending.

As for my suggested list of personal heroes, those are already chronicled on my Wikipedia page. See it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Baldwin

Interestingly enough, Dupré and Eidsmoe’s hero candidates, William Wallace and Patrick Henry, also grace my list of heroes as posted on my Wikipedia page.

One will notice that there are hardly any modern-day heroes mentioned on my list. I also observed that there were no modern-day heroes mentioned by John Eidsmoe and Ben Dupré in their column. Indeed. Where are the real heroes in national public office today?

Our national leaders (from both parties) seem to be shortsighted opportunists, possessing little regard for their oaths to the US Constitution, the principles of decency, or even plain, old-fashioned common sense. Both major parties in Washington, D.C., offer the American people varying degrees of socialism. Neither party demonstrates even tacit devotion to constitutional government. Federalism and limited government have all but disappeared under the oversight of both Republican and Democratic leaders. These disastrous Presidents (from Johnson, Nixon, and Carter to Clinton and Bush I & II) calmly leave office with no regret or remorse for the devastation, death, and deception that they inflicted upon the country. They live in the lap of luxury and comfort without the slightest tinge of conscience as to the massive destruction done to our Constitution, not to mention our economy, security, and way of life. Beyond that, our congressmen and senators are mostly miscreants in the similitude of Nancy Pelosi and Lindsey Graham.

It's hard to imagine there was a time when giants once lived among us. It’s hard to recall a day when the word “hero” really meant something. Today, everyone is called a hero. Well, as one Marine Corps veteran recently said, “If everyone is a hero, no one is a hero.” Amen!

Perhaps more than anything, America needs great leaders once again. Men who are not enamored with power and wealth. Men who are more concerned with honoring their word and preserving the Constitution than they are being reelected and receiving a government pension. Men who really do respect the people that elected them. Men who are willing to be unpopular, if that is the cost of honesty and integrity. Men who know the difference between the eternal and the temporal. And, yes, men who know the meaning of the word AMERICAN.

Is the day of great leaders past? With few exceptions, it would appear so. And that—more than anything else—is why we are in the mess we are in today.

So, while you are saying your prayers tonight, don’t forget to ask God to give us some men like Washington and Jefferson. We could sure use them about now.

© Chuck Baldwin 



NOTE TO THE READER:
To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
Chuck Baldwin’s commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck’s web site address is included.
Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida. When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.
Please visit Chuck’s web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit

Friday, November 13, 2009

Treachery as Lifestyle Choice

Hello All,

This article is very easy to agree with.  I must add that there is also blood on the hands of those that knew some thing was seriously wrong, or had at least had good reason to believe something serious was going on yet did nothing for the sake of political correctness.  It is sickening that some of those in power would risk the lives of Americans over not wanting to offend idiots like this major and his ilk!

When will we learn???

Godspeed,

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit


Treachery as Lifestyle Choice
11.12.09

President Obama, speaking at Tuesday’s memorial, described the Fort Hood attack as “incomprehensible.” But what’s incomprehensible about it? Nidal Malik Hasan telegraphed his treachery. The drip-drip-drip of reports reveals that Hasan self-identified himself as a threat to the military and authorities still hesitated to investigate him.

A PC-addled military and Defense Department simply froze: fellow soldiers didn’t want to risk the appearance of intolerance; investigators worried about incursions upon recent First Amendment jurisprudence.

General George Casey’s staggeringly inane comment after the shooting captures the atmosphere that explains it: “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

Diversity at this point is a synonym for mindlessness and self-hating hypocrisy. Were Hasan a virulent and outspoken Christian military chaplain, he would have been branded a hate criminal and whisked away. But since he is a Muslim, since Obama isn’t at “war with Islam,” and since Islam is so obviously a religion of peace, he was given a wide swath.

Under the paralysis of a PC culture, all Muslims are moderate Muslims and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot. If Hasan didn’t define Islam as a religion of peace but as a religion of jihad, that was okay; he would come around in time to the superior liberal understanding of Islam as non-violent.

