by Russell D. Longcore
original source here
January 15, 2010

This article is a letter to the governors of the fifty states of the United States of America.

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

You are members of one of the most elite groups of Americans that exists. You are State Governors. There are only fifty members in your “club.” Senators have twice as many members in their group, and they are just a Quisling deliberative body. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives, and they are held in lower esteem than used-car salesmen. You are the Chief Executive Officers of states whose Gross Domestic Products rival some of the largest nations on earth.

In the beginning of the Republic, Governors were the leaders of sovereign nations. But, over time, the sovereignty of each state was subsumed by Statism. Still, being a Governor is an historic elected position in American governance.

Governors know first-hand how tough it is to get elected to the positions they occupy. And the office of Governor comes with huge power and perquisites. Thousands of people work for you, and millions live under your leadership. Consequently you, being mostly normal human beings, have big egos. You deserve to have a big ego, since you’ve accomplished a very rare feat by getting elected Governor.

Statistically, more Governors have become the President of the United States than have Senators or Representatives. So, the nation considers your experience as the Chief Executive of a smaller entity kind of the “farm system” for the presidential league.

Only a handful of Governors will ever desire the American presidency. A smaller handful will actively seek it, and there is only one President at a time. And of late, American Presidents get two terms if they choose. So, timing is everything for a Governor seeking the Presidency. Often, the timing doesn’t work out.

Consequently, once you become Governor, there isn’t much of a market for your services in higher office, since you’re about as high as you’re ever going to get in “public service.”

But every one of you American Governors could contend to become President of a nation.

But not the United States. The un-United States.

You could lead your state in the process of seceding from the United States of America, and your state could become a new sovereign nation.

If you like this site, please help keep it going and growing.

Doesn’t the thought of being the Head Honcho of a new nation appeal to you? Wouldn’t you like to be on par with the Presidents of France, China, India, Germany, Brazil or Russia? If you like publicity, think of the worldwide focus that would be on you and your state as it becomes a new nation. You’d be like a rock star. Your every move would be a news story. Every success would redound to your leadership. School children worldwide would know your name, like they know the names of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, Founders of the United States, and Sam Houston, leader of the Texas revolution and first President of the Republic of Texas.

You would preside over the creation of a brand new nation, and be credited with lifting millions of souls from under the tyranny of an oppressive, uncontrollable government. Plus, you would be directly involved in the dissolution of the United States. Nothing of such import has been accomplished since the breakup and dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1989.

There are a few caveats, however.

First caveat is your commitment. You’ll likely have to “put up or shut up” pretty early in the game, with no turning back. Once you hop on the back of the secession bull, you either ride the whole eight seconds and win, or fall off and get stomped by a pissed-off bull…to use rodeo parlance.

You’ll be leading a revolution. The Mobocracy Looter Minions in Washington DC will likely not invite you to their parties anymore. They may take a somewhat dim view of your revolutionary talk and revolutionary actions. They might be somewhat resistant to a Declaration of Independence or Ordinance of Secession with your signature on it. But, on the upside, it will be you that negotiates the terms of any treaties or diplomatic agreements with Washington. Sovereignty, like American Express card membership, has its privileges.

Most of your fellow Governors will not support you. They will only take their lips from the Washington nipple long enough to throw an insult or two your way. You’ll have to give up your key to the Governor’s Club washroom.

On the upside, your example of leadership may empower other more timid Governors to join you.

If you simply secede and try to replicate the government of the United States, your leadership and efforts will be destined to abject failure and worldwide ridicule. One of the reasons that the American Revolution of 1776 was successful is that it introduced the world to the Enlightenment ideals of governance, and gave them a new home outside Europe. So, you would have to embrace some very new/old and radical Enlightenment ideals for the structure of your new nation. An upside here is that you have the benefit of history that men like Thomas Paine and John Locke lacked.

But no guts, no glory.

For an example of what could be, let’s look at Texas. Governor Rick Perry has already spoken publicly about the possibility of Texas secession. But nothing has really been done since that statement in April 2009. I think “the Guv” has Presidential aspirations, but I could be wrong. If Governor Perry took the leadership position in the fight for Texas independence, he would be the presumptive favorite and lead horse in that race. However, he would have a very serious contender for the Presidency of a New Texas if Rep. Ron Paul joined the fray, since Paul has been talking the talk and walking the walk of liberty for decades. Putting these two men together as a team could be intimidating and fearsome.

But in your state, there probably is no other person with your name recognition that will challenge you for the new Presidency. And, if you are leading in the formation of the new government and the secession efforts, you will have the pedigree and record to thwart pretenders to your throne.

How do you lose? Where is the downside for you?

Zig Ziglar says “you can get anything in life you want if you’ll just help enough other people get what they want.” Nearly every person in your state wants individual liberty. Nearly every person in your state wants the crushing burdens of Washington taxation, future debt and regulation lifted from their shoulders. And, they share those desires with most other Americans who don’t live in your state.

Help them get it. It may be your last chance at greatness.

But if you can’t get next to the lofty ideals of secession, then think only of yourself and do the things that best promote your persona, reputation and place in the history of the world. Alexis de Tocqueville said that persons who act to further the interests of others ultimately serve their own self-interest. If you help the populace get liberty, they’ll help you in return.

We have lots of ideas here at DumpDC to help you, Ladies and Gentlemen. Just click and read.

May God be with your choices, Governors.

Secession is the hope for humanity. Who will be first?

by Timothy Baldwin

If the current version of the US Constitution, as construed and applied by the federal government (in every branch) over the past 220 years, were reduced to writing in the form of a new constitution (the original language and meaning of the US Constitution notwithstanding), would the people of the states, as they existed in 1787, ratify the constitution? I think you would have to be utterly void of understanding of the principles of a constitutional federal republic and void of the history of our country and forefathers to state that such a constitution would be ratified today. This does not even take into consideration whether the states today would ratify the constitution of 2010–though there would likely be several states that would choose to be bound to the tyrannical national system existing today, but most certainly not all would.

Through various ways and means, the constitution as applied in 2010 literally contradicts not only the limitations placed upon the federal government, but also the retained powers of the sovereign states and the very character and nature of the union in 1787. So, what does this mean for the posterity of those people in 1787? It means that we are living under the force of a constitution which we did not ratify or consent to. Put differently, we are living in slavery, for the very definition of slavery is a people living under the force of government against their will.

It is quite clear from the plain meaning of the US Constitution that it was ratified with certain principles and understandings at that time to protect usurpations of the federal government over the states and the people respectively. The states sent delegates to the constitutional convention from May to September 1787 to address and remedy the flaws of the Articles of Confederation. For five months those men debated, articulated and prayed over the formation of the constitution. After the proposed constitution was sent to each state for consideration, each state convened in their own conventions to discuss the principles of free government as it related to the proposed constitution and whether that state should ratify it. For each state that ratified the constitution, they expressly stated that their ratification was to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our POSTERITY.”

One thing is certain: those involved in the ratification of the US Constitution expected that its principles and meanings be followed by their posterity, for without its fixed meaning, the “security” of the constitution would be seriously compromised. Indeed, how can a constitution secure the blessings of liberty for posterity when the meanings and applications of the constitution change by the opinion of 9 non-elected, President-appointed, life-term judges, who are connected to and dependent upon the very system of government the constitution was intended to limit? Talk about a conflict of interest.

If our forefathers who ratified the US Constitution intended to secure the blessings of liberty for their posterity but believed that its meaning, application and limits would change over time, then the US Constitution (as applied today) falls severely short of securing the blessings of liberty for their posterity. Are the people of fifty states in 2010 bound by principles and applications that contradict those believed in 1787, especially when we have not ratified the constitution as it is forced upon us today? America’s history proves that even a written constitution does not adequately protect the freedoms of a people. James Madison admits this much in Federalist Paper 49 before the ratification of the constitution:

“Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these [federal] departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment [constitutional] barriers against the encroaching spirit of power?…[E]XPERIENCE ASSURES US, THAT THE EFFICACY OF THE PROVISION HAS BEEN GREATLY OVERRATED; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government…The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a MERE DEMARCATION ON PARCHMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF THE SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS, IS NOT A SUFFICIENT GUARD AGAINST THOSE ENCROACHMENTS WHICH LEAD TO A TYRANNICAL CONCENTRATION OF ALL THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT IN THE SAME HANDS.” (Emphasis added).

