by Timothy Baldwin
Let us assume for the moment that it became revealed that Barak Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States, proving that he was ineligible to be President of the United States. Ok, now what? Would Obama be removed from office? Perhaps. Would the United States be freer? Would the States and the people regain their sovereignty stolen by the federal government? Would America’s form of government revert back to its original nature and character of 1787? Would self-government, the consent of the governed, limited government and federalism once again become the guiding principles throughout these states united? Would the ideals and principles of freedom once again become popular, accepted and advanced by the people and their agents in government?
Since the Confederate States of America lost the war in 1865 against the union-destroying aggressions of Abraham Lincoln and his military, the federal government has egregiously encroached upon the powers and sovereignty of the people and the states respectively. Regulations, controls, taxation, deception, falsehoods, subterfuge, “bait and switch” have all been the norm. Thievery under “color of law” has been their modus operandi. Through myriad usurpations, all three branches of the federal government have suppressed and oppressed true freedom throughout these states. It has, through masquerade and fraud, turned our original federal form of government into a national, seemingly-all-powerful empire. It has overtaken virtually every major element of society. It has bribed (and in some cases, forced) corporations, churches, states and citizens into giving the federal government our own powers and resources, with the promise of giving them back, of course, at our expense and with their demands. The federal government has unjustifiably entangled itself in the affairs of foreign nations, corporate elites and bankster mobs. It owns major media, education institutions and religious minds across America. In essence, it has created a seemingly impenetrable matrix of fraud, deceit and corruption, Republic or Democrat in the White House notwithstanding.
Despite the well-intentioned efforts and thoughts of many in America who feel that removing Obama from the Presidency, based upon constitutional grounds (i.e. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4), will somehow restore freedom to America, this simply is not the case and entirely misses the true crux of the problem. Do not misunderstand what I am saying: most certainly the constitution should be followed, and we the people of the states and the state governments should insist on it. No one believes that more than I. However, this fact must be realized before freedom will ever show its face again in America: the federal government (and those who control it) is not salvageable; its usurpations and encroachments are treasonous; its blatant unconstitutional actions have put the people of these states in a state of war; and without true revolution, freedom will never be restored in America.
The federal government–and by current default, the states–operates under a system and form contrary to freedom as expressed in America’s Declaration of Independence. It operates under the form of government which history proves is the enemy of a free republic. It operates under the very form of government that our founders rejected in September 1787 and that the ratifiers of the constitution rejected thereafter. It operates under a top-down structure, whereby the states and the people are mere subjects and corporations of the centralized head–the very form our founding generation seceded from in 1776. Freedom’s current plight in America has little to do with Obama being illegitimate as the President and has everything to do with the people of the states being controlled by a governmental system we never created or approved.
Even a brief look at recent history will reveal the numerous examples where the people have attempted to hold the federal government accountable to the constitution. Yet, that same government is more powerful and corrupt than ever, and the people and states are weaker and more oppressed than ever. It would not matter in the slightest if Obama were removed and replaced with Biden, Pelosi, McCain, Bush, Clinton, Gingrich, Palin, Scarborough, or any other eligible President. A new President would no more change the form and system of the federal government than would pumping trillions of dollars of tax payer monies create a stable and sound economic system in America. Just as America’s paper currency (the dollar) is not backed by a solid foundation (e.g. gold-silver standard), so too the executive branch of the federal government is not backed by substantive principles of freedom.
Make no mistake about this: there has not been a United States President elected since 1861 that has advocated for the true principles of federalism and freedom, and both major political parties have only cemented and built upon the previous President’s legacy of federal power at the expense of the states and people. If you think that freedom will be restored because a Republican who claims to be pro-life, pro-family, or pro-business sits in the White House, you are mistaken. If you think that Obama’s true birth place being revealed will restore all that we have lost for over 100 years and will somehow decapitate the head of the beast (thereby granting victory to “conservative America”), think again.