The irresponsible frivolousness of such attitudes is mind-boggling. While Obama’s Homeland Security was issuing dilettantish warnings about disgruntled, Timothy McVeigh-style soldiers coming back from war and pro-life activists at abortion clinics, the Defense Department was ignoring a deadly threat in plain sight.

While Obama was rescinding George Bush’s protection of the conscience rights of Christian doctors and nurses, the Defense Department fretted over the freedoms of an open jihadist. While Obama was attaching a “hate crimes” provision to his defense spending bill, aimed not at radical Muslims but at the left’s usual list of conservative “bigots,” a proponent of suicide bombings was plotting the worst shooting on a U.S. military base ever.

And after it all occurs, his administration doesn’t even pause in its political correctness. The priority now is to ensure that Muslims don’t suffer a “backlash” from Americans and that “diversity” thrive in the military, according to Casey.

Liberalism as death wish has never been clearer. Completely unwilling to engage the facts, Evan Thomas and company competed for the most obtuse explanations of the shooting: maybe Hasan had been victimized by anti-Muslim prejudice; then it was Hasan as shared (through his patients) trauma victim of the Bush years; finally Hasan as “just a nut case,” Thomas’s contribution to the discussion.

For General Casey, a diminished commitment to diversity loomed as the greater tragedy; for Evan Thomas, the greater tragedy was that Hasan would “get the right wing going.”

There it was: the real threat to America, the “right wing.”

The war against jihadists is not nearly as worrisome to the left as the culture war at home. The only ideology the left seeks to reform is conservatism; the only theology it considers dangerous is Christian. Islam is peaceful; conservatism is divisive.

But sometimes the doctrines of Christianity do come in handy for liberal pols in need of bracing rhetoric. At Tuesday’s memorial, Obama departed momentarily from his Oprahized Christianity and seemed to imply that Hasan was headed for hell: “It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know—no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. For what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice—in this world, and the next.” 

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit


Thursday, November 12, 2009

Crying for Our Country and the Church

By Ted Kyle
Free-Lance Writer
Fri, 6 Nov 2009

From Ezekiel 9:4-5 comes this challenging report: “And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity.”

If the reader’s first reaction is to think, “These are Old Testament words for a far-distant time and place; it means nothing to me,” I beg you to think again. The God of the Old Testament is also the God of the New Testament. His nature has not changed one iota. The Old and the New are related. Furthermore, Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 10:11 that “Now all these things (virtually the entire Old Testament) happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. We are not governed by Old Testament Law but we are supposed to learn from those hard-won lessons.

In Ezekiel’s vision, God commissioned the angelic beings who had charge of Jerusalem, including the Temple (Ez. 9:1), to sweep through the city and destroy most of the residents. They were to have no pity. They were to “slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women” (9:6). The only exceptions to this general slaughter were to be those who mourned because their city and nation were sliding ever deeper into sin.

Was this a warning vision or a prophetic vision? Probably both, in a general sense, for we know that God did ultimately use the Roman army to wreak His vengeance on the Jewish nation, and particularly Jerusalem, its capital city, where the slaughter was frightful. Included in the destruction was the Temple, which was burned and then enthusiastically demolished stone by stone, we are told, to recover the gold that had melted and run into the joints and crevices between the stones.

I greatly fear that God’s fulfillment of this vision will be reenacted in our country in our day, unless America turns back to God. We, as a nation, have already closed our schools, our courts, and our councils against God and have more and more declared Him either irrelevant or actually subversive. Meanwhile our churches, so many of them, are spiritually asleep and drifting further from the precepts and practices of God’s holy Word.

I believe Ezekiel’s vision also contains a pointed warning for the Church. Note the last part of 9:6: “ ‘And begin at my sanctuary.’ Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.” Verse 7 continues: “And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.”

Where would these angels of death find their first victims? Among the priests and Levites who served the Temple. And first among them would be the “ancient men,” the leaders. The application for the Church is so obvious it cries out for emphasis: God’s judgment will fall most heavily upon the pastors and elders who lead their flocks away from the true Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This, of course, is as it should be. God entrusted the Church with a leadership role: She is God’s ambassador to the world! (cf. Eph. 6:20). She is charged with staying true to the Bible. More, she must be vibrantly alive. She must be a beacon of faith, and a bastion of righteousness. In short, she must once again truly represent our glorious Savior, Jesus Christ!

