I got this line from a post on YouTube. I could not believe it. Unfortunately, I was unable to post a comment because my current configuration does not permit me to log onto YouTube. I can listen to their stuff, but I cannot comment on it. I suppose that is the American way - I choose not to mess with my configuration, and therefore I cannot comment on their site - but I think they should correct that.
Anyway, the issue at hand is - prove that socialism is unconstitutional. Imagine that should be easy enough.
Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.
Emphasis has been placed on "public...ownership and administration" because this is the area that involves the constitution - government involvement in matters not directly within the purview of the government. This is applied to all corporate entities, all companies, all businesses - from shoemakers, to hospitals, to restaurants.
Look closely at the enumeration of powers :
Collection of Taxes, Duties, and Excises;
Borrowing money on national credit;
Regulating commerce;
Regulating naturalization processes;
Coining money and regulating weights and measures;
Protecting the value of our money and thus the economy;
Setting up a Postal system;
Setting up the Patent Office;
Setting up lesser courts;
Setting up America's international laws;
Declaring war, and regulating the lawful exercise of it;
Raising and supporting armies;
Providing and maintaining a navy;
Setting rules to govern and regulate those armies and naval powers;
Providing for the call-up of the militias for domestic peace and national defense;
To provide all laws local to the national capital; and,
To make all laws necessary to the execution of these enumerated powers.
No other part of the Constitution enumerates any powers such as these - the appropriation of moneys through taxation, especially: this belongs to the congress alone. The extent of the Executive branch into this is to sign or veto; the extent of the Judicial, to approve or disapprove the measure according to its legality IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW PROVIDED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
It is sad that so many have extended the first power enumerated to include the phrase, "general welfare". The Congress' power is to levy taxes, duties, and tariffs for those purposes, but not to determine what those purposes are, nor to anticipate them. The purposes for these are to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If this were not the case, such authority would have been clearly outlined in the Constitution.
Companies incorporate with the state governments pertinent to the state within which they are established; this is a means of revenue for the state. Since establishing corporate entities for the purposes of collecting revenue is an authority not specifically granted to the federal government, and not specifically denied the states or the people, it is automatically granted to the states or the people per the 10th Amendment.
Since Socialism in America would naturally intrude into what is clearly an authority of the states, it would conflict with this 10th Amendment measure by placing federal authority where no clearly enumerated power had been listed in The Constitution.
Not as simple as I thought, but possible.
In a nutshell, the 10th Amendment keeps the federal government out of state government matters until two or more states come into conflict, and only until that conflict has been resolved. Socialism would assume a federal authority that would interfere with a clearly state-level jurisdiction - outside of the permission of the Constitution
Deus Patria Sic!
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Are you a Coppertop?
As I read the various blogs and websites and such, I am intrigued at how much more informed Americans over the last year than they have been in thirty or forty years before.
Now, more than ever, Americans are not only becoming involved, but they are becoming informed. Many got their start reading various periodicals and then engaging friends or associates in debate. When they found themselves suddenly caught in a mistake, they began to question the facts that had been given; in the debate, those whose facts did not survive the battering learned, increasingly, to not trust the "facts" presented by the media. They began to spend more time looking for ways to avoid looking foolish, or to thwart the media's attempts at disinformation.
Some chose to continue accepting the media's line, believing that there was no way that so much disinformation could ever get past the censors and fact-checkers.
More and more, though, are opening the other eye and affording themselves the opportunity to see the news on TV and the in the papers and magazines from a different angle. And they are not happy. In fact, the more satisfied they were with the way things were going all along, the more incensed they become when they realize how they have been hoodwinked.
This is the most involved Americans have been since the sixties and seventies. Before that, there was the general assumption that the government was there to do its job and you did yours. For its part, government was still fairly clear on how much of America was knew how they had served their country; there would be hell to pay if the government tried pulling an end-run around the American people on the magnitude that we are seeing now. The sixties and seventies saw a depth of distrust for government that made skulduggery nearly impossible: too many people were ready to point an angry finger and cry out on them.
Then came the end of the seventies, with a weak president and a world that caught the whiff of weakness that he rubbed on all corners of the nation. Too many people were involved in drawing out the last hours of irresponsibility left over from the Woodstock/Free Love era, giving birth to the "Me Generation". A whole new and specialized failure in national and personal ethics was under way: the 80s, with glitz, drugs, and image ruling everything that happened. Viewed as a ship at sea, we would have appeared to be a rolling barque with a drunk and reeling crew - and one man at the helm, mightily striving to keep the lot out of the water until the booze wore off. Ronald Reagan may have appeared to be an inflexible and humorless ogre, but so does one's father when he grounds you for breaking the rules. So it was that Reagan held to a course that kept us from foundering until the hangovers could start. However, even he had his limits; like Moses, he acted from pride and was found out. Iran-gate would be a hard pill to swallow, for him and his administration.