Those who have controlled the federal system have shown their intent of ignoring, demeaning and contradicting the United States Constitution. They care nothing of it, and only lead us to believe they do just to get elected. As Nancy Pelosi laughed when recently being asked the question, “Does the constitution grant Congress the power to pass the national health care bill?”, she only illustrated both the latent and patent practice and philosophy the federal government has possessed for generations. Do we need any more evidence at this point to conclude that our federal government is unconstitutional in its actions, powers and intentions? I think not. The only question is, what do we do about it?
In 1776, the delegates from the colonies met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in attempts to rectify the unconstitutional political actions of their national government. Like many of us today, they knew the designs of their government to reduce them to submissive slaves; they knew their government overstepped the authority given them by the consent of the governed; they knew that their government had committed acts of “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” So, what did they decide to do? Replace their king with a new king? Use the court system to invalidate the illegal actions of the king? Use parliament to address their grievances to the king? Try to establish that the king was not of the hereditary lineage legally capable of being king? Wait until a new king would assume the throne to accomplish freedom? None of the above.
Instead, our founding generation secured the blessings of liberty by doing what all free peoples decided to do throughout history when confronted with the evident intents of tyrannical government: they became independent from the source of tyranny. They declared their natural right to govern themselves. They formed and constituted government by and on the consent of the governed. They ridded themselves of the entire system of the “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object [which evinced] a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.” They became independent and sovereign states!
You claim to love freedom: you do well. But freedom will never be restored by replacing Obama with Biden, nor will it be restored by establishing that Obama is not legally eligible to hold the executive office. You claim to love the constitution: you do well. But the constitution will never be restored until the principles, form and system it created are restored. You claim that Obama’s birth certificate is crucial in restoring freedom? Your thoughts are likely pure, but your focus is misplaced. There have been open and notorious unconstitutional actions forced upon us by the federal government over the past 140 years. What makes this particular issue the winning contestant in restoring freedom?
Moreover, where are those in the federal government also demanding what you claim is so crucial to restoring the constitution? Where are those in the federal government demanding that the federal government give the states and the people back their money and power? Where are those in the federal government demanding that the tenth amendment be adhered to? Where are those even considering running for a federal position who preach and practice concepts of federalism? Where is the federal judicial system that even understands what federalism is and is willing to contradict ninety years of court opinions and rulings that have virtually stripped states of their retained rights under the tenth amendment? Where are the federal political statesmen who proclaim that the federal government be resisted by the voice and the arm of the states, as Alexander Hamilton explained? The answer is, no where!
The questions that should be asked are the ones whose answers provide real solutions to restoring our Confederate Republic. The solutions sought should not be ones whose only end simply replaces one quarterback for another; yet all the while, their team continues to control us by insisting that we play their game by their rules in their (home) stadium with their referees, all of which are controlled by those sitting in the glass boxes overhead who smoke their cigars, drink their wine, play with their whores and laugh at us as we drudge through the game thinking that we are gaining ground when we lose only ten yards instead of twenty. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”
Our methods of change are proven ineffectual, the expressed terms of the constitution notwithstanding. It is time for a different course of action–a course that has already been given to us by principle and practice. It is time that we the people of the states think in the pure political and philosophical terms that formed our country and secured our freedom in 1776. It is time that the states of this country reclaim what has been taken from us and to reignite the flames of independence and federalism which will cause freedom to burn brightly for us and our posterity for years to come.
Copyright (c) Timothy Baldwin, 2009.
Sphere: Related Content
18. December 2009 at 8:13 pm
Dear Author libertydefenseleague.com !
You are not right.
20. December 2009 at 12:24 am
I want to dissent on ‘all 50states are sovereign & independent’. You cite the law of nations, well Hawai’i is not a state of the Union. Then too at least 2 DoJ opinions state that Hawai’i could not be annexed lawfully. And lastly, Clinton on 23 Nov. 1993 signed P.L. 103-150 admitting to the unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian gov’t. Today, Hawaiians reject the annexation & statehood.
Having said that, agreed, the most effectual manner to halt the fed. gov’t. is through the states’ control over their creature.