Without this taking place, I fear God’s terrible judgment on America and the Church is inevitable.

The question remains: How much do we, as God’s children, care? Does the already deplorable and rapidly worsening spiritual condition of our country grieve us? The answer may tell us much about our own spiritual condition!

This is the time for all true believers to “be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:15).

Let your light shine as you weep for your country!


Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit

 

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Sudden Jihad or “Inordinate Stress” at Ft. Hood?

Sudden Jihad or “Inordinate Stress” at Ft. Hood?
by Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com
November 9, 2009

When a Muslim in the West for no apparent reason violently attacks non-Muslims, a predictable argument ensues about motives.

The establishment – law enforcement, politicians, the media, and the academy – stands on one side of this debate, insisting that some kind of oppression caused Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, to kill 13 and wound 38 at Ft. Hood on Nov. 5. It disagrees on the specifics, however, presenting Hasan as the victim alternatively of “racism,” “harassment he had received as a Muslim,” a sense of not belonging,” “pre-traumatic stress disorder,” “mental problems,” “emotional problems,” “an inordinate amount of stress,” or being deployed to Afghanistan as his “worst nightmare.” Accordingly, a typical newspaper headline reads “Mindset of Rogue Major a Mystery.”

Instances of Muslim-on-unbeliever violence inspire the victim school to dig up new and imaginative excuses. Colorful examples (drawing on my article and weblog entry about denying Islamist terrorism) include:

Ø      1990: “A prescription drug for … depression” (to explain the assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane)
Ø      1991: “A robbery gone wrong” (the murder of Makin Morcos in Sydney)
Ø      1994: “Road rage” (the killing of a random Jew on the Brooklyn Bridge)
Ø      1997: “Many, many enemies in his mind” (the shooting murder atop the Empire State Building)
Ø      2000: A traffic incident (the attack on a bus of Jewish schoolchildren near Paris)
Ø      2002: “A work dispute” (the double murder at LAX)
Ø      2002: A “stormy [family] relationship” (the Beltway snipers)
Ø      2003: An “attitude problem” (Hasan Karim Akbar’s attack on fellow soldiers, killing two)
Ø      2003: Mental illness (the mutilation murder of Sebastian Sellam)
Ø      2004: “Loneliness and depression” (an explosion in Brescia, Italy outside a McDonald’s restaurant)
Ø      2005: “A disagreement between the suspect and another staff member” (a rampage at a retirement center in Virginia)
Ø      2006: “An animus toward women” (a murderous rampage at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle)
Ø      2006: “His recent, arranged marriage may have made him stressed” (killing with an SUV in northern California)

Additionally, when an Osama bin Laden-admiring Arab-American crashed a plane into a Tampa high-rise, blame fell on the acne drug Accutane.

As a charter member of the jihad school of interpretation, I reject these explanations as weak, obfuscatory, and apologetic. The jihadi school, still in the minority, perceives Hasan’s attack as one of many Muslim efforts to vanquish infidels and impose Islamic law. We recall a prior episode of sudden jihad syndrome in the U.S. military, as well as the numerous cases of non-lethal Pentagon jihadi plots and the history of Muslim violence on American soil.

Far from being mystified by Hasan, we see overwhelming evidence of his jihadi intentions. He handed out Korans to neighbors just before going on his rampage and yelled “Allahu Akbar,” the jihadi’s cry, as he fired off over 100 rounds from two pistols. His superiors reportedly put him on probation for inappropriately proselytizing about Islam.

We note what former associates say about him: one, Val Finnell, quotes Hasan saying, “I’m a Muslim first and an American second” and recalls Hasan justifying suicide terrorism; another, Col Terry Lee, recalls that Hasan “claimed Muslims had the right to rise up and attack Americans”; the third, a psychiatrist who worked very closely with Hasan, described him as “almost belligerent about being Muslim.”