It was sad to watch the decline of the GOP after Reagan, but it was inevitable. Any son who inherits the estate of his father is less likely to respect that estate than did his father, and so it was with Bush and Bush II. They never seemed to appreciate what hard work had been done to get this country out of the outhouse it had been in because of Jimmy Carter. First, Bush I made promises that he could not keep ("Read My Lips: NO. NEW. TAXES!!"). After that, Bush II made one bad decision after another - engrossing us in two wars, trying to fight these wars without any experience doing so while refusing the experience of his own generals, and - worst of all - failing to listen to the fourth branch of the government: the Popular Branch.
It was this last that had so many people as desperate for change as they were. When the time came, they were so interested in something new and different that they voted for a man who had no business in public office. They turned from an American veteran and a dark-horse governor running on an ethics reform ticket - two things that America needed greatly - and instead chose the novelty president. Having no real education in what kind of damage a bad president can do - most having been born after 1980 - they only knew what a weak president could do.
To make matters worse, they have had the worst possible education in government; most of them could not even tell you what the differences between a democratic government and a republican government are. Instead, they have been fed a steady diet of misinformation themselves - the only truth they know is lies and half-truths.
And so we arrive at the last two years - corrupt politicians, in place for decades longer than many voters have been alive; rules of conduct so entrenched that many junior congressmen do not even know that they are wrong; and a voting population so thoroughly and blissfully distracted by the media that they are almost completely unconcerned with the goings on in government - regardless of how that affects their bottom line or their future.
With the behavior of the government this last year, though, many young people - and many not so young - are learning that there is reason to be concerned. The older are concerned for their lives, the younger for their futures. They are waking from the stupor cast over the masses through the entertainment media, the trans-ocular crack that radiates from the television and paralyzes the brain as it passes through the eyes. Some seek to return to that Matrix-like cocoon - unconcerned that they are being used for purposes that serve them not at all, to be cast aside at the end of their useful lives and replaced with others. Some, though, are horrified by the prospect of feeding a machine with the useful years of their lives - and receiving nothing for all for their service.
The question at this point is - which are you?
Deus Patria Sic!
Now, more than ever, Americans are not only becoming involved, but they are becoming informed. Many got their start reading various periodicals and then engaging friends or associates in debate. When they found themselves suddenly caught in a mistake, they began to question the facts that had been given; in the debate, those whose facts did not survive the battering learned, increasingly, to not trust the "facts" presented by the media. They began to spend more time looking for ways to avoid looking foolish, or to thwart the media's attempts at disinformation.
Some chose to continue accepting the media's line, believing that there was no way that so much disinformation could ever get past the censors and fact-checkers.
More and more, though, are opening the other eye and affording themselves the opportunity to see the news on TV and the in the papers and magazines from a different angle. And they are not happy. In fact, the more satisfied they were with the way things were going all along, the more incensed they become when they realize how they have been hoodwinked.
This is the most involved Americans have been since the sixties and seventies. Before that, there was the general assumption that the government was there to do its job and you did yours. For its part, government was still fairly clear on how much of America was knew how they had served their country; there would be hell to pay if the government tried pulling an end-run around the American people on the magnitude that we are seeing now. The sixties and seventies saw a depth of distrust for government that made skulduggery nearly impossible: too many people were ready to point an angry finger and cry out on them.
Then came the end of the seventies, with a weak president and a world that caught the whiff of weakness that he rubbed on all corners of the nation. Too many people were involved in drawing out the last hours of irresponsibility left over from the Woodstock/Free Love era, giving birth to the "Me Generation". A whole new and specialized failure in national and personal ethics was under way: the 80s, with glitz, drugs, and image ruling everything that happened. Viewed as a ship at sea, we would have appeared to be a rolling barque with a drunk and reeling crew - and one man at the helm, mightily striving to keep the lot out of the water until the booze wore off. Ronald Reagan may have appeared to be an inflexible and humorless ogre, but so does one's father when he grounds you for breaking the rules. So it was that Reagan held to a course that kept us from foundering until the hangovers could start. However, even he had his limits; like Moses, he acted from pride and was found out. Iran-gate would be a hard pill to swallow, for him and his administration.
It was sad to watch the decline of the GOP after Reagan, but it was inevitable. Any son who inherits the estate of his father is less likely to respect that estate than did his father, and so it was with Bush and Bush II. They never seemed to appreciate what hard work had been done to get this country out of the outhouse it had been in because of Jimmy Carter. First, Bush I made promises that he could not keep ("Read My Lips: NO. NEW. TAXES!!"). After that, Bush II made one bad decision after another - engrossing us in two wars, trying to fight these wars without any experience doing so while refusing the experience of his own generals, and - worst of all - failing to listen to the fourth branch of the government: the Popular Branch.
It was this last that had so many people as desperate for change as they were. When the time came, they were so interested in something new and different that they voted for a man who had no business in public office. They turned from an American veteran and a dark-horse governor running on an ethics reform ticket - two things that America needed greatly - and instead chose the novelty president. Having no real education in what kind of damage a bad president can do - most having been born after 1980 - they only knew what a weak president could do.