Was Madison right on or what! Madison could not be clearer: limiting the federal government by a mere piece of paper does nothing to protect freedom. What effect do words have when their intended meaning and their forming principles are not complied with? As the Federal Supreme Court repeatedly said in its earlier opinions, “Let the nature and objects of our Union be considered; let the great fundamental principles on which the fabric stands be examined.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 423 (1821). Indeed, something more than words is necessary to protect freedom.

Unfortunately, there are some (though I cannot judge their intentions necessarily) in the US who argue that the only lawful means by which the people of the states may redress federal grievances is through the (1) election, (2) judicial or (3) amendment processes. They argue as a basis for their position that whatever the federal government passes (through Congress), executes (through the President) and upholds (through the courts) is the “Supreme Law of the Land” and that the states are thus required by the US Constitution to submit to those laws, even if it is admitted that those laws are in fact unconstitutional and that those federal powers are exercised at the expense of the retained sovereign powers of the states and the people.

Any studier of political theory knows these advocates believe that the US Constitution places the decision of “what is constitutional” into the sole and exclusive purview of the Federal Supreme Court; that this court has the power to define not only the limits and powers of Congress and the President (not to mention its own powers) but also the power to define the lines of sovereignty of the states who created the federal government by their sovereign powers; that nine unelected, President-appointed, life-term judges possess a power equal to what the ratifiers placed into the hands of at least three-fourths of the states as mandated by the US Constitution. Without getting into the details of the fallacy of this position, which creates a dangerous oligarchic power in the federal court, destroys all principles of a free federal republic, contradicts principles of natural law, ignores the intention of the ratification documents of the states, and reduces the power of state sovereignty to mere state submission, let us consider what James Madison said in the Federalist Papers relative to what ingredients are actually required and necessary in a federal constitutional republic to protect the freedom of the people (note: James Madison was one of the proponents in the constitutional convention who actually proposed that the federal courts have a negative power over state laws contrary to the constitution, which was of course rejected in the convention):

Federalist Paper 51: “TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments [of the federal government], as laid down in the Constitution? …It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: [1] by creating a will in the community independent of the majority — that is, of the society itself; [2] BY COMPREHENDING IN THE SOCIETY SO MANY SEPARATE DESCRIPTIONS OF CITIZENS AS WILL RENDER AN UNJUST COMBINATION OF A MAJORITY OF THE WHOLE VERY IMPROBABLE, IF NOT IMPRACTICABLE.

“The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. THE SECOND METHOD WILL BE EXEMPLIFIED IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES…[T]HE STABILITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF SOME MEMBER OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE ONLY OTHER SECURITY, MUST BE PROPORTIONATELY INCREASED.” (Emphasis added)

Madison notes that the only way a minority of the people and of the states can be protected against the tyrannical actions of the majority through the federal government is that minority’s stability and independence be maintained and that minority’s stability and independence be proportionally increased with the increase of the majority’s power and influence. Thus, a mathematical equation is created: The Minority’s (e.g. the states) stability and independence increases in direct proportion to the majority’s (e.g. the federal government) attempt to circumvent the minority’s freedom. Madison continues in this line of thought:

Federalist Paper 52: “[The] federal legislature will not only be restrained by its dependence on its people, as other legislative bodies are, BUT THAT IT WILL BE, MOREOVER, WATCHED AND CONTROLLED BY THE SEVERAL COLLATERAL [STATE] LEGISLATURES…With less power, therefore, to abuse, the federal representatives can be less tempted on one side, and will be doubly watched on the other.” (Emphasis added)

Madison, as nationalistic-minded as he was in 1787, cannot escape the principle of states checking federal usurpations because it was so engrained into the conscience of the people and governments. Thomas Jefferson expresses the same principle of check and balance in a federal republic system: “the States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary.” Thomas Jefferson and John P. Foley, ed., The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, (New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900), 133.

This application of state sovereignty was explained by James Madison in Federalist Paper 39, when he states, “[T]he [state] authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the [federal] authority, than the [federal] authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” Nothing can be more provable in American jurisprudence: sovereignty necessarily carries with it the power to defend it. Yet, even today, after seeing the usurpations of the federal government for more than 150 years, there are still those who would deny the states their power to defend sovereignty and thus the freedom of their citizens.

This can mean only one thing: these people prefer a national system of government (as certain of our founders did and as did the Tories) over a federal system of government. That may be their choice, but did our ratifiers create a national system, whereby the states gave up their right to defend their powers? The answer is most certainly, No. The evidence expressed even by those who advocated for a national government (e.g. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton) in the Federalist Papers, not to mention the vast array of freedom documents forming our country, confirms this. Yet, constitutional (de)construction, through federal courts, supposedly has created the very form of government that our ratifiers rejected.

A decision must be made in 2010: Are states politically and legally incapable of governing themselves within their borders, or do they have the power and right to defend their sovereignty retained? Are the states subject to the tyrannical definitions and lines drawn by the federal government’s court as sole arbiter, or do they have the power to judge for themselves and defend their powers given to them by the people of that state? Are the states bound to live under a constitution that applies to them contrarily to the constitution ratified in 1787, or do they have the natural law and constitutional right to be governed by the principles of a free republic without interference from other government bodies and to perpetuate those principles for them and their posterity? There is no neutral ground on this issue.

Those who advocate that the states MUST pass constitutional amendments to correct federal usurpations do not understand the first thing about living in freedom in a federal constitutional republic. Why should we–the non-aggressors–have to go through the arduous process of getting three-fourths of the states to correct federal abuses, when the federal government does not have the power or authority to act the way it does in the first place and are contradicting the limits we have already placed upon them? This line of thinking says, the federal government’s usurpations are valid and effective until the States pass a constitutional amendment stating otherwise. This effectively eliminates the usefulness of a written constitution, delegating only special and limited powers to a government, just as Madison explained.

How about this instead: a state can protect its own borders and powers by resisting and arresting federal tyranny, and if three-fourths of the states do not believe that state is correct in its defense of its powers, then let them pass a constitutional amendment limiting the states’ sovereignty in this regard. Giving the federal government (which our founders admitted and acknowledged would and should not comprise the vast majority of powers over the lives of the people) preference of sovereignty over the states contradicts the very structure and nature of our union in 1787, whereby the states possessed defendable concurrent power with the federal government–states who won their complete and absolute independence through a bloody and arduous seven years war, through the infinite pains and labors of millions and the lives of thousands of men, women and children. Any person or government that would have these states give up their powers and rights, when these states did not do so, commits treason against those states.

Thomas Jefferson rightly describes the tendency of human nature to suffer evils while evils are sufferable. Most of us would agree with this practical reality. Accordingly, “we must be patient…and give [the federal government] time for reflection and experience of consequences.” Jefferson, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, 133. Perhaps so, but the states in America have suffered long enough. Our freedom and our posterity’s freedom are at stake. If the correct, appropriate and proportional actions are not taken soon, freedom will be that much harder to secure. It is time for the people of the states to decide which constitution they want to be governed by: a free one or an enslaving one.