Finally, the jihad school of thought attributes importance to the Islamic authorities’ urging American Muslim soldiers to refuse to fight their co-religionists, thereby providing a basis for sudden jihad. In 2001, for example, responding to the U.S. attack on the Taliban, the mufti of Egypt, Ali Gum’a, issued a fatwa stating that “The Muslim soldier in the American army must refrain [from participating] in this war.” Hasan himself, echoing that message, advised a young Muslim disciple, Duane Reasoner Jr., not to join the U.S. army because “Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims.”

If the jihad explanation is overwhelmingly more persuasive than the victim one, it’s also far more awkward to articulate. Everyone finds blaming road rage, Accutane, or an arranged marriage easier than discussing Islamic doctrines. And so, a prediction: what Ralph Peters calls the army’s “unforgivable political correctness” will officially ascribe Hasan’s assault to his victimization and will leave jihad unmentioned.

And thus will the army blind itself and not prepare for its next jihadi attack. 





Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.
You may post or forward this text, but on condition that you send it as an integral whole, along with complete information about its author, date, publication, and original URL.




Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit




Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Another State Introduces Firearms Freedom Act

Hello All,

I see more and more state going the 10th Amendment route on issues that truly must belong to the states. We in these United States are a federation of states, that is like much smaller united counties.  That is what a “state” means by the way.  It is not a section of the country, or a province, as many counties have, but states that are united.  Perhaps we should say we are united (no cap was intentional) States, because we are exactly that.  

It is a shame so few know what that means.  And if pressed, some of these states will succeed from the federation.  Last time some states tried that it was called civil war.  Let us hope that never happens.

And this post includes a supplemental from Chuck Baldwin.  He wants to know what people would think about him running with Ron Paul for president next time around. 

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit







Another State Introduces Firearms Freedom Act
By Chuck Baldwin
November 6, 2009

According to a report published on the Tenth Amendment Center’s web site, “Introduced in the Ohio House on October 16, 2009, the ‘Firearms Freedom Act’ (HB-315) seeks ‘To enact section 2923.26 of the Revised Code to provide that ammunition, firearms, and firearm accessories that are manufactured and remain in Ohio are not subject to federal laws and regulations derived under Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce and to require the words “Made in Ohio” be stamped on a central metallic part of any firearm manufactured and sold in Ohio.’”

The report went on to say, “While the HB315’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government. It specifically states:

“‘The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. The congress of the United States has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.’

“Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.”


Two states have already passed their own Firearms Freedom Acts: Montana and Tennessee. And, along with Ohio, at least 7 other states have introduced similar bills. Those states are Alaska, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.

More information regarding the status of these State bills can be seen at: http://tinyurl.com/10amdmt-ffa

As you might suspect, the federal government doesn’t take too kindly to these State laws. In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) sent an open letter to all Montana and Tennessee firearms dealers denouncing the State laws. ATF assistant director Carson Carroll wrote that “Federal law supersedes the Act.”

The Tenth Amendment Center quotes constitutional historian Kevin Gutzman as correctly stating, “Their [ATF’s] view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.

“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit them.” 

Ah! But that’s just the problem: the federal government has been ignoring the Constitution for decades—so much so that if there is going to be any restoration of genuine liberty in the country, the states are going to have to stand up to this out-of-control national leviathan and say, “No.” And they are going to have to say it loudly enough for Washington to get the message. And I cannot think of a freedom issue that is better to “draw a line in the sand” for than the issue of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

At the end of the day, the Second Amendment was never about hunting or target shooting. It has always been about protecting the people and states against federal tyranny.

The Second Amendment itself states, “A well regulated Militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” (Emphasis added.) Note that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms was to insure “the security of a FREE STATE.” (Emphasis added.) “Free from what?” you ask. Free from federal tyranny. Free from an overbearing, encroaching, heavy-handed, would-be national government.