To make matters worse, they have had the worst possible education in government; most of them could not even tell you what the differences between a democratic government and a republican government are. Instead, they have been fed a steady diet of misinformation themselves - the only truth they know is lies and half-truths.
And so we arrive at the last two years - corrupt politicians, in place for decades longer than many voters have been alive; rules of conduct so entrenched that many junior congressmen do not even know that they are wrong; and a voting population so thoroughly and blissfully distracted by the media that they are almost completely unconcerned with the goings on in government - regardless of how that affects their bottom line or their future.
With the behavior of the government this last year, though, many young people - and many not so young - are learning that there is reason to be concerned. The older are concerned for their lives, the younger for their futures. They are waking from the stupor cast over the masses through the entertainment media, the trans-ocular crack that radiates from the television and paralyzes the brain as it passes through the eyes. Some seek to return to that Matrix-like cocoon - unconcerned that they are being used for purposes that serve them not at all, to be cast aside at the end of their useful lives and replaced with others. Some, though, are horrified by the prospect of feeding a machine with the useful years of their lives - and receiving nothing for all for their service.
The question at this point is - which are you?
Deus Patria Sic!
WHAT IS OBAMA'S PLAN FOR THE UNITED STATES IN ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY?
(http://teapartypatriots.org/BlogPostView.aspx?id=42b65c5c-43c4-4d89-a615-ac26f89f0f35)
Constitutional Issues by amastick
On December 17, 2009, Barack Obama signed Executive Order Amending Executive Order 12425. Of course most of us do not even know what executive order 12425 is, or what the purpose of it is. This original Executive Order that Obama modified is known as the International Organizations Immunities Act. This is the law used to give foreign dignitaries "diplomatic immunity" that we have probably all heard about on TV or in movies. I think, in fact, there was a diplomat from South Africa in the Lethal Weapon 2 movie, who abused his diplomatic immunity by smuggling kugerands into the United States, or some such thing. When he was just about to be brought in by the famous duo, played by Mel Gibson and Danny Glover, he held his badge and cried, "Diplomatic immunity." Diplomatic immunity is that irritating state of existence in this country where laws don't apply to you if you're here as a foreigner representing your country. When dignitaries get caught for speeding or get parking tickets, or even if they're arrested for shoplifting, we cannot prosecute them. It's even been used in cases where dignitaries or their family members have committed serious violent crimes, and instead of being prosecuted these foreign "dignitaries" are simply sent back to where they came from. Now, that in and of itself is quite irritating. But our current President just took this travesty to a whole new level. Obama has amended this Immunity Act to give the Interpol (basically, a global police force) COMPLETE IMMUNITY from following America's constitution & her laws, and this in turn has stripped us of our rights as American citizens on American soil, as they relate to any of Interpol's activities. So, Obama with the stroke of a pen put Americans under the authority of an international police force, to the extent that if they felt they needed to come into our home to search for whatever reason, and stated to our government they needed to do this, they would not have to show probable cause, as our police forces in our country do. This international police force, now can do their work in our country, to U.S. citizens without thought of our rights under our constitution. This renders the bill of rights moot, where it concerns the work of INTERPOL. As Americans, what should give us pause to this decision by OBama, is the fact that Ronald Reagan put specific limitations on this "international police force" so that our country's sovereign laws & her people's rights, would be recognized. Under Reagan's exclusions Interpol was forced to follow the same rules as the FBI and the CIA. So one cannot help but wonder, why now would it be necesary to change that? READ THE STORY HERE. This how I see it. I believe Obama is looking at his influence in our government to be long term, that even if he isn't reelected, he will continue to work tirelessly to destroy America's sovereignty, and bring us in line with international law. I believe he is working as quickly as possible to get this our sovereignty submitted to international law while he is in office, and I do not believe he has any concern for what the regular American wants or does not want, which is why we are not getting any responses. I see Obama laying out a carefully constructed, and thoughtout plan. In fact, I believe his decision to keep most of our military abroad busy with the Afhgan war (we know he has no desire to win in Afghanistan), and soldiers peace keeping in Iraq, was one of expediency, a circumstance that will work in his favor. I believe Obama knows he would have a truly difficult time overcoming American resistance, when Americans finally decide to seriously resist his attempts at making our nation submissive to the unconstitutional healthcare bill, trying to force people to buy health insurance, forcing Americans to submit to international law, and to join the ICC. But, if INTERPOL has free rein in our country, with no restraints under our laws and constitution, then he will have the help of the international community to restrain his own people, the unrully American people, as he continues to force more and more of his unconstitutional laws and regulations onto us. I think Obama is probably smart enough to know the American Military would not turn on their own countrymen. At least the greatest majority of them would not. I am not a rightwing whacko. I have never indulged in conspiracy theories, or other like fantasies. But, there is far to much slight of hand in this administration. There are too many things Obama is doing that do not make any logical sense unless he is setting us up. I believe there is a calculated reason for giving interpol complete free reign inside our borders, and it is not to help we the people. It is to get we the people in line with his agenda, if we bulk at our rights and freedoms being taken from us. And he will try to take them. He's doing it already. And, we will rise up against these unjust and unconstitutional