Copyright (c) Timothy Baldwin, 2010

Does Secession Without a State Militia Make Any Sense?
by Russell D. Longcore
December 19, 2009
Recently by Russell D. Longcore: Obama, Secessionist Movements and the Nobel Prize

“God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.” ~ Daniel Webster (1834)

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” ~ Wendell Phillips (1811–1884)

I’ve just finished reading the book Constitutional Homeland Security, Volume 1: The Nation in Arms, by Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

This is the definitive book on (1) how every American State has forsaken its DUTY to maintain a Militia, that force that is “necessary to the security of a Free State,” (2) how states can revitalize their Militias, and (3) how Citizen’s Homeland Security Associations (CHSA) may be organized. This book should be read by every State governor and every State legislator in the USA. But it should be read by every citizen that desires liberty…true liberty in their lifetime.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ~ Benjamin Franklin

Vieira devotes five of the twelve chapters in the book to the formation and operation of the CHSAs. He contends that a program of public education be instituted to inform the public of the necessity of state militias. Citizen’s Homeland Security Associations are completely different than the “Committees of Safety” of old. The CHSA is a grass-roots organization that will build awareness in the populace in anticipation of the formation of the Committees of Safety and legislative action on re-forming state Militias.

The original Committees of Safety were composed of actual members of the States’ legislatures, recognized activists and other leaders within the States…who were appointed to the Committees by the legislatures, to serve as the legislatures’ agents and advisors, and to carry on the legislatures’ work during recesses. The Committees were never independent of the legislatures, and never carried out any plans that were not approved by the legislatures. The chief concern of the Committees was the safety of the public: “to put the territory under their supervision in a state of defense and maintain it there effectively.”¹

The author wrote this book in 2007, and mentions that we don’t have much time to reinstitute militias in the states before societal events begin to occur that will throw America into chaos. It’s now almost three years since publication, and many of the events have taken place, while more events loom just over the horizon.

We can thank the government schools of the entire United States for the dearth of knowledge in the populace about the Constitution and the necessity of the State Militias. But what could we really expect? The very Federal government that benefits from the LACK of militias could hardly be expected to promote a concept that would diminish their power. Still, remember that the Federal Department of Education did not exist before 1980.

“Those who have been once intoxicated with power and have derived any kind of emolument from it can never willingly abandon it.” ~ Edmund Burke

So, what of the states? Education has always been a state issue. Can you think of any reasons that states would shrink from their obligation under their own state Constitutions to maintain a state militia? How about these?

(1) State legislators and governors view themselves as servants of Washington.

(2) Maintaining a state militia is expensive. The money could be used for other purposes that would make more voters happier.

(3) Nearly 150 years have passed since the War of Northern Aggression, in which Lincoln called up the state militias to invade the Confederate States of America. So generations of state legislators have not seen a need for militias.

(4) Besides, states have a National Guard, don’t they? What’s the difference?

I’m sure there are others, but those reasons should do for now.

“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.” ~ John Adams

Here are some of my own thoughts on secession and state militias.

1. Any individual who has reached the age of majority in the United States who does not own a firearm has accepted the position that they have no duty to be a part of the well-regulated Militia that is NECESSARY for the security of a Free State.

2. Any state of the fifty states that comprise the United States of America that either has enacted or will enact any legislation that infringes on the individual right to keep and bear arms has accepted the position that a well-regulated Militia is NOT NECESSARY for the security of a Free State. That state government is an enemy to liberty and a lackey of Washington.

Patrick Henry did not say “Give me safety and security or give me death.”

3. There is seemingly very little interest in the general populace or the state governments to revitalize state militias. But there is interest coming from a restless citizenry about state secession. We must tie the two together into an inseparable bundle, as one relies upon the other.

4. Here is a forecast of how secession and militias will likely play out.

a. Economic meltdown, bank holidays, hyperinflation

b. Societal chaos, riots, rampant crime

c. Washington declares martial law and tries to clamp down

d. The grave crisis jolts states out of their slumber, and secessions begin

e. States NOW begin reformulating their militias

f. The citizenry, in full panic mode, get very focused on liberty issues

g. The United States goes the way of the Soviet Union and dissolves

This is an extremely exciting time in which to live in America. The people of the nation have been lulled to sleep over generations. The tyranny laid upon them is destructive, and any type of destructive force is based in low energy. Happily, freedom and liberty are creative forces of a very high energy level. Just like light dispels darkness, so too will liberty eventually win over tyranny. People will be drawn to the energy of liberty as a moth to a flame.

You can find Dr. Vieira’s book here.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. … God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1787

¹Agnes Hunt, The Provincial Committees of Safety of the American Revolution (Cleveland, Ohio: Western Reserve University, 1904), at 161.

Russell D. Longcore is president of Abigail Morgan Austin Publishing Company. He is married to “his Redhead” Julie, has three wonderful children and three even more wonderful grandchildren. Visit his secessionist website at: www.DumpDC.com.

by Timothy Baldwin

In response to my one of my articles, “Hope for Financial Freedom,” I had a concerned American citizen correspond with me about the subject. He asked me a few questions which I feel are important enough to address publicly, because undoubtedly, there are many similar-thinking Americans who perhaps have not thought this fully through. Before I state the questions, let me explain why the questions were asked in the first place. As many American patriots are now advocating, the only viable way to resist federal tyranny is through the active sovereign powers of the States. This necessarily means, as I have explained for months, that the States must use the powers given to them by their sovereigns (the people)–and retained to them in the tenth amendment of the US Constitution–to pass laws which actively nullify, negate or refute unconstitutional federal laws and taxation within the sovereign borders of those States. Some people are looking at this scenario and asking what this gentleman asked me, as follows:

“[Do you advocate for the States to do this] even if this means defying federal law?–even if it means war? Why do you want to chart a path that leads to an outcome that you cannot win? For defiance of federal law and war are losing propositions.”

To these questions, I unashamedly respond as follows:

I ask to you, do you propose that we submit to unconstitutional usurpations by the federal government upon our God-given natural rights, state retained powers and constitutional-republic securities? Shortly put, that submission is slavery. Do you propose that we accept the form of government forced upon us in 2009 which the state ratifiers expressly rejected in 1787? That shocks the conscience (not to mention our forefathers’) as reprehensible and cowardice. The problem is, many of the states are scared of the federal government, even with the knowledge that the federal government is illegitimate, has usurped state powers and has no good will to comply with its limitations in the US Constitution and with the principles requisite to maintain a constitutional federal republic–much less, to comply with the laws of nature and nature’s God as expressed by our founders. Lines in the sand will eventually be drawn: freedom requires it.

I do not want violent revolution any more than a 90 year old great-grandmother would, or a soon-to-be first-time mother would, or a father would who has three wonderful children who have yet to grow up, or a child would who enjoys the companionship of his friends. It is the natural desire of man to live in peace. Unfortunately, peace is a luxury given only to those societies whose government complies with its bounds. So, who decides that the question of revolution be considered?–us or them? Is the decision pressed to be made by those who want freedom and who just desire that the government limit its actions to the confines of a constitution; or is it made by those, in total disregard of the principles of free constitutional federal republics, encroaching the trusts and rights of the people of the states–those sovereigns who formed this union and ratified the US Constitution? Who is the aggressor?–the citizen who desires peace and the rule of law, or the usurper whose actions can only be described as tyrannical and despotic? Our conscience confirms the answer. The real question is, who is willing to use the principles, character and nature of constitutional government which the States formed in 1787 to resist tyranny and to secure freedom for them and their posterity.

Federal law is not God’s law. Federal law is not even the Supreme Law of the Land. The only Supreme Law of the Land (to this date) is those laws that are passed pursuant to the constitution—and by constitution, this means not only the US Constitution, but also the State constitutions. Our founders stated emphatically: unconstitutional laws are null and void and have no effect.

Where the federal government assumes power that was given to the state governments by the people of those States, should the States sit back passively and let unconstitutional federal laws dictate to the state governments and to the people what they will do or not do? Any State willing to shirk the trust placed into their hands by the people is as guilty of treason as those federal tyrants who have trampled on those protections, powers and rights. State response should be in direct proportion to federal encroachments. Without this formula actively used, the tyrant always prevails.

You speak of defiance. This is true, for everyone defies laws. The only question is, which laws are you going to defy: constitutional laws or unconstitutional laws. If you choose to submit to unconstitutional laws, you defy the Supreme Law of the Land found in the US Constitution and the State constitutions. If our federal government decides to declare war on the states who choose to live in freedom, then so be it. As for “winning,” the colonists were never supposed to win the war in 1776 either. Thankfully, they believed that “duty is ours; and results are God’s.” In the end, we should let God in heaven be the judge of our actions here on earth. I, for one, choose freedom over slavery, even if that means defying federal laws.