The founders--even the Centralists of the day--all acknowledged that the right to keep and bear arms was, first of all, for the protection of the people against government tyranny. Observe:

“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Number 29)

“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny.” (Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville [NC] Gazette, October 12, 1789)

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson)

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? . . . Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” (Tench Coxe, ally of James Madison and member of the Continental Congress, Freeman’s Journal, February 20, 1778)

Coxe also said, “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789)

So, for now, 10 states have proposed—and 2 have passed—a Firearms Freedom Act, properly declaring that federal authority granted in the Constitution regarding interstate commerce cannot apply to products (firearms, in this case) that are manufactured and sold within the territory of each respective State. In other words, 10 States are serving notice to Washington, D.C., that they are going to insist that the federal government stop ignoring the Constitution of the United States.

In the same vein, Tennessee State legislator Susan Lynn recently sent an open letter to the State legislative bodies of the other 49 states stating:

“On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:

Ø      Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
Ø      Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
Ø      Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
Ø      Seek repeal of the assumption of the powers and the imposed mandates.”

In the body of her letter, Rep. Lynn states, “The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.”

The Tennessee State representative continued by saying, “The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.

“With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty—and unconstitutional.”

See Rep. Lynn’s letter at: http://tinyurl.com/10amdmt-ffa-rep-lynn

This is a battle that is just beginning to heat up, but promises to get red-hot in the not-too-distant future. As for me and my house, we believe this showdown is long overdue. To quote Patrick Henry, “Let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come!”

*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:

© Chuck Baldwin 




Do You Want Me To Run With Ron Paul In 2012? 
By Chuck Baldwin
November 6, 2009
(Supplemental)

An Internet online poll is asking readers to pick Ron Paul's running mate should he decide to run for President in 2012. Readers will remember that Dr. Paul endorsed me in last year's Presidential election. If you would like to vote for me (or someone else) in this online poll, go here:

Plus, THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS are being printed now. In all likelihood, we will begin shipping them sometime next week. To beat the rush, go here:

Thank you for reading my columns.

© Chuck Baldwin 





NOTE TO THE READER:
To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
Chuck Baldwin’s commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck’s web site address is included.
Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida. When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.
Please visit Chuck’s web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com




Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit




Choosing Federalism, Choosing Freedom

Hello All,

This is the first of two articles from the Baldwin family.  I have to say like-father, like-son in these articles.  Both are strong constitutionalists.  Both are big on the idea that we are a federation of states, as am I. 

May we turn around as a nation and go back to the Godly foundations we once had.  All this PC nonsense we now live in, this blame America for every foolish thing (can you say BHO?), and blame those that just want to do right is getting us killed. 

I don’t know why God would want to even bless us any longer.  We have turned quite far away. 

Godspeed,

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit





Choosing Federalism, Choosing Freedom
By Chuck Baldwin’s Son, Tim Baldwin
November 3, 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. Tim is also regarded as one of America’s leading spokesmen for State sovereignty.]

After the release of my last column “Freedom’s Destruction by Constitutional De-Construction,” I received so many responses to my statement, “The people of the states [must] once again reject this national form of government and assert and defend the principles of federalism,” that I felt the need to develop this subject more thoroughly. The question I received was: “How can I choose federalism once again?” Indeed, answering this question is crucial to injecting a cure for the sickness and illness of tyrannical, national control over the people of the states. Undoubtedly, we are going to need an acute dosage to even begin ridding ourselves of the disease destroying the body of our once-great federation.


The reality is, the answer is not complicated. The more relevant question will likely be, what portion of the cure(s) must we implement. This will require a diagnosis of the degree and seriousness of the disease’s attack on our Confederate Republic. Let us analyze briefly the seriousness of the attack so that we may proportionally and accordingly respond and defend against the encroachments on our constitutional freedoms, guarantees and powers.

Keeping in line with my last article and the position that the national system of government (under which the United States currently operates) is completely contrary to the federal system that our founders and Constitution’s ratifiers bequeathed to us, a fact is established: We the People of the United States of America have been denied our natural and compactual rights under God and the Constitution. Again, how can it be argued that it is now legally and morally right and proper to do what our Constitution did not create or authorize? How can freedom exist in a country where we supposedly believe in the “consent of the governed” when that consent has been usurped by force? Consequently, our right of defense is activated.