laws. What really troubles me, I do not see any of our senators or representatives getting upset or concerned about these things being done quietly and in hiding, but things that have huge ramifications for our continued sovereignity. Our congress needs to bring this into the light, and demand he explain what he has done, and why. And, demand he reverse this reversal. President Obama is abusing his power. He is usurping our constitution, selling out our sovereignty, bribing representatives for votes, rushing through legislation in which half the American people have not been represented. Now he has repealed a law that by repealing it will allow foreign police and investigative bodies to trample on our inalienable rights we are guaranteed and enjoy as Americans. It is past time we do something about this man. I have no doubt he is an imposter. He cares nothing for America, her bounty, her citizenry, her super-power status in the world, her might, and her place in the world as a stabilizing force. He wants to take this country down, and if that is not obvious to all who are watching by now, there is no hope for you. The next step is simply strategy - what do we do about it. How do we get Obama out of the White House before there is nothing left to salvage? And, why hasn't that been called for, before now? |
The Federalist Papers
Among the many things I have learned over the years, it is that one can learn best the mechanism of a thing by asking the engineer of its making. The radio I listen to; the car I drive; the computer I am typing on as I compose this article – all of these things I have needed to see to some level of maintenance, and I would not dream of effecting such repairs or changes without asking someone who understands best how such things are done without reducing the proper function of the thing being repaired or changed.
It is, however, not very likely that I should have personal access to the engineers who designed the computer or car or radio in question. More likely is that I should have a manual containing the knowledge that the engineer would have had about the equipment I own and must now maintain. The actual engineer may live a good distance away, be retired, or even dead. However remote, and for whatever reason, the actual person is beyond my reach. Foreseeing this eventuality, the owner/operator/repair manual provides the needed information to allow those possessed of a modicum of ability to operate and – should the need arise – repair the equipment they own.
So it is with the Federalist Papers. A few statesmen – Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison – felt that it was worth informing the people of the state of New York of what was coming in the offering of a new Constitution. While any similar writings composed for other states have lapsed into obscurity, these letters remain today what they were when first published.
THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO POLITICAL PROSPERITY
The first section – referred to as "Importance of The Union" – deals with the benefits of The Union, as opposed to the two other proffered alternatives: a collection of three confederations, or a free collection of separate states. Addressed are the inducements in its favor, the obstacles standing against it, and the arguments supporting these. Issues touch on security, international prestige, and economy, with further detailing of these issues regarding internal and external arena.
THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION
This second section – often called, "Defects of the Articles of Confederation" – outlines where the Articles of Confederation, which had been the guiding law of the land so far, had failed in their mission to guide and govern the affairs of American citizens. As was made very clear in the first part of this section, the government of the United States had been so poorly managed under the authority of the Articles that the confederation had all but come undone. This to the debasement, humiliation, spite, and – if not dealt with decisively and soon – the ruin of this fledgling nation. Through comparison of this current form of government with all known similar historical instances, the author determines what have been the most likely failings in our own instance; he then goes on to posit some worthy and practicable solutions to our own troubles.
THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT, AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT
In the third segment of letters, the focus is on how involved and empowered the government to come would have to be. Up to this time, the central government had intentionally been left rather weak, in order that the sovereign states might function in their own interests while remaining part of the whole. The problems began to manifest when larger states sought primacy within the confederation, or when smaller states feared such – agreements struck between neighboring states and then lightly forgotten, debts incurred and then ignored when payment was inconvenient, and even declarations of war between neighboring states when larger states sought the advantage over lesser, or when lesser states feared as much.
These flaws in the original plan became evident in a surprisingly short time. They manifested as land disputes – between individual landholders and between states – and even open rebellions.
It became clear that there had to be more power for the federal government to mediate between the states, not just to act on the part of the United States with foreign governments. There had to be some authority that would stand between the several states, keeping them from acting in their own interest and reminding them of the common interest of the Union.
THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT
The fourth set of letters, called "The Republican Form of Government", sets about defining the characteristics, benefits, and weaknesses of a government through representation. The idea of being represented in a central government was only reasonable, considering that the seat of the federal government was likely to be many miles and many days from most peoples' homes; it would be not work to drag people from their homes and livelihoods in order to conduct the business of the government. Neither would it make sense to insist that the government travel the length and breadth of the land in order to see to it that every citizen was informed; nothing would ever get done
The most sensible, reasonable approach would be to have a representative in government for so many citizens – say, 30,000 – to allow that representative to bring the interests of the people to the seat of government, and then return the business of the government to their constituents.
Further discussed are: the powers of the proposed new constitution and how these powers compare to and grow from the earlier form of government; the inevitable restrictions on the powers of the states; the transfer of power from the states to the federal government, with reasons to welcome it and to fear it; how the two levels of power – state and federal – would be alike and different; how the power of the new government would be balanced; and the inclusion of the fourth branch of government – the Popular branch, or the people – when any of the other three branches began to step outside of their strict boundaries, as well as at other times.
ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION
The next three collections of letters – titled "The Legislative Branch", "The Executive Branch", and "The Judicial Branch" – are breakdowns of how the federal government under the proposed Constitution shall mirror the similar functions of the state governments. By structuring the new government with the same basic framework as tested and trusted governments functioning within the several states, the framers thought to minimize the problems of accommodation and familiarization – the people coming to work in the federal government would simply be taking their experience and understanding of government and applying it to a new level.
This was a brilliant stroke on the part of the builders and engineers of the new government. With so much opposition to the changes, it would be a simple matter for the officers and politicians currently in place to weave tales of confusion and hopelessly muddled policies in order to cow the populace into giving up on the new plan. By heading off this option and offering the powers-in-place an irresistible olive branch at the same time, the architects of the new plan guaranteed that they would get what they were working for.
THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATIONS OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY
The last segment – Conclusions and Miscellaneous Ideas – covers a variety of objections to the proposed Constitution – the absence of a Bill of Rights, the power vested in such a remote governing body, and enforcement of debts – and discusses their foundations and errors. These are followed by a number of concluding statements and remarks.
This insight into the issues surrounding the adoption of The Constitution of the United States – discussion of the pros and cons between intelligent and informed Americans – is enormously enlightening to the modern American. Most Americans have little appreciation for what our current form of government came from or what problems it faced. Having had this form of government all of their lives, they have come to take it for granted; knowing no other way, they want more because they do not know what it is to have less.
Only a fool…
For any of you who have watched "V for Vendetta", this is just the kind of politics that High Chancellor Suttler used.
We have a vision, and we know what is coming next. What matters is, what are we willing to do, to accept, to give?
December 11, 2009
Is Obama Really Preparing For Civil War?
By Chuck Baldwin
According to an obscure report in the European Union Times (EUTimes.net), "Russian Military Analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin that US President Barack Obama has issued an order to his Northern Command's (USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to 'begin immediately' increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.
"According to these reports, Obama has had over these past weeks 'numerous' meetings with his war council about how best to manage the expected implosion of his Nation's banking system while at the same time attempting to keep the United States military hegemony over the World in what Russian Military Analysts state is a 'last ditch gambit' whose success is 'far from certain.'"
The Eu Times article continues by saying, "To the fears of Obama over the United States erupting into civil war once the full extent of the rape and pillaging of these peoples by their banks and government becomes known to them, grim evidence now shows the likelihood of this occurring much sooner than later."
The Times story goes on to say that there are "over 220 million American people armed to the teeth and ready to explode."
The Times article concludes by saying, "Though the coming civil war in the United States is being virtually ignored by their propaganda media, the same cannot be said of Russia, where leading Russian political analyst, Professor Igor Panarin has long warned that the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the US is heading for collapse."
Many of us would be inclined to pooh-pooh such a story, but then there is this column from Bloomberg.com entitled "Arming Goldman With Pistols Against Public," written by Alice Schroeder.According to Ms Schroeder:
There is no doubt that the American people have good reason to despise these international banksters epitomized by Goldman Sachs. Even one of Goldman's poster-boys, Henry Paulson, US Treasury secretary and former Goldman CEO, admitted that the American people were fed up. Schroeder quotes Paulson as saying, during testimony to Congress last summer, "[People] were unhappy with the big discrepancies in wealth, but they at least believed in the system and in some form of market-driven capitalism. But if we had a complete meltdown, it could lead to people questioning the basis of the system."
Schroeder correctly opines, "There you have it. The bailout was meant to keep the curtain drawn on the way the rich make money, not from the free market, but from the lack of one. Goldman Sachs blew its cover when the firm's revenue from trading reached a record $27 billion in the first nine months of this year, and a public that was writhing in financial agony caught on that the profits earned on taxpayer capital were going to pay employee bonuses."
Schroeder concludes her column by saying, "And if the proles [proletariat: plebs, working class, peasants] really do appear brandishing pitchforks at the doors of Park Avenue and the gates of Round Hill Road, you can be sure that the Goldman guys and their families will be holed up in their safe rooms with their firearms."
So, do Wall Street and Russian analysts know something that we don't know? Is this why George W. Bush initiated USNORTHCOM to begin with? Is this why Barack Obama is beefing up USNORTHCOM? This would help explain the reports of all those potential detention camps that have been constructed (including the abandoned military installations that have refurbished security fences, guard towers, etc., around them). Has the American people's disgust with these crooks and thieves within the federal government and Wall Street reached a boiling point?
There is no question that people are angry, and for good reason.
The fraudulent financial policies of the Federal Reserve and its lackeys in the White House and Congress have literally bankrupted the country. Real unemployment is most likely over 20%. Taxes (along with costly fees, regulations, restrictions, penalties, mandates, etc.) at every level are going through the ceiling. America's jobs have been outsourced. Barack Obama continues G.W. Bush's irresponsibility, digging America deeper and deeper into foreign entanglements, at the cost of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. The IRS continues to harass and harangue honest citizens, squeezing them like the proverbial turnip. And now, add the insanity of a global climate treaty being hammered out in Copenhagen, and a universal health care bill being rammed through Congress, and the outlook is even gloomier.
I feel very comfortable in saying that the usurpations of power, the encroachments upon liberty, and the arrogant tax-and-spend policies emanating from Washington, D.C., and Wall Street these days are far more egregious than what George Washington and the boys were enduring in 1775-76 at the hands of the British Crown. There is no doubt in my mind that if Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Sam Adams were alive today, they would have given cause for the Goldman Sachs banksters to retreat to their bunkers years ago!
The fact is, we do need a revolution! But not a revolution of anarchy and pitchforks. (The history of France should be ample evidence of the futility of this strategy.) We need a revolution of the individual states: to reclaim their sovereignty and fight for the liberties of their sovereigns (We the People). That is exactly what our forefathers did in '76.
America's founding document (the Declaration of Independence) declares that our states are "free and independent." And so they are. We are not "one nation" with one all-powerful central government. We are a confederation of nation-states, united in a voluntary union, with each State reserving to itself the power and authority of self-determination, and ceding to the federal government limited, specifically delineated duties and limitations—limitations that have been totally ignored to the point that, for all intents and purposes, our once-great constitutional republic has been thoroughly expunged. Therefore, it is NOW time for the states to stand up to this meddlesome, every-growing tyranny that is known as Washington, D.C., and defend the rights and liberties of their citizens!
What Dr. Ed Vieira (an attorney with 4 earned degrees from Harvard, who has successfully argued cases before the US Supreme Court) wrote a few weeks ago should serve as a template for every State governor and legislature that truly cares about liberty. See Ed's column here.
As Vieira says, the states should resurrect their militias. Many—if not all—states have the legal authority for such entities in their constitutions. In some states they are called the State Guard. Some plainly use the word "militia." Whatever they are called, they need to be activated. And all that is necessary for this to be accomplished is the order of the governor. It's that simple!
And as Vieira said, states need to adopt an alternative currency—including, and most especially, gold and silver. In other words, they need to develop their own private economies, complete with their own banks and exchange mediums. They also need to reject the multinational agribusiness and develop their own in-State agricultural and energy businesses.
I would dare say that the first State that determines to follow Vieira's sagacious counsel (and rumblings of this have already begun in states such as Alaska, Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, New Hampshire, Indiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, etc.) would have so many liberty-loving patriots flock there that its economy would explode with prosperity—resulting in a domino effect of many other states following suit—and the revolution that this country so desperately needs would indeed take place. Furthermore, such a revolution would be constitutional, lawful, moral, and, yes, in compliance with the laws of Nature and of Nature's God.
In the meantime, is Barack Obama really worried about civil war? He might be. It is my observation that Washington politicians and bureaucrats are the most paranoid people on the planet. The problem is—as with most power-hungry Machiavellians—their paranoia often translates into more oppression and less liberty for the citizenry. And if this is true, it simply means that the states need to hurry up and do what needs to be done!
Dr. Chuck Baldwin is the pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. He hosts aweekly radio show. His website is here.
We have a vision, and we know what is coming next. What matters is, what are we willing to do, to accept, to give?
December 11, 2009
Is Obama Really Preparing For Civil War?
By Chuck Baldwin
According to an obscure report in the European Union Times (EUTimes.net), "Russian Military Analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin that US President Barack Obama has issued an order to his Northern Command's (USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to 'begin immediately' increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.
"According to these reports, Obama has had over these past weeks 'numerous' meetings with his war council about how best to manage the expected implosion of his Nation's banking system while at the same time attempting to keep the United States military hegemony over the World in what Russian Military Analysts state is a 'last ditch gambit' whose success is 'far from certain.'"
The Eu Times article continues by saying, "To the fears of Obama over the United States erupting into civil war once the full extent of the rape and pillaging of these peoples by their banks and government becomes known to them, grim evidence now shows the likelihood of this occurring much sooner than later."
The Times story goes on to say that there are "over 220 million American people armed to the teeth and ready to explode."
The Times article concludes by saying, "Though the coming civil war in the United States is being virtually ignored by their propaganda media, the same cannot be said of Russia, where leading Russian political analyst, Professor Igor Panarin has long warned that the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the US is heading for collapse."
Many of us would be inclined to pooh-pooh such a story, but then there is this column from Bloomberg.com entitled "Arming Goldman With Pistols Against Public," written by Alice Schroeder.According to Ms Schroeder:
"'I just wrote my first reference for a gun permit,' said a friend, who told me of swearing to the good character of a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker who applied to the local police for a permit to buy a pistol. The banker had told this friend of mine that senior Goldman people have loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank."
There is no doubt that the American people have good reason to despise these international banksters epitomized by Goldman Sachs. Even one of Goldman's poster-boys, Henry Paulson, US Treasury secretary and former Goldman CEO, admitted that the American people were fed up. Schroeder quotes Paulson as saying, during testimony to Congress last summer, "[People] were unhappy with the big discrepancies in wealth, but they at least believed in the system and in some form of market-driven capitalism. But if we had a complete meltdown, it could lead to people questioning the basis of the system."
Schroeder correctly opines, "There you have it. The bailout was meant to keep the curtain drawn on the way the rich make money, not from the free market, but from the lack of one. Goldman Sachs blew its cover when the firm's revenue from trading reached a record $27 billion in the first nine months of this year, and a public that was writhing in financial agony caught on that the profits earned on taxpayer capital were going to pay employee bonuses."
Schroeder concludes her column by saying, "And if the proles [proletariat: plebs, working class, peasants] really do appear brandishing pitchforks at the doors of Park Avenue and the gates of Round Hill Road, you can be sure that the Goldman guys and their families will be holed up in their safe rooms with their firearms."
So, do Wall Street and Russian analysts know something that we don't know? Is this why George W. Bush initiated USNORTHCOM to begin with? Is this why Barack Obama is beefing up USNORTHCOM? This would help explain the reports of all those potential detention camps that have been constructed (including the abandoned military installations that have refurbished security fences, guard towers, etc., around them). Has the American people's disgust with these crooks and thieves within the federal government and Wall Street reached a boiling point?
There is no question that people are angry, and for good reason.
The fraudulent financial policies of the Federal Reserve and its lackeys in the White House and Congress have literally bankrupted the country. Real unemployment is most likely over 20%. Taxes (along with costly fees, regulations, restrictions, penalties, mandates, etc.) at every level are going through the ceiling. America's jobs have been outsourced. Barack Obama continues G.W. Bush's irresponsibility, digging America deeper and deeper into foreign entanglements, at the cost of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. The IRS continues to harass and harangue honest citizens, squeezing them like the proverbial turnip. And now, add the insanity of a global climate treaty being hammered out in Copenhagen, and a universal health care bill being rammed through Congress, and the outlook is even gloomier.
I feel very comfortable in saying that the usurpations of power, the encroachments upon liberty, and the arrogant tax-and-spend policies emanating from Washington, D.C., and Wall Street these days are far more egregious than what George Washington and the boys were enduring in 1775-76 at the hands of the British Crown. There is no doubt in my mind that if Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Sam Adams were alive today, they would have given cause for the Goldman Sachs banksters to retreat to their bunkers years ago!
The fact is, we do need a revolution! But not a revolution of anarchy and pitchforks. (The history of France should be ample evidence of the futility of this strategy.) We need a revolution of the individual states: to reclaim their sovereignty and fight for the liberties of their sovereigns (We the People). That is exactly what our forefathers did in '76.
America's founding document (the Declaration of Independence) declares that our states are "free and independent." And so they are. We are not "one nation" with one all-powerful central government. We are a confederation of nation-states, united in a voluntary union, with each State reserving to itself the power and authority of self-determination, and ceding to the federal government limited, specifically delineated duties and limitations—limitations that have been totally ignored to the point that, for all intents and purposes, our once-great constitutional republic has been thoroughly expunged. Therefore, it is NOW time for the states to stand up to this meddlesome, every-growing tyranny that is known as Washington, D.C., and defend the rights and liberties of their citizens!
What Dr. Ed Vieira (an attorney with 4 earned degrees from Harvard, who has successfully argued cases before the US Supreme Court) wrote a few weeks ago should serve as a template for every State governor and legislature that truly cares about liberty. See Ed's column here.
As Vieira says, the states should resurrect their militias. Many—if not all—states have the legal authority for such entities in their constitutions. In some states they are called the State Guard. Some plainly use the word "militia." Whatever they are called, they need to be activated. And all that is necessary for this to be accomplished is the order of the governor. It's that simple!
And as Vieira said, states need to adopt an alternative currency—including, and most especially, gold and silver. In other words, they need to develop their own private economies, complete with their own banks and exchange mediums. They also need to reject the multinational agribusiness and develop their own in-State agricultural and energy businesses.
I would dare say that the first State that determines to follow Vieira's sagacious counsel (and rumblings of this have already begun in states such as Alaska, Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, New Hampshire, Indiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, etc.) would have so many liberty-loving patriots flock there that its economy would explode with prosperity—resulting in a domino effect of many other states following suit—and the revolution that this country so desperately needs would indeed take place. Furthermore, such a revolution would be constitutional, lawful, moral, and, yes, in compliance with the laws of Nature and of Nature's God.
In the meantime, is Barack Obama really worried about civil war? He might be. It is my observation that Washington politicians and bureaucrats are the most paranoid people on the planet. The problem is—as with most power-hungry Machiavellians—their paranoia often translates into more oppression and less liberty for the citizenry. And if this is true, it simply means that the states need to hurry up and do what needs to be done!
Dr. Chuck Baldwin is the pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. He hosts aweekly radio show. His website is here.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Serpent’s heart hid with a flowering face (R&J A3,s2)
The Obama administration has shown its hand too many times to ignore the bald truth.
He told us there would be an improvement in honesty and transparency in government. While honesty has gone straight downward, transparency has definitely improved – we are quite sure what kind of president we have now.
He told us there would be a new age of hope and change. What we have gotten is lots of change, but steadily diminishing hope – even for those who voted for him and supported him in his first year in office.
I am still curious as to why he did not simply trot out the documents that would prove he was eligible to run for president. So much trouble could have been silenced, so much dissent quelled, if he had brought out the documents in question and had them investigated by the opposition. What we got was bait-and-switch tactics, stonewalling tactics, news that he had had the records sealed, and a segment of the population taught to disregard the sanctity of the Law of the Land so that they disregard the wording, the spirit, the authority of the Constitution of the United States of America.
He and his remaining upper-echelon followers continue to push for this massive change in the way America is run, but why remains a mystery. Reid, Pelosi, and the rest cannot be possibly be expecting enough payola to protect them from the rest of America – I do not care how it is passed or painted, it is un-American and will invite the very deepest of American hatred against those who make it law. Nobody in their sanity can be expected to contemplate such an end to their lives. There will be nowhere to hide from the rest of the country.
This is likely why they are so at ease with the idea of hanging up America's sovereignty and joining the Global community. They honestly believe that there is some place in the world they can hide from their sins. These are people who do not entertain the concept that – hide though they might from the world in this life – there is a judgment coming after death that there is no escape from.
The few people at the head of this hideous abortion of justice are not acting with the consideration of people – the consideration of having to live with the consequences of what they have done, having to hide from the images or reports of how others are suffering for what these few have done, or even of how long the fallout from this madness shall take to settle – but with the consideration of devils. Not only do such hateful, evil, destructive beings revel in the lying and twisting of truth and law that puts neighbor at neighbor's throat and sets friend against friend, but they seek only the destruction of everything they touch – people, lives, dreams.
Only the most diabolic of people could contemplate such arrogance, selfishness, and disdain for their fellow man; even then, they lack the ability to wreak havoc on such a scale. Only by submitting themselves to the will of such nefarious evil could any human being hope to bring to fruition the only possible end of motives such as flow in the hearts and veins of those responsible.
Madness, you say? Foolish, you say? Have we then become so sure of our science that we dismiss all that we cannot test with a fork? We cannot prove the existence of the Devil with a beaker and a slide rule; therefore, there can be no such being. Yet here we have three such beings – arrogant beyond any previous experience within American government, selfish to the point that no degree even of contemplated suffering of their fellows can bring them to consider that they might be wrong, and a degree of disdain for their fellow man – their fellow American – that alone disqualifies them from any position of leadership.
It has been said that evil triumphs when good men do nothing. I submit then that, when good men dismiss the possibility of devils working through the agency of men and women in positions of power, evil has triumphed. Here in America – the greatest nation in the history of our world, the richest and most powerful country that men have been able to build – evil has triumphed, and for no other reason than that man has become so proud of his mind and his achievements that he is unwilling to accept anything that his science cannot prove.
Now is the time to turn and reach out to God for guidance. Now is the time to lay down our pride and behold, for the first time, the light of Heaven. We need not take up the sword for war or execution, but we must allow ourselves to be guided by God now, since the laws put together to guide us – by men, albeit men guided by God themselves in their time – are not only under attack, but are being used to tear one at the other.
Let everyone look into their own heart and see the pride, wrath, envy, and sloth that swirl and bubble in the cesspool of our souls. Let each of us recoil from the noisome ichor - not from pride that we are too good to be touched by it, but by a wholesome loathing of this putrescent mixture. Let us learn to recognize it when we see it; let us learn to shrink from it when it approaches; and let us learn to call upon God to us from such when it comes for us, rather than trusting to our own weak and failing natures to save us from harm.
First post to my blog
This is the beginning.
I have said a good many things to a good many people, and there have been a lot of folks who agree and disagree with me. I am unconcerned with making myself popular or gaining friends. I suppose it is nice to have people agree with me, but I am more interested in speaking my mind – as I see it – and providing others with the chance of seeing what I think.
If they agree with me, great. If not, well, welcome to America.
I tend to occupy my mind with politics and religion. My positions are not necessarily popular, nor do they always make sense to everyone. I can handle that, since I happen to think about these issues a good deal more than most folks. If you do not agree with me that is wonderful; if you must respond, all I ask is that your response be intelligent and civil. Let us not dirty up the blogosphere with unnecessary roughness. Who knows… you might even get me to change my mind.
Well, I am a little pressed for time and not settled on one issue or another just yet, so I shall close this issue with a few words of encouragement:
God Bless America!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