By Chuck Baldwin
December 18, 2009
NewsWithViews.com, www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

According to Rasmussen Reports, “Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 46% who are Very Angry. “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 27% are not angry about the government’s policies, including 10% who are Not at All Angry.”

The report goes on to say, “The data suggests that the level of anger is growing. The 71% who are angry at federal government policies today is up five percentage points since September. “Even more stunning, the 46% who are Very Angry is up 10 percentage points from September.”

The report also states, “The latest numbers show that only nine percent (9%) of voters trust the judgment of America’s political leaders more than the judment of the American people.” It further states, “Seventy-one percent (71%) believe the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Sixty-eight percent (68%) believe that government and big business work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.”

Rasmussen Reports goes on to say that voter opposition to the proposed health care plan, government bailouts, and higher taxes is especially high. That Americans are angry with the federal government is nothing new. As a general rule, Americans STAY angry with the federal government. So what? Nothing changes, anger and discontentment notwithstanding.

Oh! Occasionally, grassroots effort can be mustered in sufficient quantity to stop whatever happens to be the latest effort by the miscreants in Washington, D.C., that tramples our freedoms. But only occasionally. The only recent triumph I can think of was when G.W. Bush, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain tried to ram an amnesty bill for illegal aliens through Congress. But never fear, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid will pick up that particular baton soon enough.

I’m old enough to remember when giving the Panama Canal away was opposed by virtually everyone outside the Beltway. It changed nothing. Jimmy Carter and Congress gave it away, anyway. Most people oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So what? Our troops are not only still there, but more are on the way. Most people believe children should be allowed to pray and read the Bible in school. So what? They still are forbidden from doing so. Most people believed former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore had the right to post the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. So what? He was forced to take them down, anyway (and removed from office in the process). I could go on, but you get the point.

Anger and opposition to Washington’s policies and edicts–no matter now egregious–hardly ever translate into anything beyond words of frustration. And Washington politicians don’t pay much attention to rhetoric–not even their own.

You see, the wizards in Washington and on Wall Street have us figured out. Along with their compatriots in the propaganda press corps, they know that no matter how loudly we scream, how much we protest, or how angry we become, the system is rigged to protect them. The best we the people can seem to come up with is “throwing the bums out” every two or four years. BUT NOTHING CHANGES–at least, not in terms of restoring the fundamental principles of freedom and constitutional government.

Throw out George H.W. Bush in 1992, and nothing changes. Throw the Democrats out of Congress in 1994, and nothing changes. Throw Bill Clinton’s party out of the White House in 2000, and nothing changes. Throw out G.W. Bush’s Republicans in 2008, and nothing changes. The only thing that happens with a changing of the guard is an escalation in the pace of whatever version of socialism–or Big Government program–is currently in vogue. With Bush it meant expanding the Warfare State. With Obama it means expanding the Welfare State. But both do everything they can to expand Big Government.

When will we awaken to the reality that Washington, D.C., has had the American people chasing their tails for decades? People, wake up! As long as we continue to focus our attention and energy on Washington, D.C., we will only continue to supply more rope to those who wish to hang us.

Washington, D.C., is too far gone to salvage. Admit it! Washington is a cesspool, a landfill, and a putrid pond of corruption and duplicity. Neither the Republican nor Democratic Party will ever allow a principled constitutionalist to become its Presidential nominee. No matter whom we elect as President, the beat toward Big-Government socialism and one-world internationalism will go on without interruption. Big Government scalawags own the entire federal system, including Big Media, Big Business, Big Labor, Big Religion, and Big Special Interest Groups. They are all feeding at the government teat.

Therefore, it is absolutely obligatory that freedom-minded Americans refocus their attention to electing State legislators, governors, judges and sheriffs who will fearlessly defend their God-given liberties. And, as plainly and emphatically as I know how to say it, I am telling you: ONLY THE STATES CAN DEFEND OUR LIBERTY NOW! And awakening to this reality means we will have to completely readjust our thinking and priorities.

It means awakening to the fact that Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly (and the rest of Big Media’s talking heads) are, for the most part, irrelevant to providing real solutions to the continuing loss of liberty. And, in truth, they are, more often than not, part of the problem, because they continue to focus our attention on Washington, D.C., and off the source of genuine solution, which lies with the states drawing a constitutional line in the sand for freedom. Good grief! Beck and O’Reilly have recently even advocated for higher federal taxes! Yeah! That’s a real solution: more power and money to Washington, D.C. Ughhh!

Instead of getting all worked up about what Glenn Beck says or what Sarah Palin says or what CFR member and Big Government neocon Newt Gingrich says, start paying attention to what your State legislators and candidates are saying.

If we had more State legislators such as Washington State’s Matthew Shea; Georgia’s Bobby Franklin; Pennsylvania’s Sam Rohrer; New Hampshire’s Dan Itse; Michigan’s Paul Opsommer; Oklahoma’s Randy Brogdon, Sally Kern and Charles Key; Montana’s Rick Jore, Greg Hinkle, and Joel Boniek; Tennessee’s Susan Lynn; South Carolina’s Michael Pitts and Lee Bright; Missouri’s Jim Guest and Cynthia Davis; and sheriffs such as South Carolina’s Ray Nash, Arizona’s Richard Mack and Joe Arpaio, Montana’s Jay Printz and Shane Harrington, etc., it wouldn’t matter what those nincompoops inside the Beltway do. The federal government cannot violate your rights and steal your freedoms without the consent and approbation of your State government.

Folks, let’s get down to where the rubber meets the road: the reason we are in the miserable mess we are in is because the states have–either wittingly or unwittingly–ceded their authority and independence to Washington, D.C. Therefore, it is now critical that states reclaim their authority–authority that is duly granted them under the US Constitution.

All of us who call ourselves conservatives or constitutionalists or libertarians (who, no doubt, compose a majority, especially in “red” states) need to retake their State governments. Elect a governor who knows how to say “No” to the federal government. Elect a State legislature that knows how to say “No” to Washington, D.C. Elect sheriffs and State judges who understand the Constitution, State sovereignty, and the principles of freedom–and who are courageous enough to defend those sacred principles in the face of attempted federal usurpation.

The truth is, for all intents and purposes, we could turn off television completely and be in no worse shape. And newspapers are no better. The vast majority of them blatantly support and promote Big Government. As Mark Twain said, “If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.”

With Big Media, it’s all about Washington politics. Period. For the most part, the conservative-liberal/Republican-Democrat paradigm is nothing but a distraction at best, and a scam at worst, to keep all of us safely on the federal reservation, where we are without hope or recourse to actually change anything.

Ladies and Gentlemen, freedom in America has only one hope: the resurrection of State independence and sovereignty. Fortunately, there are rumblings around the country that this revival has already begun.

The last time I checked, some 38 states have introduced Tenth Amendment resolutions–or some form of federal nullification proposals–in their State assemblies. To follow the status of various states’ rights initiatives, keep an eye on these two web sites. Web site one and Web site two.

If conservatives/constitutionalists/libertarians would spend as much time and energy influencing elections and policies at the State and local levels as they attempt to do at the national level, we could turn this floundering ship of state around. If he had the support and backing of his State’s legislature and sheriffs, imagine what ONE constitutionalist governor could do. I get goose bumps thinking about it!