Make no mistake about this: the US Constitution did NOT create a national government, but rather created a federal government whereby the states were coequal with the federal government in the exercise and defense of the powers granted to them by the people of each State. The founders and ratifiers of the Constitution expressly rejected the notion that the federal government has supreme sovereignty. The issue here is not whether there are “national components” of the procedures in the system, such as voting for the House of Representatives by the people. We know that the founders implemented a few elements of national-type procedure in the US Constitution, just as they did even in the Articles of Confederation.

Rather, the bottom-line issue is, whether the states have coequal power to exercise and defend their powers—and their citizens—and whether the Federal government has the power to force the states to accept its own interpretation and (de)construction of the Constitution. If the union of the United States was formed by the people of the states in their capacities as the sovereign of each State, creating a FEDERAL government, then the states are coequal in power and do have the right to exercise and defend their powers. If the union of the United States was formed by the whole of the people as a mass body politic, without regard to the sovereign states, creating a NATIONAL government, then the states are mere corporations of the parent company, called the Federal government.

I need not expound the answer to this question here, because I have done so in numerous other articles before, proving that the union was formed by the states as states, and not by the people as one nation. The conclusion is more than provable that the founders and ratifiers of the Constitution did not create a nation, but created a federation, and actually expected the states to be the active guardians of freedom for their own people. Thus, what methods can we use today to once again choose federalism over nationalism?

There are five basic methods by which the people of the states can counter the attacks of the federal government’s prolonged tyrannical usurpations of power. They are: (1) Change of Politicians; (2) Checks and Balances; (3) Constitutional Amendment; (4) Constitutional Convention; and (5) Revolution.

1. Change of Politicians. Alexander Hamilton notes in Federalist Paper 21, “The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men.” This method of cure is no mystery, and has been the mode of “change” in the US for the past 50 years. Dare I say, this method has proven to be anything but effectual?  Please show me how changing the Federal government from Republican to Democrat and vice versa has done ANYTHING to reinstitute our federal form of government, provided by the Constitution. Both parties in the federal government do absolutely nothing to revert rightful power to the people of the states. I shall not waste any more valuable time or words on this ineffectual method. (Then again, if we had a majority of congressmen such as Ron Paul in Washington, D.C., we wouldn’t be having this discussion to begin with.)

2. Checks and Balances. There are two types of checks and balances: (a) federal against federal, and (b) State against federal. Since the early 1900s, the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government have usurped power from the states. To say that the people of the states can count on the three branches of the federal government to check each other in this regard and to maintain a Federal form of government is a joke. All three branches maintain that they possess the sole power (through the judiciary) to interpret and construe the Constitution, and that all others (i.e., the states) must submit thereto. This is in fact the very definition of nationalism, which the Constitution’s ratifiers rejected.

As for the states’ check against federal usurpations of power, most ignorant or disillusioned people would say that they lost that right when the Confederate States of America lost the Civil War in 1865, and from that point onward, the states could not check the federal government through arresting action. They suggest that to conquer equals the right to rule: a notion completely rejected in American jurisprudence. Time does not allow me to expand on this erroneous doctrine, so I will simply say, How ludicrous!

The fact is, the Federalist Paper writers expected the states to be the guardians against federal tyranny. This necessarily meant (as they expressed) that the states develop actual arms of resistance to such encroachments. This, of course, shows, once again, the FEDERAL character and nature of our form of government: the states were not subservient to the federal government’s dictates, but were coequal in power to protect their own authority and freedoms through their State Constitutions.

Thankfully, we are seeing a current resurgence of State activism to be the voice and arm of the people to protect and perpetuate the US Constitution. While the federal v. federal checks and balances have proven to be less than fruitful, the states today are taking their role more seriously in this regard, just as our founders and ratifiers demanded. It is this State power of active and passive nullification and resistance that will once again protect federalism and freedom in America. Therefore, it is this State power that affords us the best opportunity to defend liberty and restore constitutional government, and that we should expend most our energies to revive.