As to the fed. standing army is too large & more sophisticated than the states’ militia is questionable. By the fed’s own estimates, there are between 60 to 70 million private arms owners within the boundaries of the Union. Suppose there are 1/2 of them woken up, does the fed. standing army come even close to that figure? Given the sophistication of this army, how do they stack up to the insurgents in Afghanistan & Iraq? Who do you suppose is winning the occupations?
People will inherently know what is the winning strategy when they see it in action. The people are mostly followers & when the time emerges a suitable leader will appear & the follower people will follow & join the winning side.
One of the major milestones was the foisting of the 14th amendment. There is some evidence that the 16th wasn’t properly ratified.
Right inside the Declaration of Independence, the people have the power to abolish gov’t. or to change it to suite their best interests. When if it is made for peaceful resolution impossible, makes for an armed & violent confrontation.
I abhor seeing the U.S. flag (T4 USC 1) being displayed over the indiv. state’s ensign. And it is also wrong, lawfully.
Mr. Oakley, it is great that you’ve resisted the conversion of the living soul of mankind (American retaining his natural birthright) to one as a fiction or ‘person’, not an Amerikan. I believe that Obummer failed to provide the ‘long form’ of the Hawaii birth certificate and only produced the one showing his mother registered his birth as being in HNL, Hawaii.
Patriot Hungerford is absolutely correct in first knowing ourselves, then our enemies (all of them) & developing a plan of action so all can execute in a coordinated, forceful, disciplined and effective fashion.
10. January 2010 at 12:39 am
Tim,
Your approach is academically and formally correct, but practically and substantively deficient. Believe it or not, our freedom will begin to return when patriots begin to simply publicly sucker punch the more egregious tyrants. A little jail time for freedom? Nothing deters bullies more than the pain of a broken nose, missing tooth, and a black eye. Let’s stop talking ourselves to death in ivory towers, and get a pair.
Ernest
http://elect.ernesthuberforcongress.com/
11. January 2010 at 2:06 am
Ernest, I certainly agree that we are dealing with “bullies”!
14. January 2010 at 12:31 pm
Timothy Baldwin,
(not the Neil above)
I agree with your thesis that replacing Obama with Biden (or any other candidate) would not change a thing. You do say that “most certainly the constitution should be followed, and we the people of the states and the state governments should insist on it. No one believes that more than I.”
I am disappointed that you did not address the issue of who is a “natural born citizen” and why this requirement was placed only on the office of President. As I understand the reason for the requirement then it is important that Obama be removed from office. A precedent should not be established that the presidential eligibility clause may be ignored.
My understanding is this: The founding fathers were concerned that the President, who would also be Commander-in-Chief, would be someone who is completely loyal to the United States, and free of foreign allegiances and influences.
As Leo Donofrio, one of the attorneys who brought a suit challenging Obama’s eligibility, put it, it is a question on national security.
But who is a natural born citizen? The definition is not found in the constitution, and has to be found elsewhere. I have read the arguments, and have noted that different analyses come to different conclusions. The analysis that makes the most sense to me is the one that concludes that a natural born citizen is one who is born on U.S. soil to parents who are both U.S. citizens. (In fact this definition is cited in Minor v. Happersett and agrees with the definition in Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”. I recognize that this definition is not binding, and a court has yet to rule on the definition of natural born citizen.)
Of course this not a foolproof way of assuring that a child so born would grow up to be completely loyal to the United States, but you could not claim that a child born to a parent who is a citizen of foreign country would be completely free of foreign influences.
That is President Obama’s birth status. He was born to a Kenyan father who was a British citizen, and therefore by British law President Obama was a British citizen at birth.
So, is a person who is a British citizen at birth even if born on U.S soil, a natural born citizen, and eligible to be President?
14. January 2010 at 1:40 pm
NeilBJ, there comes a point in a society’s (within each sovereign body-politic) existence when it must decide how it is going to preserve freedom. The constitution is already a different one entirely from the one ratified. If you are going to enforce the constitution, you MUST start with its nature and character BEFORE all others. That is what I believe to be the most important enforcement today: returning our union from the national form as it is today to the federal form it was supposed to be.
I do not intend to discourage those who are seeking to enforce the eligibility issue. There are MANY constitutional problems that could be fought today. Do we have the resources to launch such endeavors? Time is short, so the most important matters of freedom must be prioritized. To me, the true nature and character of the union is THE most important, because all constitutional constructions and applications follow from that crux.
As for “precedents”, I believe there even a more important right now. That is, returning the powers of sovereignty back to those in whom it belongs. This is truly revolutionary.
I happen to be of the opinion that the eligibility issue is not the one that will return freedom to our country. If you believe differently, I respect that opinion. The purpose of the “natural born” requirement has its reasoning based in natural law. I agree with its purpose. However, looking at the past and current events in America, I believe that most of those in Washington DC would be disqualified to be our agents under this same purpose. Does it matter if they natural born or not when they share the same philosophy?
The practical answer is, no.
Admittedly, they all have philosophies contrary to what natural-born citizens should have for America. Our current plight proves this. They are globalists, loyal to no country, but only to themselves. McCain had the similar eligibility requirement issues as Obama. Would “freedom lovers” be raising the issue against him? Unlikely. Yet, he is one of the biggest proponents for amnesty and effectively open borders, etc., which are serious national security issues. Obama and he agree on these policies.
When one believes that the federal government system is corrupted and illegitimate, it certainly changes one’s priority in tactics of instituting freedom in government. Trying to play within their own system (even by the constitution) does little to nothing to advance freedom when they control the system itself.
9. February 2010 at 12:59 pm
If, in fact, it becomes proven that he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen, then his TICKET would have been invalid. Biden was on Soetoro’s ticket. Therefore, he Would NOT be president. We’d need a new, special election!
12. February 2010 at 12:07 am
you really want to make a political severing? Congress will continue to spend more than we want, and they will not be responsible for the payback, but instead, hold everyone who has given them power of attorney to the debts they incur. How can this be? By getting in line for benefits with an SS-5 you are doing two things. One is granting them power of attorney to all of your life’s assets, and their collection agency, the IRS will take what they believe they need and let you have the remainder to live on. The other thing you are telling Congress with an SS-5 is that you intend to be an applicant for benefits later, that will have to be taken from the workers of that day after your application for benefits gets processed and approved. But what they have to do to circumvent the 13th amendment prohibition against slavery, is to put the OUT GATE in the laws, and it is well hidden right under your nose. 26 USC 1402g is that declaration of independence from Congress’ social scheme, and a declaration of dependence on the Creator of the Universe for your sustenance. By completing an affidavit that contains the elements found at 26 USC 1402g and filing it with the Secretary of the Treasury, you will have severed the political bands which enslave you. To a certain extent, they have the right to “allegedly” speak for you and for your so-called benefits, UNTIL AND UNLESS you strip them from that power, PERSONALLY, through the declaration that THEY passed and codified at 26 USC 1402g.
thanks for allowing me these comments.
23. February 2010 at 10:44 am
I agree with everything here! except that I think that we DO need to get the eligilbility issue resolved as that would slow down the process of this gov’t takeover to give us a bit more time to throw the rest of the bums out….unless things happen in reverse order……..
13. July 2010 at 7:14 am
THIS EXTREME VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS TO BE EXPOSED AND PUNISHED. IT MAY NOT BE THE BE ALL AND END ALL TO AMERICA’S PROBLEMS BUT IT WILL DRAW EXTREME ATTENTION TO IT AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS THEN WILL THE DISCUSSION BEGIN. THIS IS THE STRAW THAT CAN BREAK THE CAMEL’S BACK AND RE-IGNITE THE EMBER OF FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY INTO A FLAME THAT CAN REVERSE 140 YEARS OF APATHY AND NEGLECT. AS AN ASIDE, WHEN AKA IS DEPOSED ANYTHING HE HAS SIGNED INTO “LAW” WILL BE NULL AND VOID – THAT’S NOT SMALL POTATOES.