Imagine a State with its own financial system–its own currency, banks, regulatory agencies, etc. Imagine a State with its own militia–under the authority of the governor only–completely independent from any responsibility to the President or federal government. Imagine a State with an education system unfettered by the federal Department of Education. Imagine a State where the BLM, the FBI, the ATF, and the DEA had to actually submit to State law. Imagine a State with no federal bribes, or federal “funding” as it is commonly called–except as is constitutionally constructed (with no strings attached). Imagine a State with its own health care system. Imagine a State with no FEMA–UNLESS INVITED IN. Imagine a State that would not allow Washington’s spooks to unlawfully spy on law-abiding citizens. Imagine a State that actually had a say in how much land the federal government could claim for its own. Imagine a State where citizens never had to worry about a national ID act. Imagine a State that would protect the right of its citizens to freely express their faith in the public square. Imagine a State that did not demand that its farmers put RFID computer chips in their livestock. Imagine a State that would let you drill a well without reporting it to the federal government. And for some really fun mind games, imagine a State that would be willing to challenge the constitutionality and legitimacy of the direct income tax and the IRS. All of this–and more–is attainable with a constitutionalist State government committed to protecting the liberties of its citizens.

I repeat: freedom in America has only one hope: the resurrection of State independence and sovereignty. In the US Constitution, our Founding Fathers sagaciously reserved to State governments their independence and sovereignty, knowing that they had the awesome responsibility of being the last (and greatest) vanguard of liberty for the American people. They never intended or imagined that the states would ever become a doormat for the central government (which is what most of them have become).

In this regard, the states that are proposing State sovereignty resolutions should immediately band together to overturn the 17th Amendment, because this amendment strips the states of their constitutional powers by turning US senators into Washington insiders, who are more beholden to Washington interests than the interests and well-being of the states that they are supposed to represent.

If the 71% of voters who are angry with the federal government would channel their energies into electing constitutionalist governors and State legislators, their anger might actually produce real and lasting change. As it is, efforts to “reform” Washington, D.C., are like trying to teach a hog to take a bath. Instead, let the hog wallow in the mud, but make sure the mudhole stays small; don’t let it spread to your back yard. And keeping that Washington mudhole small is the job of the states. And, in case you have not noticed, the mudhole has already grown to the point that it’s not just in your back yard; it’s on your front porch and about to consume your whole house.

by Timothy Baldwin

I find it very interesting and disturbing to see how a constitution can be used to trap and enslave the people of the states into a statically fixed and inflexible union, along with an alleged supremacy of federal laws over state sovereignty, when the meaning of that same document can allegedly change over time under the so-called “living constitution” theory. Let us apply first principles to find the truth of the matter. If a constitution’s meaning can change and thus its application and implementation, based upon current variable and assorted conditions, then the union itself must likewise be capable of change, based upon those same considerations.

Have you not noticed, when someone suggests that the sovereigns of a state have the natural and compactual right to peacefully withdraw themselves from the union (which was formed by the states’ ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1787), there are those self-proclaimed constitution-loving scholars and politicians who proudly protest, “No! You cannot do that! It is not allowed by our constitution! Once you voluntarily entered the union, you have waived your right to leave the union!” In the same breath, those same persons will gladly propose that the meaning and application of our constitution can change over time under a “living constitution” so that our laws may reflect the current conditions of society (of course, determined by those other than the affected sovereigns themselves). They admit too much, for this statement is based upon a principle that necessarily destroys the position that the states have no right to dissolve their compact, or alternatively, destroys the living constitution theory.

If a constitution’s meaning and application can change over time based upon current conditions, then that necessarily means the union itself is subject to the same fluctuations as determined by the sovereigns that unilaterally became a part of that union. If the goal of a constitution’s force is supposedly to secure freedom, and in the name of that goal, those living-constitutionalists propose that a constitution changes over time, then it necessarily follows by principle of constitutional construction that those states who originally bound themselves to its force can relieve themselves of that force where the circumstances justify its dissolution. Put differently, where the circumstances of their ratification have changed to the point that freedom is best protected by their removal from the union, then removal it is as they choose. But I guess living-constitutionalists would deny the states this right because it would deny ultimate power to the almighty union/federal government–their political god.

See, you cannot have it both ways: that is, the character and nature of the constitution changes over time, but the force holding those who voluntary entered the union never changes. The constitution provides both the meaning of government limitations and the terms of union. If the meaning can change, then so can the union. If you argue otherwise, please explain how a party to a compact (i.e. constitution) who entered the union upon certain guarantees, promises, protections and limitations is forever bound to that union (by force) when those guarantees, promises, protections and limitations are removed and replaced with meanings and applications contrary and different from those originally promised to be true. This is called “bait and switch” which is considered criminal and illegal in any contract scenario throughout the states in America. Do you think this principle applies less to the most fundamental law in society: that is, in constitutions? George Washington did not think so:

“The Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.” George Washington and William T. Peck, ed., Washington’s Farewell Address and Webster’s Bunker Hill Orations, (New York: Macmillan Co., original from Harvard University, 1919), 12.

Of course, tyranny’s way is to not to change a constitution by the explicit and authentic acts of the people who created the constitution (which of course requires debate, consent and ratification), but by oligarchic methods of court decisions, government precedent and fraud.

As I have noted before, the “living constitution” idea was the catalyst to America’s War for Independence. It is in fact the trap that would-be tyrants who creep up in republics use to trap and enslave unsuspecting (and of course, ignorant) people in what would otherwise be a free country based upon free principles in a constitution. It is in fact the snare that has been used against the states of America for generations and it is still used today as an extremely useful method for entrapment of sovereign states. The end result: governing the un-consented: tyranny.

Today marks a distinct point in America’s history where the sovereign states of America have to make a decision about what principles they will submit to: the principles of freedom or the principles of slavery. Decisions are being made in this arena today, and will continue to be made as tyranny’s grip squeezes tighter and firmer around our necks. Some will choose freedom. Some will choose slavery. Some may be scared about what this may mean (not giving credibility to such feelings, but only observing them). It may mean economic struggles and political battles. It may mean inconvenience and more responsibility. It may mean political involvement and actually choosing a side. It may mean pains and labors and re-education. But I must ask: is the price of freedom too high? For our founders, they proved what Patrick Henry eloquently stated:

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

Indeed, America’s founders did not believe the price of freedom was too high–at least with the assumption that their posterity would contribute their minds, hearts and bodies to maintaining that freedom. After having experienced all the hardships of securing freedom for these states in America, John Adams says to his posterity:

“Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it.” John Adams, Abigail Adams, and Charles Francis Adams, Familiar Letters of John Adams and His Wife Abigail Adams, During the Revolution: With a Memoir of Mrs. Adams, (New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1876), 265.

Perhaps John Adams has already repented.

Ultimately, matters of political and societal freedom are determined by those sovereign body-politics that have the power to make and un-make constitutions. The ultimate matter of which states will live in freedom is determined by the body-politic of that state: the people, who comprise the sovereign element of the state. Where lines are crossed, the sovereigns must decide for itself the recourse it will take to redress the usurpation. This is no new concept. James Madison notes the dangers in political battles whereby the federal government usurps power from the states as perpetrated by Congress and the President and confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court decisions. He says in Federalist Paper 39:

“[The United States Supreme Court decisions are] to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution[, which] is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact.”

Madison recognized that when the federal government usurps its powers IN THE NAME OF the constitution, this puts the states in a natural position to defend their freedom and their powers. It forces the states to revert back to pre-U.S. Constitution status and to recall those powers once given. As a parenthetical note, Madison also recognized that an appeal to the sword is not necessarily the same thing as dissolution of the compact. It is only when union is forced by tyrants that an appeal to the sword is necessary in self-defense. Otherwise, dissolution of compacts should be peaceful.

We have been told for years that the meanings and applications of the constitution supposedly have changed over time and that this is in fact constitutionally correct. Well then, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. That is, principles of construction require this conclusion: the sovereigns of the states then most assuredly have the innate right and power to decide whether or not those changes shall apply to their body-politic, in the interest of preserving freedom. Otherwise, if states are not allowed to choose their own political and societal fate after they entered into the union, then the federal government most certainly should not be given power which changes over time. One is static and the other is fluid. Yet both are governed by the same document. Moreover, do we see the chains of the constitution binding the federal government (as intended) to the same constraints that they insistently impose upon the people of the states?! Ha! It makes me laugh even to suggest it.

People of the states, it is time to wake up to our political realities. It is time to that we know the traps that have been laid before us. We must be astute statesmen and stateswomen, who know the principles of freedom, who know the nature and character of our union, who know when we are being taken for the gullible servants we have become. It is time that we not fall victim to tyranny’s trap. The States of America must once again look to the principles of freedom and into our own borders and sovereignty for political and societal freedom!

by Timothy Baldwin

After my latest article, Our Dead Constitution, was released, I received much response, many from those who understood and agreed, and some by those who were opposed to my statement, “Our constitution is dead.” This leads me to reasonably believe that many of us need to be educated about what a constitution actually is before constitutional law and freedom can be restored throughout the states.

1. A constitution does not create freedom. A constitution is created only to protect and secure freedom which already exists, through forms, structure and limitations of government. This is what our founders said in the Declaration of Independence: “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Therefore, if one’s perspective about the U.S. Constitution is that it statically creates freedom for all the people of the states, then I could understand how he would be shocked or angered at the suggestion that the U.S. Constitution is dead. To the contrary, we know that freedom exists in a state of nature, created by God, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These natural laws and rights never die. They existed prior to 1787 and they will exist after we are gone. Thus, a distinction must be made between natural freedom (which never dies) and a constitution (which can die).

2. A constitution may be worthless to secure freedom. History proves this–even America’s history. A constitution rests upon a serious distrust of human nature, and simultaneously upon the skeptical and temporary trust placed in delegated power, which supposedly will “be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the prerogatives of their governments.” James Madison, Federalist Paper (FP) 46. These principles determine the constitution’s nature, character, form, and function. This necessarily means that a constitution itself is to be contrasted to the eternal principles that formed the constitution, and where government does not conform its actions and intentions to the principles of the constitution, the constitution itself is practically meaningless and dead. American jurist, William Rawle, expresses the same: “By a constitution we mean the principles on which a government is formed and conducted.” William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 2.

That our government must conform its actions and intentions to these principles is confirmed by the United States Supreme Court, by those who formed our constitutions, and by those who helped form the very fundamental thoughts of American jurisprudence: (1) “Let the nature and objects of our Union be considered; let the great fundamental principles on which the fabric stands be examined.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 423 (1821). (2) “[N]o free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but…by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” Benjamin Kidd, Principles of Western Civilisation, citing Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776, (London, The Macmillan Co., 1902), 511. (3) “Once the principles of government are corrupted, the very best laws become bad and turn against the [people of the] state.” Charles de Baron Montesquieu and Julian Hawthorne, ed., The Spirit of Laws: The World’s Great Classics, vol. 1 (London: The London Press), 116.

Thus, a maxim must be admitted: where the principles of freedom are abandoned, the constitution no longer serves its constituted purpose; that is, to limit the government as the consent of the governed demanded at its creation. And once the constituted purposes and principles are abandoned, how could it be argued that the constitution has life? Is the form (the constitution) greater than the substance (the principles)? Certainly not.

3. When a government breaches its limitations placed upon it by a constitution, (a) the government agent loses its trust to rule, (b) the powers delegated to it are reverted back to the creators of the constitution, and (c) the constitution becomes non-binding on those who created it. This is the natural law concept of “the consent of the government,” as expressed in our Declaration of Independence. It is further a concept regarding the rights of the parties who enter into a compact. As noted by our founders, we do not normally exercise this natural and compact right over “light and transient causes,” but in cases where a “long train of abuses” are evident. European forefather, Hugo Grotius, recognizes that when a government contradicts the principles that created its power, that creation (i.e. kingdom/constitution) dies and the people have the right to institute new government:

“[I]f the king act, with a really hostile mind, with a new to the destruction of the whole people…that the kingdom is forfeited; for the purpose of governing and the purpose of destroying cannot subsist together.” Hugo Grotius and William Whewell, trans., Hugo Grotius on the Rights of War and Peace, Book II, (Cambridge: University Press, 1853), 57–58.

A constitution that has been continually breached by the government is no longer a constitution at all, because the very purpose of a constitution is to limit the government by the will of the people who created it. Thus, a people who continually live under an abandoned constitution do not live under a constitution at all; but rather, they live in voluntary slavery, and the constitution is dead to those people and that government. It is literally time “to alter or to abolish” that constitution before the people’s lack of resistance is deemed to be “the consent of the governed.” (See, Thomas Jefferson and John P. Foley, ed., The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, (New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900), 185. “[T]o conquer [the existing constitution’s] will, so as to rest the right on that, the only legitimate basis, requires long acquiescence and cessation of all opposition.”)

4. Particular to the United States, the U.S. Constitution was voluntarily formed as a compact by existing sovereign states with existing state constitutions. See FP 39. Despite the deceptive proposition that the States were created by Congress, the States existed prior to and independent of any Congress, as confirmed by the Treaty of Paris in 1783 (which, by the way, was not overturned by any subsequent legal action of the states). “The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 31. And, “Each State, in ratifying the constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.” James Madison, FP 39.

Today, there is a fraudulent notion in America which places the U.S. Constitution above the importance and relevance of the state constitutions and state sovereignty, despite the fact that we were told (in efforts to get us to ratify the U.S. Constitution) that “the State governments would clearly retain all rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 32. The authoritative advocates of the U.S. Constitution confirm that even with the U.S. Constitution ratified or with the U.S. Constitution dissolved, the states would have their own constitutions to protect freedom and secure the blessings of liberty within that state.

It was even proposed during the 1780s that instead of one confederacy being created through the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, several confederacies be ratified instead. See FP 2. So, it cannot be accurately stated that the U.S. Constitution was the sole form of convenience of the states. The U.S. Constitution was in fact an “experiment” of union, which admittedly may not work. James Madison, FP 14. Many notable American patriots, of course, (prophetically and correctly) believed the U.S. Constitution would in time, by constitutional construction, become destructive to the natural rights and sovereignty of the people of the states. Even pro-U.S. Constitution advocates warned us of the tyrannical tendency of central governments and implored the State governments to “afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 28.

Therefore, it must be acknowledged that the U.S. Constitution no more creates freedom than any other government creates freedom; and that the U.S. Constitution was simply a union of states for very limited purposes, all of which were and can be handled by the states themselves without the existence of the U.S. Constitution or federal government.

5. Constitutions can be destructive to freedom where the document itself is used against the people. Montesquieu expounded upon this, as I cited in, Our Dead Constitution. If you disagree, pray tell, how is it that Congress can regulate virtually anything it desires under the Commerce Clause of the constitution? How can the United States Supreme Court “constitutionally” uphold those unconstitutional acts by its rulings, which are supposedly made impartially “according to the rules of the Constitution” (FP 39)? How can the bill of rights be used against the retained powers and sovereignty of the states, when the U.S. Constitution was never intended to limit the states whatsoever? How can a federation be turned into a nation without the consent of the people? How can the first amendment, designed to restrict the federal government in all regards (“Congress shall make no law…”), be used to not only make law through the federal courts but also restrict individuals and states from exercising their natural rights within their own jurisdictions?

How can the constitutional limitations of the federal courts to apply the Supreme Law of the Land be used to justify “federal supremacy” in un-enumerated powers over the states, contrary to the principles of the constitution? How can the constitution’s general welfare clause be a legal justification to the federal government socializing healthcare, economics, banks, manufacturing, and education, despite the clear intention of the ratifiers to the contrary? How can Congress create a fiat money system without any constitutional power whatsoever to do so? How can the President engage in an eight year war with no declaration from Congress? How can Obama supposedly not be eligible to be President while absolutely no one in the federal system cares? You call that a constitution alive and well!? I could go on and on, as many authors have already well documented for generations now. The long train of abuses is clear: the constitution has been and is being used every day against the freedoms and rights it is supposed to protect and against the principles and trust that created it.

6. Constitutions can be dissolved by those who created it. Our Declaration of Independence confirms this natural right, which is inherent in all sovereigns. The U.S. Constitution was ratified by the voluntary assent of the sovereigns of the states, in their capacity as states. FP 39. The states created the U.S. Constitution not to create freedom, not to create powers they did not already possess individually, and not to create union for union’s sake. They created it for certain benefits that union provided (at that time). If this union were ever destructive to these ends, the states would most certainly have the right to dissolve their part of the union to preserve freedom for that state. (James Madison, FP 39, “dissolution of the compact”; Alexander Hamilton, FP 28, “original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government”; Alexander Hamilton, FP 26, “people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many states as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.”)

Thus, a political maxim must be admitted: union, through the U.S. Constitution, does not equal freedom and can actually be destructive to freedom. Given the natural laws of sovereignty, self-defense, self-preservation and self-government, the States may in fact be better off not to be a part of a union that is causing their demise. More pointedly put, the States may in fact be better off to declare the compact (the U.S. Constitution) or at least, the federal laws creating their demise, null and void within their sovereign borders. Naturally, this sovereign power can come in different forms, through nullification, active resistance to federal usurpations, controlling the mechanisms used against the states, and secession.

Regardless of your agreement with these truths, the information provided is all based upon the natural law and political discussions of those who formed the foundation of our Republic. The fact that we do not understand them only causes tyranny to tighten its grip on us. Before freedom will ever be restored, government will be limited, and the people will govern themselves, the sovereigns of the states must recognize that the U.S. Constitution is not the answer to our political and societal plight. Rather, it is the principles of freedom that provide the answer. The time has come in America when to restore constitutional law and freedom in the STATES, the people of the states must begin looking internally to their own powers, sovereignty, self-defense, self-preservation, self-reliance and constitutions.

Copyright (c) Timothy Baldwin, 2009.

by Timothy Baldwin

Our Constitution is dead. Rigor mortis set in a long time ago. Peculiar enough, many Americans who claim to love our constitution believe it is alive and well with hot red blood running through its vein. Plainly put: they are naïve, deceived or ignorant. Those who killed the constitution (and their posterity, with whom we are living today) pick up the dead corpse, move it around like a puppet on strings, put make up on it to make it look pretty, prop it up against a wall to stand on its own, and proclaim and swear an oath to us and God that they will preserve, defend and protect what they know to be dead. Ironically, they accomplish this, in part, through what they term a “living constitution”, which has bled the life’s blood from our constitution. Unfortunately, most Americans fail to see that our political circumstances are very similar and parallel to those which our founders considered to be a line in the sand.

Claude Halstead Van Tyne, in his book, The Causes of the War of Independence, describes the circumstances which caused America’s War for Independence. The cause was not “taxation without representation” per se. It was not “the government is too big” per se. It was not “taxes are too high” per se. It was the concept that government is limited by the principles of freedom found in the laws of Nature and Nature’s God and secured by their constitution; and government actions taken beyond those limitations are to be met with resistance. In Van Tyne’s description of this causation, what is strikingly similar to our current situation is that Great Britain considered their constitution to be “living” and to give Parliament and King George the power, authority and right to essentially act in whatever manner it deemed appropriate. Van Tyne observes,

“The contrast cannot be too strongly insisted upon. Samuel Adams and many of his fellow countrymen, on the one hand, believed that the British Constitution was fixed by ‘the law of God and nature,’ and founded in the principles of law and reason so that Parliament could not alter it, but Lord Mansfield and his followers, on the other hand, asserted rightly that ‘the constitution of this country has been always in a moving state, either gaining or losing something,’ and ‘there are things even in Magna Charta which are not constitutional now’ and others which an act of Parliament might change. Between two such conceptions of the powers of government compromise was difficult to attain… Such differences in ideals were as important causes of a breaking up of the empire [of Great Britain] as more concrete matters like oppressive taxation.” The Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922), 235, 237.

Great Britain’s political ideology is the same ideology that 99% of our federal politicians demonstrate today! This is just what Congressman Henry Hyde (R) expressed in 2006, when he responded to Congressman Ron Paul’s claim that Congress must declare war before G.W. Bush can constitutionally launch (what is now) an eight year and growing war half way across the world, sending hundreds of thousands of American soldiers to risk their lives and die and spending hundreds of billions of tax payer monies to support the same. Hyde says, “There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society.” James T. Bennett, Homeland Security Scams, (Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2006), 133. Did the vast majority of Congressmen (Republican and Democrat, House and Senate) believe the same as Hyde? We know they did because they continued to shirk and even ignore their constitutional obligation to declare war, while funding the same with our money and with our lives–all contrary to the constitution, to the lessons of human history and to the principles of self-government and limited government.

Many thousands of persons all across America repeatedly and continually scream the voice of discontent of unconstitutional government. Thousands of books have been written on how the constitution has been ignored, trampled, despised, and even laughed at by those we elect to uphold that very document and the principles founding it. I do not need delineate the (not so “light and transient”) abuses, encroachments, and usurpations upon our constitution. It is a known fact. It is admitted. There is no hiding it. The long train of abuses is evident, established and provable. Our federal government has, through fraud, deceit, force and bribe, converted our once Constitutional Federal Republic into a Despotic National Oligarchy. We now have the same (if not worse) form and type of government that we seceded from in 1776. Yet, many people who claim to love the constitution will criticize those who recommend a different course of action other than voting for a President who will hopefully appoint a “conservative” judge to the supreme court; other than focusing our solutions on Washington D.C.; other than playing political games with those causing and controlling all that we claim to despise; or other than confining our redress to federal courts and two political parties.

Thomas Paine witnessed those during his living-constitution/government-despot days whose only method of redress was to send correspondence and complaint to King George and Parliament, hoping for reclamation of freedom through the very system that was enslaving them. To these plans of action, Thomas Paine says, “There was a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to cease.” Thomas Paine and Mark Philip, ed., Oxford World’s Classics: Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Common Sense and other Political Writings, (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 27. To Thomas Paine, changing the plan of action to resist and arrest tyranny was simply Common Sense. Thankfully, our founders agreed. Thankfully, this change meant truly standing for freedom, natural rights, limited government, self-government, federalism and constitutional government. This change necessarily meant putting off the old man and putting on the new. It necessarily meant burying the dead and quickening the fetus of freedom.

The United States Constitution was formed and framed on certain immutable principles: principles which acknowledge that God is the Source of all rights; the Definer of all authority; the Judge of all actions and laws; the Giver of life, property and pursuit of happiness. Those principles never die. They live forever. However, as our founders expressed in the Declaration of Independence, governments can become destructive to these ends. Indeed, they can. Understand: Great Britain’s history was similar to America’s. It contained men and women of principle and courage who were catalysts to providing freedom throughout Europe. Europe indeed is the home of the forefathers which our founders studied and adored. Great Britain’s constitution was formed and framed upon the principles expounded upon by Enlightenment philosophers, jurists, lawyers, judges, and theologians. Yet, their constitution died–not because of natural causes, but because those who were constrained by it killed it.

History proves this: not even a (free) constitution can secure freedom where the principles of it are abandoned and the applications of it are ignored. French philosopher Charles Montesquieu (whom our founders relied upon heavily in political thought) confirms this in his book, Spirit of Laws, when he says, “The constitution may happen to be free, and the subject not…It is the disposition only of the laws, and even of the fundamental laws, that constitutes liberty in relation to the constitution.” Charles de Baron Montesquieu and Julian Hawthorne, ed., The Spirit of Laws: The World’s Great Classics, vol. 1 (London: The London Press), 183. How observant he was.

Why is America not free? Is it because we do not have a free constitution? No. Is it because the principles that formed our constitution do not create freedom? No. Is it because Obama is in the White House? No. Is it because Democrats are evil? No. Is it because God was “kicked out” of our public schools? No. Is it because abortion was made “legal”? No. Is it because America engages in unjust wars? No. Is it because America’s presidents have entangled in foreign affairs? No. Those are simply fruits of the root of our dead constitution. Our constitution is dead because our agents, the government, have created a matrix, a system whereby our original constitution and its principles have no application to their power. They are merely bound by their arbitrary discretion–the very definition of tyranny. Even worse, our constitution is dead because the people and the states have consented to its murder.

Like a loved-one who has passed on, I love and miss our constitution (not that it has been alive since I was born in 1979). Yet, while I love the constitution, I love the freedom it was designed to protect much more, and I put freedom and its principles above and beyond the document and words of our constitution. Indeed, the words of the constitution do not create freedom. History and common sense teach us this (which is why America cannot “spread democracy” to the world). Thus, I do not love the words contained in the constitution. Rather, I love the principles of the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God which formed the words. I do not love the three separate branches of the federal government: I love the limits of power and authority they were instituted to secure. I do not love federalism: rather, I love the security it brings to ensure that my children live in freedom.

Thankfully, since principles derived from the laws of God never die, we the people of the states continue to have the power of truth to reestablish and reinstitute forms of government to secure our freedom. Thankfully, we have fifty sovereign and independent states to activate the principles of free government within those political borders, resisting and arresting any attempts from outsiders who would attempt to enslave their citizens. Thankfully, our forefathers bequeathed to us a framework, legacy, heritage, and foundation of hope and freedom. They bequeathed to us truths we hold to be self-evident.

We all have fond memories of our constitution when it was alive and well, but the time has come when we who love the freedom it protected must admit that those who are supposed to be bound by its mandates, principles and limitations have killed it, and they need to be treated like the murderers they are, just as Thomas Paine said about his government: “A common murderer, a highwayman, or a housebreaker, has as good a pretence as he.” Paine and Philip, ed., American Crisis I, 64. These murderers have put us into a place in nature before the constitution was quickened and made alive by the people of the sovereign states of America. See, Locke and Macpherson, ed., Second Treatise of Government, 14–15. We are literally better off not having made alive this document that is literally being used against us, our posterity and our freedom. They are forcing us to consider recalling and retaking all the powers we gave them (as our agents) for the protection of our and our posterity’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness–our natural rights from God. In fact, this is what John Locke confirms about our natural right:

“Absolute arbitrary power, or governing without settled standing laws, can neither of them consist with the ends of society and government, which men would not quit the freedom of the state of nature for, and tie themselves up under, were it not to preserve their lives, liberties and fortunes, and by stated rules of right and property to secure their peace and quiet. It cannot be supposed that they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give to any one, or more, an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate’s hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them. This were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man, or many in combination.” Locke and Macpherson, ed., Second Treatise of Government, 72.

The people of the states must get serious about this matter. We must put the fear of God and the fear of the people before the eyes of tyrants. Otherwise, they will be like those described in Romans 3:16-18 (KJV) and we will continue to suffer for it: “Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.” When the people of the states of America recognize our natural power to abolish, alter and institute new forms of government to secure the ends of freedom, we will have a free constitution alive and well and a free people benefiting from its life. We will once again have government (of, by and for the people) that has the fear of God and the people before their eyes and that will act accordingly.

Copyright (c) Timothy Baldwin, 2009.

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. Then what? Joseph Biden would be our next President. Ok, then what? 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.

by Timothy Baldwin.

Evident intents and purposes, a long train of federal government abuses, and my utter disgust with (what is even hard to consider) my country anymore, among other reasons, compels me to be as frank and candid as I can possibly be, without fear of being labeled and marginalized by those who cannot seem to grasp the concepts and principles I am about to unfold, or by those who simply disagree. Anyone with an ear, who is able to hear; and with eyes, who is able to read; and with a brain, who is able to think, should know about the Copenhagen Conference to take place from December 7 – 18, 2009, in which President Obama is to meet with other heads of state to address global governance concerns of the supposed global warming crisis and its impact on the nations of the world. Openly admitted, this meeting is to produce at the very least a politically (as compared to legally) binding agreement as a spring board for future agreements, whereby the governments of the world can create global regulations, controls and laws in response to global warming.

Now, it is no surprise that the President of the United States, Obama, is considering entering into a partnership-type agreement with other nations of the world. This model of foreign policy has been going on in the United States since the creation of the League of Nations under the Woodrow Wilson administration. G.W. Bush was no different as he entered into the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement with Canada and Mexico during his administration. Likewise, John McCain, if he had become president, had plans on executing his League of Democracies idea, whereby more than 100 democracies around the world would enter into a political compact of what George Washington would have described as entangling alliances. The latest international alliance and compact under Obama comes as no shock as he continues the empire-building and global-unification legacy of the United States presidents for over 100 years.

Is the Copenhagen Conference to bring to fruition the goal of global unification, which previous presidents have attempted but have yet to completely succeed? Many have speculated that the Copenhagen designs would in fact create a global government. The result of this would in effect bind the citizens of the United States to a jurisdiction and authority it has never consented to, formed or authorized.

Please understand: the most fundamental and basic natural rights expressed by our forefathers is the right to be governed only by our consent, by a government we have created for our interests; by agents who act in trust of our freedoms, rights and liberties, who are accountable directly to their principals (the people who authorized their power); and by those who have non-conflicting interests to those they represent. It is philosophically, physically and politically impossible that the people of these states could retain their natural right of self-government under any type of global government under the circumstances posed in the Copenhagen Conference or under any other circumstances. Global governance, in any form, is unnatural, unbiblical and un-American.

Now, whether or not the Copenhagen Conference produces a global government, or whether it will be another attempt in the future, time will tell. But let us get something very clear and straight right now. As soon as our government attempts to subject the citizens of these states to the authority, jurisdiction, control and regulation of any so-called government not contained in our state and federal constitutions, at that exact point and time, our government has expressly declared itself to be at open war with the people of the states of America. Allow philosophical forefather, John Locke, to describe it his own way:

“[U]sing force upon the people without authority, and contrary to the trust put in him that does so, is a state of war with the people…[and] the people have a right to remove [such a force] by force. The use of force without authority, always puts him that uses it into a state of war, as the aggressor, and renders him liable to be treated accordingly.” John Locke and C. B. Macpherson, ed., Second Treatise of Government, (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1980), 80-81.

If the federal government, through the executive branch, tries to use the treaty power of the United States Constitution to override and circumvent the natural laws and principles as expressed in our Declaration of Independence, upon which the constitution was predicated, then that person and all those who comply with his orders to enforce such an act have undoubtedly placed us in a state of nature and a state of war, whereby each person of these states has a natural right to declare to the world that he is no longer willingly subject to the authority of the federal government; that he declares his independence from this totalitarian, despotic and tyrannical regime; that he invokes his God-given right to defend his natural rights to be governed by his consent only; that any and all attempts made by these despots to subjugate our natural rights will be resisted–with force if necessary; and in similar order, each state in the union has the natural right to dissolve all ties in the union created by the Constitution of the United States of America and to defend the powers granted to them by the sovereigns (the people) of the state constitution.

You slave-lovers can try to justify this (illegitimate) federal government’s “right” and “authority” to enter into such agreements (as well as all of the other myriad of unconstitutional actions forced upon us) with other nations all you want. I, along with millions of other Americans, will never accept your barbaric, brute-beast concepts of politics, where your conclusions of government power and citizen submission equate to a king-peasant relationship or worse. You can postulate all you want about the constitutionality or legality of any treaty made by the president as being the supreme law of the land. You can cite U.S. Supreme Court cases, legal articles, law professors, and politicians all you want. Go on: knock yourselves out.

But know where freedom-lovers stand now and forever. My forefathers rejected those notions as blatantly unjust, and so I must. My forefathers fought bloody wars to defeat the efforts of would-be despots so that freedom may thrive, and so will I. My forefathers insisted on creating a government that best reflects the evil tendency of human nature, to protect their posterity from the Nimrods of this world, and I will too.

If you find my beliefs to contain fallacy and error, well then, we will just have to agree to disagree, and I will let God be the judge of my actions and yours, if not here on earth, then in the places hereafter. And I will let future generations curse your name or mine for the beliefs and actions we hold and advance today. “But be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.” (Daniel 3:18)

Copyright ©Timothy Baldwin 2009.