3. Constitutional Amendment. The US Constitution requires three-fourths of the STATES to amend the Constitution. Most certainly this is an effective tool to reverse and prevent evils in government. Our founders expected that this process would protect freedom and the principles of freedom. However, as we have seen since 1865, the amendment process has been used only to increase national power and decrease State power. From the states being denied power in the Senate, to the income tax and “privileges and immunities” clause of the fourteenth amendment, the nationalists of the twentieth century have had their heyday by deepening their squeeze of national ideals over federal. Ironically, the attack on federalism has come through the same document protecting our federation: the Constitution. (The illegality of amendments being used to propagate principles contrary to freedom and federalism is for another article and discussion.)

That being said: if there were enough states to amend the Constitution to clarify federal doctrines, limit federal government power, and reinstitute original State powers, then it most certainly would be beneficial. Praise the day when such amendments would be ratified.

4. Constitutional Convention. I have heard this method suggested by some in certain circles of the “patriot movement,” and while I understand the suggestion of calling a constitutional convention to rewrite the Constitution, I believe that to do so would likely create more problems than what we are dealing with today. However, there is a caveat, as explained below.

To convene a constitutional convention, states would have to send delegates (just as in 1787) for the purpose of discussing and drafting a Constitution. Not even getting into the legal issues and ramifications inherent in such a method, a very practical question is raised: Would a majority of the people convening at such a monumental event even possess the understanding, knowledge and belief needed to perpetuate and protect the principles of freedom and federalism? By virtue of what I see throughout the US today, I venture to say, No. I believe one of the greatest contributions to national ideals defeating federal ideals is that the people (including on State levels) do not understand, know or believe in the principles expressed by our founders and their forefathers.

Thus, to call a constitutional convention would most certainly place us in a worse situation. That said, there is one positive that could result from this. If the Constitution were re-written, it would require the ratification of the states that wanted to join a new union under a new contract (Constitution). In this case, it very well may provide a way for the people of the states to decide which path they wanted to take: national or federal. In other words, those states that yet wanted to live under Federalism and not Nationalism could reject the new compact and could declare themselves independent or seek to form yet another compact among like-minded states. (Of course, this could happen anyway, per number 2 above—even without a constitutional convention—making any proposed Con Con a dangerous and unnecessary action.)

5. Revolution. Revolution simply means a change of power. For those who perceive such a term as being a bad thing, why do they not then demonize the current illegitimate system of national government, because this current system is not the one the states ratified back in 1787? If a squatter turns your property into his, are you not within your rights to remove him, his family, his friends and his belongings completely from your property?

It is a fact that Americans (nationalists, federalists and even monarchists) believed in the natural right of revolution—that every generation has the God-given right to effect change by revolution when change cannot be reasonably expected and effected through other more peaceful means.

Coming full circle, then: To what degree has the federal government usurped its powers? This question is crucial because, as our forefathers expressed, resistance should be enacted proportionally to the usurpation. While there may be some who think that “it’s not all that bad,” I suggest that it is much worse than we think it is. We are at a point today when we are not only fighting for State sovereignty and a federal system, but we are fighting for national sovereignty (according to the LAWS OF NATIONS as expressed by enlightenment philosophers and jurists), against those who desire that the US become part of the global community.

The evidence around us is beyond reasonable doubt: we the people of the United States have been fraudulently denied our rights under the laws of Nature and Nature’s God, and under the US Constitution. The rights to resist this tyranny already exist. The methods to choose federalism and freedom have their hands out, offering to help us. It is time we choose which method or methods will best reach the ultimate goal of freedom. And as I said, I believe a revival of State sovereignty—whereby states are resolved to exercise the authority they have per the terms of their charter (Constitution)--is the most attractive and effective method currently feasible to reclaim federalism and freedom in America.

Note: Visit Tim’s web site at: www.libertydefenseleague.com

*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:

© Chuck Baldwin 





NOTE TO THE READER:
To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
Chuck Baldwin’s commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck’s web site address is included.
Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida. When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.
Please visit Chuck’s web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com




Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit